|
7807
|
The laws of thought are true, but they are not the axioms of logic [Bolzano, by George/Van Evra]
|
|
Full Idea:
Bolzano said the 'laws of thought' (identity, contradiction, excluded middle) are true, but nothing of interest follows from them. Logic obeys them, but they are not logic's first principles or axioms.
|
|
From:
report of Bernard Bolzano (Theory of Science (Wissenschaftslehre, 4 vols) [1837], §3) by George / Van Evra - The Rise of Modern Logic
|
|
A reaction:
An interesting and crucial distinction. For samples of proposed axioms of logic, see Ideas 6408, 7798 and 7797.
|
|
13985
|
A true proposition seems true of one fact, but a false proposition seems true of nothing at all. [Ryle]
|
|
Full Idea:
Whereas there might be just one fact that a true proposition was like, we would have to say that a false proposition was unlike any fact. We could not speak of the fact that it was false of, so we could not speak of its being false of anything at all.
|
|
From:
Gilbert Ryle (Are there propositions? [1930], 'Objections')
|
|
A reaction:
Ryle brings out very nicely the point Russell emphasised so much, that the most illuminating studies in philosophy are of how falsehood works, rather than of how truths work. If I say 'the Queen is really a man' it is obvious what that is false of.
|
|
13979
|
Logic studies consequence, compatibility, contradiction, corroboration, necessitation, grounding.... [Ryle]
|
|
Full Idea:
Logic studies the way in which one thing follows from another, in which one thing is compatible with another, contradicts, corroborates or necessitates another, is a special case of another or the nerve of another. And so on.
|
|
From:
Gilbert Ryle (Are there propositions? [1930], IV)
|
|
A reaction:
I presume that 'and so on' would include how one thing proves another. This is quite a nice list, which makes me think a little more widely about the nature of logic (rather than just about inference). Incompatibility isn't a process.
|
|
9618
|
Bolzano wanted to reduce all of geometry to arithmetic [Bolzano, by Brown,JR]
|
|
Full Idea:
Bolzano if the father of 'arithmetization', which sought to found all of analysis on the concepts of arithmetic and to eliminate geometrical notions entirely (with logicism taking it a step further, by reducing arithmetic to logic).
|
|
From:
report of Bernard Bolzano (Theory of Science (Wissenschaftslehre, 4 vols) [1837]) by James Robert Brown - Philosophy of Mathematics Ch. 3
|
|
A reaction:
Brown's book is a defence of geometrical diagrams against Bolzano's approach. Bolzano sounds like the modern heir of Pythagoras, if he thinks that space is essentially numerical.
|
|
9830
|
Bolzano began the elimination of intuition, by proving something which seemed obvious [Bolzano, by Dummett]
|
|
Full Idea:
Bolzano began the process of eliminating intuition from analysis, by proving something apparently obvious (that as continuous function must be zero at some point). Proof reveals on what a theorem rests, and that it is not intuition.
|
|
From:
report of Bernard Bolzano (Theory of Science (Wissenschaftslehre, 4 vols) [1837]) by Michael Dummett - Frege philosophy of mathematics Ch.6
|
|
A reaction:
Kant was the target of Bolzano's attack. Two responses might be to say that many other basic ideas are intuited but impossible to prove, or to say that proof itself depends on intuition, if you dig deep enough.
|
|
17265
|
Philosophical proofs in mathematics establish truths, and also show their grounds [Bolzano, by Correia/Schnieder]
|
|
Full Idea:
Mathematical proofs are philosophical in method if they do not only demonstrate that a certain mathematical truth holds but if they also disclose why it holds, that is, if they uncover its grounds.
|
|
From:
report of Bernard Bolzano (Theory of Science (Wissenschaftslehre, 4 vols) [1837]) by Correia,F/Schnieder,B - Grounding: an opinionated introduction 2.3
|
|
A reaction:
I aim to defend the role of explanation in mathematics, but this says that this is only if the proofs are 'philosophical', which may be of no interest to mathematicians. Oh well, that's their loss.
|
|
13983
|
Representation assumes you know the ideas, and the reality, and the relation between the two [Ryle]
|
|
Full Idea:
The theory of Representative Ideas begs the whole question, by assuming a) that we can know these 'Ideas', b) that we can know the realities they represent, and c) we can know a particular 'idea' to be representative of a particular reality.
|
|
From:
Gilbert Ryle (Are there propositions? [1930], 'Objections')
|
|
A reaction:
Personally I regard the ideas as immediate (rather than acquired by some knowledge process), and I am dimly hoping that they represent reality (or I'm in deep trouble), and I am struggling to piece together the reality they represent. I'm happy with that.
|
|
9185
|
Bolzano wanted to avoid Kantian intuitions, and prove everything that could be proved [Bolzano, by Dummett]
|
|
Full Idea:
Bolzano was determined to expel Kantian intuition from analysis, and to prove from first principles anything that could be proved, no matter how obvious it might seem when thought of in geometrical terms.
|
|
From:
report of Bernard Bolzano (Theory of Science (Wissenschaftslehre, 4 vols) [1837]) by Michael Dummett - The Philosophy of Mathematics 2.3
|
|
A reaction:
This is characteristic of the Enlightenment Project, well after the Enlightenment. It is a step towards Frege's attack on 'psychologism' in mathematics. The problem is that it led us into a spurious platonism. We live in troubled times.
|
|
17264
|
Propositions are abstract structures of concepts, ready for judgement or assertion [Bolzano, by Correia/Schnieder]
|
|
Full Idea:
Bolzano conceived of propositions as abstract objects which are structured compounds of concepts and potential contents of judgements and assertions.
|
|
From:
report of Bernard Bolzano (Theory of Science (Wissenschaftslehre, 4 vols) [1837]) by Correia,F/Schnieder,B - Grounding: an opinionated introduction 2.3
|
|
A reaction:
Personally I think of propositions as brain events, the constituents of thought about the world, but that needn't contradict the view of them as 'abstract'.
|
|
12232
|
A 'proposition' is the sense of a linguistic expression, and can be true or false [Bolzano]
|
|
Full Idea:
What I mean by 'propositions' is not what the grammarians call a proposition, namely the linguistic expression, but the mere sense of this expression, is what is meant by proposition in itself or object proposition. This sense can be true or false.
|
|
From:
Bernard Bolzano (Theory of Science (Wissenschaftslehre, 4 vols) [1837], Pref?)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be the origin of what we understand by 'proposition'. The disputes are over whether such things exists, and whether they are features of minds or features of the world (resembling facts).
|
|
13981
|
Several people can believe one thing, or make the same mistake, or share one delusion [Ryle]
|
|
Full Idea:
We ordinarily find no difficulty in saying of a given thing that several people believe it and so, if they think it false, 'make the same mistake' or 'labour under the same delusion'.
|
|
From:
Gilbert Ryle (Are there propositions? [1930], IV)
|
|
A reaction:
Ryle is playing devil's advocate, but this (like 13980) strikes me as quite good support for propositions. I suppose you can describe these phenomena as assent to sentences, but they might be very different sentences to express the same delusion.
|
|
13989
|
There are no propositions; they are just sentences, used for thinking, which link to facts in a certain way [Ryle]
|
|
Full Idea:
There are no substantial propositions...There is just a relation between grammatical structure and the logical structure of facts. 'Proposition' denotes the same as 'sentence' or 'statement'. A proposition is not what I think, but what I think or talk in.
|
|
From:
Gilbert Ryle (Are there propositions? [1930], 'Conclusions')
|
|
A reaction:
The conclusion of Ryle's discussion, but I found his support for propositions much more convincing than his critique of them, or his attempt at an alternative linguistic account. He never mentioned animals, so he self-evidently hasn't grasped the problem.
|
|
13982
|
If we accept true propositions, it is hard to reject false ones, and even nonsensical ones [Ryle]
|
|
Full Idea:
All the arguments for the subsistence of true propositions seem to hold good for the subsistence of false ones. We might even have to find room for absurd or nonsensical ones like 'some round squares are not red-headed'.
|
|
From:
Gilbert Ryle (Are there propositions? [1930], 'Objections')
|
|
A reaction:
A particularly nice example of a Category Mistake from the man who made them famous. Why can't we just make belief a proposition attitude, so I equally believe 'sea is blue', 'grass is pink' and 'trees are bifocal', but the status of my belief varies?
|