Re: There is no logic here (Was: Quine's "Word & Object")

On 23/03/2025 14:49, Julio Di Egidio wrote:

On 23/03/2025 03:46, Ross Finlayson wrote:
 

If you start taking a look at Word & Object, Quine is
plenty voluble about modern logics' efforts, and problems.
>
Which he phrases in nice sorts of ways as sort of allusion
to criticism then though sometimes the waffling.
>
Strawson though stands out as sort of uncontradicted,
especially when Quine's "relevance" is sort of the
opposite of what's usually meant, for relevance logic.
>
Yet, then Strawson also himself wrote himself into
the corner of modern logic, though at least he's less

 Says who?  Rather one is a logicist and the lying with numbers,
the other is a logician proper: guess who's who.
 Just take "Sinn und Bedeutung": how to build a whole edifice
on the basis on the systematic misplacement and misuse of even
the most basic philosophical (in the broad sense) notions.
Which is but one little example out of the whole edifice of
our inculture and incivilization: insanity, alienation, abuse,
and the systematic lying.
 Indeed, Strawson isn't less misrepresented then ignored than
Socrates vs Plato/Aristotle, or Leibniz vs Kant/Newton, or the
first Wittgenstein vs Frege/Russell...
 Rather, read Strawson's "Introduction to Logical Theory" if you
want to know what (modern) Logic actually is: or, would/could/
should/used to be.  Or, is.

P.S.  For example:
<< Introduction to Logical Theory (1952) shows that symbolic
logic does not capture the complexity of ordinary language. >>
<https://books.google.it/books/about/Introduction_to_Logical_Theory.html?id=sQ_7ZJG0JlIC>
Not per chance, the very opposite is true: it's *formal* logic
that is shown to be rather insignificant (per se), on the other
hand, *symbolic* logic does go with Logic proper.
Indeed, good luck with your scavenging, as not all books have
yet been burned, but the dictionary and index are fully mangled.
-Julio