[lit-ideas] Re: Whiteheadiana [?]

  • From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:15:53 -0800

Omar writes

Honestly, I think that very few contemporary philosophers believe that
their arguments possess the certainty of 'demonstration' in the
Aristotelian sense. (Other than perhaps in the field of formal logic, to
the extent that logic might still be considered a branch of philosophy) It
might be flogging a dead horse, here.   :)

*I wonder why you think that? Some examples really would help. If a
philosopher is writing something that she thinks needs putting into formal
notation, where that 'something' is meant to be a demonstration of
something in a paper or a book, it's an argument that's assessable every
bit as much as the examples of (valid) arguments in logic books.

•Aristotle, of course, did not have, and did not provide us with anything
as powerful as post-Fregean logic. Aristotle's syllogistic is hardly the
paradigm of 'logical' reasoning and demonstration.

Back to watching the 'new' Sherlock Holmes, on Netflix.

Best to one and all.

I thought I sent, just before this, an answer to what John MCreery said
about how, if we were honest, we'd characterize what philosophers mostly
do. I mentioned Quine v. Grice, Strawson et al, and Newton v. Einstein.
Didn't show up. Not in Drafts, not in Sent, not in Trash.

 I hate Gmail. Hait it, hate it, hate it.


Other related posts: