Does Philosophy Cause Nihilism?

[Arising_uk]

The second is this;
Language needs at least two to exist.
I think in language.
Therefore others exist. - Logical enough.

you assume your conclusion in the first premise

-Imp[/quote]
I take your point.

Language cannot be created by oneself.
I can think in language.
Therefore at least one other exists.

Works?

[Impenitent]

The second is this;
Language needs at least two to exist.
I think in language.
Therefore others exist. - Logical enough.

you assume your conclusion in the first premise

-Imp

I take your point.

Language cannot be created by oneself.
I can think in language.
Therefore at least one other exists.

Works?[/quote]

no...

language can be created by oneself

you are conflating a "public" use of language to prove the existence of an external world...

the brain remains in the vat

-Imp

[HexHammer]

Ofc one person can create a whole language, what kind of nonsense is that one can't?

[Wyman]

the search for certainty causes it...

-Imp

Good answer, although doesn't it need a caveat? The unsuccessful search for certainty causes it. Even if you categorize the successful as naive, dumb, religious, etc., they are not nihilists.

Isn't nihilism just socially unacceptable skepticism? Or skeptics are satisfied nihilists, whereas nihilists suffer angst.

angst over nothing?

-Imp

Well yes, if you are searching for something and find nothing, that can lead to anxiety if what you were searching for is very important to you.

[Wyman]

The second is this;
Language needs at least two to exist.
I think in language.
Therefore others exist. - Logical enough.

you assume your conclusion in the first premise

-Imp

I take your point.

Language cannot be created by oneself.
I can think in language.
Therefore at least one other exists.

Works?

no...

language can be created by oneself

you are conflating a "public" use of language to prove the existence of an external world...

the brain remains in the vat

-Imp[/quote]

Right, I see the brain in the vat metaphor as essentially Cartesian doubt, which is what I thought you(Arising) were alluding to when you began with 'I am' which I took to mean 'I think therefore I am,' 'I think in language' and language requires more than one person.

Language could be created by an evil genius as easily as the rest of the corporeal world - i.e. the 'vat' could make it seem to you that your language must have been created elsewhere. That was my point; it may be that I am misunderstanding your argument, as you put it somewhat cryptically.

_____________________
A proposition can be either true or false, but not both. A proposition is a well formed formula in the language we choose to use as an interpretation for the axiom system we are employing.

'not(p and not p)' is an axiom of logic and deals with such propositions. So when you say 'something cannot both be and not be at the same time,' you are interpreting the axioms of logic in a particular way and I think it requires justification.

I think you are trying make this law of non-contradiction something it is not - i.e. a statement about the world. It is just a tautology. A 'proposition' is what is (sometimes, as in physics, but not mathematics) interpreted as a statement about the world. The proposition, when so interpreted, is defined as an assertion about the world (a fact) that is either true or false - i.e. it is syntactically correct and makes sense semantically and must make an assertion that is true or false, but not both or neither. See the circularity? On this standard interpretation of propositions in logic, the rule of non-contradiction is assumed in the very definition of a proposition. It is a tautology and tautologies are always circular in this sense and so say nothing new about the subject matter of the interpreted axiom system.

I probably could have said all this more clearly - for instance, it may help if you think of a mathematical interpretation of a proposition. 1+1=2 is a true proposition in math. To say 'not((1+1=2) and not(1+1=2)) must be true as well', while also a true proposition, adds nothing to your mathematical knowledge, as it is a mere tautology.

[Arising_uk]

no...

language can be created by oneself

you are conflating a "public" use of language to prove the existence of an external world...

the brain remains in the vat

-Imp

Disagree.

Not with the fact that man has the capacity or is the source of language but with the idea that if the impossible was possible, i.e. a man or woman managed to reach the age of reasoning without other users of a language, that they would create anything like the language we apparently have. Why would they need to? What could impel them to name things that they obviously already know with thought?

I'm not conflating it, I'm asserting that because there is a public use of language there must obviously be a 'public'. In a sense we are a brain in a vat, i.e. a CNS in a Body, and because I can think in a language there is at least one other speaker out there, be it a demon or whatever, so there is an external world other than my vat.

[Arising_uk]

Right, I see the brain in the vat metaphor as essentially Cartesian doubt, which is what I thought you(Arising) were alluding to when you began with 'I am' which I took to mean 'I think therefore I am,' 'I think in language' and language requires more than one person.

Language could be created by an evil genius as easily as the rest of the corporeal world - i.e. the 'vat' could make it seem to you that your language must have been created elsewhere. That was my point; it may be that I am misunderstanding your argument, as you put it somewhat cryptically.

The 'brain in a vat' is Putnam's version of Descarte's thought and it makes no difference to my point as your evil genius must be able to speak or understand English to do what you say and as such I can infer from my being able to speak or understand it as confirmation that there is at least one other out there, evil genius or whatnot.

_____________________
A proposition can be either true or false, but not both. A proposition is a well formed formula in the language we choose to use as an interpretation for the axiom system we are employing.

Not quite, in Logic a proposition is on the whole a declarative sentence expressing a fact or a relation about things in the world, wffs are how we can analyse the process.

'not(p and not p)' is an axiom of logic and deals with such propositions. So when you say 'something cannot both be and not be at the same time,' you are interpreting the axioms of logic in a particular way and I think it requires justification.

Show me a thing or fact that can refute this axiom?

I think you are trying make this law of non-contradiction something it is not - i.e. a statement about the world. It is just a tautology. ...

I disagree and agree with Boole, Logic can be understood as the study of relations and there are two kinds, between things and facts, facts are expressed as propositions and so can be understood as relations between propositions but in reality they are about facts. As such it is about the World or more specifically about how we reason about the world.

A 'proposition' is what is (sometimes, as in physics, but not mathematics) interpreted as a statement about the world. The proposition, when so interpreted, is defined as an assertion about the world (a fact) that is either true or false - i.e. it is syntactically correct and makes sense semantically and must make an assertion that is true or false, but not both or neither. See the circularity? ...

Show me a thing than can be and cannot be at the same time?

On this standard interpretation of propositions in logic, the rule of non-contradiction is assumed in the very definition of a proposition. It is a tautology and tautologies are always circular in this sense and so say nothing new about the subject matter of the interpreted axiom system.

Or they say what is always true or always false about things and their relations, i.e they say what is necessary or impossible in this world, so in a sense say nothing about the World other than set its boundaries. I like Wittgenstein with respect to Language, Logic and the World, to wit,

"3.1432 We must not say, “The complex sign ‘aRb’ says ‘a stands in relation R to b’”; but we must say, “That ‘a’ stands in a certain relation to ‘b’ says that aRb”. - TLP.

I probably could have said all this more clearly - for instance, it may help if you think of a mathematical interpretation of a proposition. 1+1=2 is a true proposition in math. To say 'not((1+1=2) and not(1+1=2)) must be true as well', while also a true proposition, adds nothing to your mathematical knowledge, as it is a mere tautology.

That's because Maths is not Logic, in Logic to say (P and Not P) is to say something that is false under all possible conditions, hence it is an impossibity and on the whole this discovery can be used to point to a false deduction. To say Not(P and Not P) is to say this is always true under all conditions and, I'll agree, whilst necessary is not of much use other than pointing out how reason works. I also think it points to how things work but accept that it's not much use to the Physicist as they work within the contingent propositions.

[Arising_uk]

Ofc one person can create a whole language, what kind of nonsense is that one can't?

Philosophical nonsense.

You've not yet said which 'nihilism' you were taking about?

[HexHammer]

Ofc one person can create a whole language, what kind of nonsense is that one can't?

Philosophical nonsense.

You've not yet said which 'nihilism' you were taking about?

Which of the branches is irrelevant as the headline relates to any branch.

[Impenitent]

no...

language can be created by oneself

you are conflating a "public" use of language to prove the existence of an external world...

the brain remains in the vat

-Imp

Disagree.

Not with the fact that man has the capacity or is the source of language but with the idea that if the impossible was possible, i.e. a man or woman managed to reach the age of reasoning without other users of a language, that they would create anything like the language we apparently have. Why would they need to? What could impel them to name things that they obviously already know with thought?

I'm not conflating it, I'm asserting that because there is a public use of language there must obviously be a 'public'. In a sense we are a brain in a vat, i.e. a CNS in a Body, and because I can think in a language there is at least one other speaker out there, be it a demon or whatever, so there is an external world other than my vat.

to the first- convenience (and knowledge is never obvious - but that's another problem)

think about the second...

there is a public use therefore there must be a public...

A
.: A

(Rene had the same problem)

-Imp

[Wyman]

Right, I see the brain in the vat metaphor as essentially Cartesian doubt, which is what I thought you(Arising) were alluding to when you began with 'I am' which I took to mean 'I think therefore I am,' 'I think in language' and language requires more than one person.

Language could be created by an evil genius as easily as the rest of the corporeal world - i.e. the 'vat' could make it seem to you that your language must have been created elsewhere. That was my point; it may be that I am misunderstanding your argument, as you put it somewhat cryptically.

The 'brain in a vat' is Putnam's version of Descarte's thought and it makes no difference to my point as your evil genius must be able to speak or understand English to do what you say and as such I can infer from my being able to speak or understand it as confirmation that there is at least one other out there, evil genius or whatnot.

_____________________
A proposition can be either true or false, but not both. A proposition is a well formed formula in the language we choose to use as an interpretation for the axiom system we are employing.

Not quite, in Logic a proposition is on the whole a declarative sentence expressing a fact or a relation about things in the world, wffs are how we can analyse the process.

'not(p and not p)' is an axiom of logic and deals with such propositions. So when you say 'something cannot both be and not be at the same time,' you are interpreting the axioms of logic in a particular way and I think it requires justification.

Show me a thing or fact that can refute this axiom?

I think you are trying make this law of non-contradiction something it is not - i.e. a statement about the world. It is just a tautology. ...

I disagree and agree with Boole, Logic can be understood as the study of relations and there are two kinds, between things and facts, facts are expressed as propositions and so can be understood as relations between propositions but in reality they are about facts. As such it is about the World or more specifically about how we reason about the world.

A 'proposition' is what is (sometimes, as in physics, but not mathematics) interpreted as a statement about the world. The proposition, when so interpreted, is defined as an assertion about the world (a fact) that is either true or false - i.e. it is syntactically correct and makes sense semantically and must make an assertion that is true or false, but not both or neither. See the circularity? ...

Show me a thing than can be and cannot be at the same time?

On this standard interpretation of propositions in logic, the rule of non-contradiction is assumed in the very definition of a proposition. It is a tautology and tautologies are always circular in this sense and so say nothing new about the subject matter of the interpreted axiom system.

Or they say what is always true or always false about things and their relations, i.e they say what is necessary or impossible in this world, so in a sense say nothing about the World other than set its boundaries. I like Wittgenstein with respect to Language, Logic and the World, to wit,

"3.1432 We must not say, “The complex sign ‘aRb’ says ‘a stands in relation R to b’”; but we must say, “That ‘a’ stands in a certain relation to ‘b’ says that aRb”. - TLP.

I probably could have said all this more clearly - for instance, it may help if you think of a mathematical interpretation of a proposition. 1+1=2 is a true proposition in math. To say 'not((1+1=2) and not(1+1=2)) must be true as well', while also a true proposition, adds nothing to your mathematical knowledge, as it is a mere tautology.

That's because Maths is not Logic, in Logic to say (P and Not P) is to say something that is false under all possible conditions, hence it is an impossibity and on the whole this discovery can be used to point to a false deduction. To say Not(P and Not P) is to say this is always true under all conditions and, I'll agree, whilst necessary is not of much use other than pointing out how reason works. I also think it points to how things work but accept that it's not much use to the Physicist as they work within the contingent propositions.

Well, admitting that you may be talking to an evil genius seems a hollow victory to me.

The logic I studied was called 'mathematical logic' and originated with Frege's attempt to reduce mathematics to logic which culminated in Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica. So although I agree that logic is not maths, maths is the first interpretation of logic that was attempted and it is far and away the interpretation that 'fits' the system best as the system was designed to underpin it. The interpretation of logic as involving propositions as assertions of 'facts'(such as your interpretation of what a 'proposition' is) has been the subject of great debate, from Frege, Russell and Carnap down to the later Wittgenstein and Quine(for instance). Your reliance on the young Wittgenstein is, although not necessarily wrong, suspect as he later recanted this view of propositions representing 'facts' either truly or falsely.
According to later interpretations of logic, your statement that the proposition 'something cannot both be and not be' would lack sense - it would not be meaningful within any system. A 'something' in an axiom system is an undefined term - representative of the ontology adopted in the axiom system. So what you would be saying in the ontology of geometry, for instance, is that a point cannot be and not be. That would not be a semantically correct (meaningful) statement in geometry. Points don't 'be' in geometry except for the bland fact that we have posited them as 'object's in our axiom system. They exist because we assume they exist.
Are you making a statement about objects ('something' that exists or does not exist) as general terms in formal logical systems as I've described, or 'objects' as empirical things that exist out in the world?

[Arising_uk]

to the first- convenience (and knowledge is never obvious - but that's another problem)

So you're saying that the being we are talking about would be able to talk to themselves and construct a language equivalent to what we do have even though there is no-one to communicate with? I find this hard to believe and even if so without the need to communicate with others I doubt it'd have the functions the language we have does. Why would this being bother to say 'tiger' when the thought will do? Knowledge is obvious to the user and in this case we only have the user.

think about the second...

there is a public use therefore there must be a public...

A
.: A

So true then.

But I think it more P->Q, P :- Q.

(Rene had the same problem)

-Imp

Disagree, he had thought and couldn't get out, if he'd thought about what thinking in language implies then he'd have been able to reconnect.

[Impenitent]

to the first- convenience (and knowledge is never obvious - but that's another problem)

So you're saying that the being we are talking about would be able to talk to themselves and construct a language equivalent to what we do have even though there is no-one to communicate with? I find this hard to believe and even if so without the need to communicate with others I doubt it'd have the functions the language we have does. Why would this being bother to say 'tiger' when the thought will do? Knowledge is obvious to the user and in this case we only have the user.

thinking in language that the thinker creates... the thinker creates unique meaning for each case... no? did you sense exactly that which "they" sense or do you simply believe and agree that they sensed the same things, even though their sensory organs and yours are completely different? not so obvious...






think about the second...

there is a public use therefore there must be a public...

A
.: A

So true then.

But I think it more P->Q, P :- Q.

(Rene had the same problem)

-Imp

Disagree, he had thought and couldn't get out, if he'd thought about what thinking in language implies then he'd have been able to reconnect.

no, his argument boils down to: there is thinking therefore there is something that thinks

Rene saw what the church did to galileo and he understood that his (rene's) mathematics ran counter to the church's teaching... so in order to distract the church from his mathematics, rene made a neat circular argument to prove the existence of god much like anslem's ...

reconnect? to that which was never connected?

-Imp

[Arising_uk]

...
Well, admitting that you may be talking to an evil genius seems a hollow victory to me. ...

Not if one thought that one was a solipsistic brain-in-a-vat or a Cartesian dualist who can't find a way back to others.

The logic I studied was called 'mathematical logic' and originated with Frege's attempt to reduce mathematics to logic which culminated in Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica. So although I agree that logic is not maths, maths is the first interpretation of logic that was attempted and it is far and away the interpretation that 'fits' the system best as the system was designed to underpin it. The interpretation of logic as involving propositions as assertions of 'facts'(such as your interpretation of what a 'proposition' is) has been the subject of great debate, from Frege, Russell and Carnap down to the later Wittgenstein and Quine(for instance). Your reliance on the young Wittgenstein is, although not necessarily wrong, suspect as he later recanted this view of propositions representing 'facts' either truly or falsely.

Not finished Philosophical Investigations so will have to wait and see but will take your word for this.

Not sure what you mean by this, "maths is the first interpretation of logic that was attempted and it is far and away the interpretation that 'fits' the system best as the system was designed to underpin it.", as you said it was an attempt to reduce mathematics to logic? Also Logic has been around since Aristotle and probably before that.

According to later interpretations of logic, your statement that the proposition 'something cannot both be and not be' would lack sense - it would not be meaningful within any system. ...

Not(P and Not P)?

A 'something' in an axiom system is an undefined term - representative of the ontology adopted in the axiom system. So what you would be saying in the ontology of geometry, for instance, is that a point cannot be and not be. That would not be a semantically correct (meaningful) statement in geometry. Points don't 'be' in geometry except for the bland fact that we have posited them as 'object's in our axiom system. They exist because we assume they exist.

Which just goes to show that Mathematics is not about the World.

Are you making a statement about objects ('something' that exists or does not exist) as general terms in formal logical systems as I've described, or 'objects' as empirical things that exist out in the world?

Depends what you mean by 'general terms' but on the whole it can be either in Logic as we can use it to affirm or deny the existence of things and the relations between them or the truth or falsity of propositions used to represent facts and the relations between them. We can also use it to examine how reason appears to work.

[Arising_uk]

thinking in language that the thinker creates...

Not quite, thinking in a language that two thinkers have created to represent their thoughts to each other.

the thinker creates unique meaning for each case... no? ...

Agreed in the sense that that the thoughts are unique but the meaning of language rests with the two sets of thoughts and is a feedback process of agreement, or some such.

did you sense exactly that which "they" sense or do you simply believe and agree that they sensed the same things, even though their sensory organs and yours are completely different? not so obvious...

Not completely different as on the whole pretty much the same template. But I agree one cannot sense exactly the same as an other but I know they sense pretty much the same thing as they tell me so and act as if they do.

no, his argument boils down to: there is thinking therefore there is something that thinks ...

Hmm...I thought it boiled down to 'I am' and then 'I think so I cannot doubt I am'?

Rene saw what the church did to galileo and he understood that his (rene's) mathematics ran counter to the church's teaching... so in order to distract the church from his mathematics, rene made a neat circular argument to prove the existence of god much like anslem's ...

Can't really say what his motivations were but agree he used an ontological argument for 'God' but my reading had it that this was done so that he could reconnect to the external world as his doubt left him no out. My take is that he could have used the fact that he could think in language and a language(as we understand it) needs two.

reconnect? to that which was never connected?

-Imp

I don't think he didn't believe in an external world as he pretty much says so in his passage about only madman and loons not knowing that there was an external world. It's just that his doubting method apparently left him no way back.