Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
Subject: Re: There is no logic here (Was: Quine's "Word & Object")
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 15:24:33 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <vrp5j0$2gelp$1@dont-email.me>
References: <D3Wdna5Sf9VVoEP6nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <zLqdnYn5HIaY60L6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <vrp3h9$2c3uj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 15:24:33 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b265737c59eb3acffaf394766377ae82";
	logging-data="2636473"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18I1ZLPs+XvwH665/HBXny1jSHag6ekbiA="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rsa6jLIsVfqd9ftxmED1ptHGABY=
In-Reply-To: <vrp3h9$2c3uj$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB, it
Bytes: 3150

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