Monday, February 21, 2011

More live blogging from The Critique of Pure Reason

Why? Because it takes more skill to read it, understand it, and write about it than it does to flip burgers, drink beer, and watch the TV. I know, the burger flippers will talk about the nobility of their work, but nobility doesn't equal skill, which flipping burgers does not take.

I'm now into the heart of it, and one of the big things that's emerged is that our logical operations aren't actually based on pure reasoning alone but instead are dependent on synthetic judgments given a priori by our brain through our cognitive faculties. What that means is that Logic, with a big "L", is something deduced from semi-logical thought processes that are with us all the time, but that we often don't think about. It exists, but at the same time it doesn't exist in its pure form in our minds unless we're trained to explicitly think accordingly, to refine the sort of general, rough, concepts that we have into a more explicit system. This suggests, among other things, that other forms of logical systems are possible than the ones that we're familiar with, even though we can apply our logic to the world and have it work out.

In fact, if Logic is abstraction from informal qualitative and quantitative judgments, then it suggests that all analytic logic is tainted by empirical or synthetic facts, and that there's nothing really foundational to logic as a whole. It would mean that all logical relations and all thoughts in general are practical, to some extent, and that there isn't anything that's a pure, abstract, truth.

If logic is based on ways of thinking that are established by the biological endowment of the human mind and that are in fact derived from contents of thoughts that are generated internally as opposed to externally, all logic, while partially true in the world, is also relative to the human animal.

No comments: