The term "logicist" and "logicism" are already taken. Otherwise I have no problem with the video. Why try to resignify these perfectly clear and well-defined terms? That's my 2 cents.
While they ARE "well-defined" in terms of the specificity and explicitness of how they've so far been defined, they are NOT well-defined in terms of their best possible use. It is possible and much more useful to accurately BROADEN the definitions of "logicism" and "logicist" to include much more that is of much greater use to people.
It's just like Ayn Rand trying to stake her claim on "objectivism" -- her definition is much more narrowly limited than otherwise.
It is not only possible, but it is essential, to BROADEN her narrow and propriety definition of "objectivism" to include much more than she intended -- and, not only that, but to even remove some presumptuous things which she self-servingly implanted within her definition.
And whether her definition came before or after the other, broader, definition is not as important as which definition has the greater accuracy and utility..
Question: What is logicism? Answer: Logicism is the theory that logic can be used as a framework to integrate and define the entire body of mathematical knowledge. I thought you might need to know this.
That's a historical definition of Logicism that is limited only to logic's application to justifying mathematics. And, yes, I know that -- thank you for your kind assistance. (Also, I think I mentioned it in the video.)
Anyhow, I'm attempting to expand the idea beyond simply mathematics, to being a general way of life.
I agree that Rand's "heroic" bent is annoying, at best. Your criticism of rote education is spot-on. You could have mentioned the Socratic method, though that's basically what you describe. I must say I'm not completely surprised to learn that sentence diagramming is not commonly taught, given the complete lack of reading comprehension among most Americans. Some would likely take issue with your characterization of atheism, yet it is a valid criticism. Overall, good video.
I've been convinced for years that algebra has no purpose, simply because I've never had a teacher who bothered to explain its purpose to me. It always seemed like I was rearranging problems rather than solving them. As the problems became more complex, I lost the ability to identify the point at which they'd been "solved." I could never comprehend how so many people were able to "just do it" without asking questions. Thanks for bringing some insight to Youtube. It's a welcome addition.
No problem. You might do a Google search for an article called "The History of Algebra" by Melissa Snell, and it will give you the much more interesting explanation for what algebra really is.
@EleManT24 I came to appreciate alegebra, trig, geometry, and calculous. When I was in eighth grade, I , too did not see the purpose.By the time I was in college, I realized the importance of higher mathematics.Our universe relies on the laws of Physics. The purpose of higher mathematics is to train the brain into thinking logically. It teaches inductive & deductive reasoning. I am so glad to have had the opportunity to learn these principles and apply them to my daily life. Take care. Be well.
It's becoming more and more apparent to me that real understanding is a kind of "royal jelly" that is reserved for only the most "elite" members of society. All the rest of us are supposed to live and die as clueless, obedient drones.
Types like you and I, in our need to really understand, are pariahs, forever bucking that system, inadvertantly, by our very natures.
Well, if I understand Rationalism correctly, we're talking about the idea that flawless conceptual, rationalized logic yields a perfect one-to-one relationship to the outcomes of actual reality. Assuming that's the case, clearly Rationalism alone, as it is practiced in a vacuum, is insufficient -- and even dangerous in terms of harnessing the outcomes of real systems.
It's unfortunate that like several other people on youtube and in other places you fail to understand or appreciate Nietzsche's philosophy. To expound logic without following some of its tenets e.g. investigation, impartiality etc is quite laughable. Bias and disregard for information are NOT logical. I would recommend the works of Walter Kaufmann Re: Nietzsche and his philosophy
Well to tell you the truth I don't think creativity or logic is cared about in school systems today it's all just memorization. Then when you go out into the world with a diploma hardly anything happens.
God, it kills me to hear that. The reason that you and everybody else who "can't learn algebra" can't learn algebra is that it's typically taught for SHIT.
OMG I do the exact same thing! My friends always tease me and call me the devil's advocate's advocate because I argue myself (and others) into infinity. I also question EVERYTHING, particularly math- my algebra teacher threw me out of the class! LOL I needed to know WHY- why would you do these things... his answer was "what about when your kids need help yadda yadda.." and I was like , "um ok let's end this vicious cycle here and now! " LOL Love your vids. : )
Yeah, it's really hard not being able to understand why you don't fit in, in this society, because there hasn't yet been any kind of public awareness about the type of person who requires logical rationales... in other words, the "logic junkie" type of personality.
...But all that ends right now, because I'm labeling the personality type right here and now.
You speak very clearly, it gives me the same feeling that I got from reading the dialouge "Is God a Taoist?" by Smullyan, who is in fact a mathematician and a logicist. A feeling of things falling into place.
You are aware, though, that premises will ultimately have to come from outside of logic?
Only if you define logic as being everything but the premises because, ultimately, the logical validity of your conclusion depends on the logical validity of your premises.
...I can derive any number of conclusions, using valid linkage statements, from the invalid premise that "since the moon is made of green cheese". But, since that premise is invalid, so will be the conclusions drawn from it.
Understanding intent is crucial. I have given it 2 names, shared/recyclable. The first is a known and the latter is also a known but also it has a ' requirement aspect'. I say this because it is never clear when congruency is not present. That is to say means and method are not equal. Am I clear?
Sorry, but I don't understand. What I do understand from what you just said is that "means and method are not equal"... that part is clear. But, the rest is not to me.
When you introduced the importance of intent, where I apply intent is in our ends. The ends is our true motive, our goal. Intent is what we're really trying to accomplish... and that doesn't usually reveal itself until the end result is accomplished, especially if the planner shows no signs of disappointment in the outcome.
In your earlier video, "What the hell is logicism" you mentioned the use of logic to help or to harm. Is it safe to say that logicism is a theory that is based on intent? I am confused as to which one holds the other or is dependent upon. I don't think we can ignore either. clarify please.
I think you're right... I don't think we can ignore either. It's critical to understand that intents (a.k.a., "the ends") are just as important as methodologies (a.k.a, "the means").
This is because sound and valid means are sure to lead us to some ends, so we always have to closely monitor them to see if they are, in fact, leading us there, or somewhere different. Also, our means can be flawless but lead us to bad ends, because we never properly understood our ends in the first place.
This, as a society, has destroyed itself, because we tend to either meticulously focus on means and get them down flawlessly, or we focus on ends, but ignore our means to get there, so we often end up in a completely different place.
This is all a fancy way of saying that we don't expand our logic to encompass both our methodology rituals AND our desired ends. Put even more shortly, we don't think, and we even make it a social crime to do so.
If your primary agenda is to truly resolve logical contradictions AND you can accomplish that entirely within Christianity, with a perfect overlapping consistency of the two, then, no, it doesn't disqualify. But I suspect that you would probably have to compromise one to some extent to remain faithful to the other.
Thank you for this video. I think I am a Logicist. I also find the things you said about the teaching the procedures rather than the logic of things in school. Here in Germany that is very common in schools (more so since serveral federal states took one year off the secondary schools but nothing off the curriculum) and universities (the new Bachelor degree is only three years, they have more to learn and less to choose). That's a thing that always bothered me. Space is running low ;)
In essence, the golden rule is also stateable as Newton's third law of motion, which is "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction", and that is a law of physics itself. So it has to be already "built in" to the way the machine already functions.
However, the very nature of a computer is that it cannot perform any function that wasn't specifically built into it by humans. So, if you built into it the capability to trial-and-error its way to the best strategy, then
yes, it seems reasonable that either some kind of reactive or proactive strategy towards interactive reciprocity would be arrived at... in other words, the "golden rule".
With that said, I think there are flaws in the golden rule, because anticipating others' needs based on your own is not necessarily valid. Others very often have very different needs than your own, so you have to put a bit more effort into understanding their particular needs, in order to accomodate them, if possible.
So, as I consider the golden rule as a general life-policy conclusion to be arrived at, it's entirely possible that something actually smarter than the golden rule could and would be arrived at.
In fact, the idea of "check your premises" might actually be the smarter rule yet... or any rule which instructs us to survey the terrority itself, before starting to draw a map of it.
Long live logic indeed! Usually Spock was not the inspiring one in the duo :)
However I have question:
Do you believe that morals come from god or that it can be "resolved" so that we can understand every moral rule as a function upon society "if we do it this way it is better because X".
So that a computerprogram with sufficient data could formulate the "golden rule or "thou shalt not lie" etc.
One other thing you commented on -- it was actually the very first thing -- is that Spock was not the inspiring one. I actually think completely otherwise! He always inspired me unbelievably, although I think his antipathy towards emotion was ill-informed by Vulcan culture and, thus, illogical itself.
Finally, I note in my book that Kirk's role around Spock was to "check premises". Kirk was often the one who would think and exist outside Spock's mental box. But Spock also reciprocated.
i believe he said that morality is derived from our interactions with each other through evolution. in order to regulate relations with other tribes ect...
The term "logicist" and "logicism" are already taken. Otherwise I have no problem with the video. Why try to resignify these perfectly clear and well-defined terms? That's my 2 cents.
titomigueljoya 1 week ago
While they ARE "well-defined" in terms of the specificity and explicitness of how they've so far been defined, they are NOT well-defined in terms of their best possible use. It is possible and much more useful to accurately BROADEN the definitions of "logicism" and "logicist" to include much more that is of much greater use to people.
It's just like Ayn Rand trying to stake her claim on "objectivism" -- her definition is much more narrowly limited than otherwise.
TheLogicJunkie 1 week ago
It is not only possible, but it is essential, to BROADEN her narrow and propriety definition of "objectivism" to include much more than she intended -- and, not only that, but to even remove some presumptuous things which she self-servingly implanted within her definition.
And whether her definition came before or after the other, broader, definition is not as important as which definition has the greater accuracy and utility..
TheLogicJunkie 1 week ago
Question: What is logicism? Answer: Logicism is the theory that logic can be used as a framework to integrate and define the entire body of mathematical knowledge. I thought you might need to know this.
JCotton648 2 months ago
That's a historical definition of Logicism that is limited only to logic's application to justifying mathematics. And, yes, I know that -- thank you for your kind assistance. (Also, I think I mentioned it in the video.)
Anyhow, I'm attempting to expand the idea beyond simply mathematics, to being a general way of life.
TheLogicJunkie 2 months ago
I agree that Rand's "heroic" bent is annoying, at best. Your criticism of rote education is spot-on. You could have mentioned the Socratic method, though that's basically what you describe. I must say I'm not completely surprised to learn that sentence diagramming is not commonly taught, given the complete lack of reading comprehension among most Americans. Some would likely take issue with your characterization of atheism, yet it is a valid criticism. Overall, good video.
benjamindees 2 years ago
I've been convinced for years that algebra has no purpose, simply because I've never had a teacher who bothered to explain its purpose to me. It always seemed like I was rearranging problems rather than solving them. As the problems became more complex, I lost the ability to identify the point at which they'd been "solved." I could never comprehend how so many people were able to "just do it" without asking questions. Thanks for bringing some insight to Youtube. It's a welcome addition.
EleManT24 2 years ago
No problem. You might do a Google search for an article called "The History of Algebra" by Melissa Snell, and it will give you the much more interesting explanation for what algebra really is.
TheLogicJunkie 2 years ago
@EleManT24 I came to appreciate alegebra, trig, geometry, and calculous. When I was in eighth grade, I , too did not see the purpose.By the time I was in college, I realized the importance of higher mathematics.Our universe relies on the laws of Physics. The purpose of higher mathematics is to train the brain into thinking logically. It teaches inductive & deductive reasoning. I am so glad to have had the opportunity to learn these principles and apply them to my daily life. Take care. Be well.
maybetuesday1790 1 year ago
It's becoming more and more apparent to me that real understanding is a kind of "royal jelly" that is reserved for only the most "elite" members of society. All the rest of us are supposed to live and die as clueless, obedient drones.
Types like you and I, in our need to really understand, are pariahs, forever bucking that system, inadvertantly, by our very natures.
TheLogicJunkie 2 years ago
I would like to briefly know your thoughts on Rationalism. It's pros and cons, whatever you can think up.
Offatwork 2 years ago
Well, if I understand Rationalism correctly, we're talking about the idea that flawless conceptual, rationalized logic yields a perfect one-to-one relationship to the outcomes of actual reality. Assuming that's the case, clearly Rationalism alone, as it is practiced in a vacuum, is insufficient -- and even dangerous in terms of harnessing the outcomes of real systems.
TheLogicJunkie 2 years ago
It's unfortunate that like several other people on youtube and in other places you fail to understand or appreciate Nietzsche's philosophy. To expound logic without following some of its tenets e.g. investigation, impartiality etc is quite laughable. Bias and disregard for information are NOT logical. I would recommend the works of Walter Kaufmann Re: Nietzsche and his philosophy
Rab182 2 years ago
What about creativity but, I agree with your logic stuff.
74u73hjd 2 years ago
What do you mean
TheLogicJunkie 2 years ago
Well to tell you the truth I don't think creativity or logic is cared about in school systems today it's all just memorization. Then when you go out into the world with a diploma hardly anything happens.
74u73hjd 2 years ago
I never could learn algebra. Couldn't remember all of the formulas.
5amGordon 3 years ago
God, it kills me to hear that. The reason that you and everybody else who "can't learn algebra" can't learn algebra is that it's typically taught for SHIT.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
OMG I do the exact same thing! My friends always tease me and call me the devil's advocate's advocate because I argue myself (and others) into infinity. I also question EVERYTHING, particularly math- my algebra teacher threw me out of the class! LOL I needed to know WHY- why would you do these things... his answer was "what about when your kids need help yadda yadda.." and I was like , "um ok let's end this vicious cycle here and now! " LOL Love your vids. : )
multuminparvo 3 years ago
hahahaha...
Yeah, it's really hard not being able to understand why you don't fit in, in this society, because there hasn't yet been any kind of public awareness about the type of person who requires logical rationales... in other words, the "logic junkie" type of personality.
...But all that ends right now, because I'm labeling the personality type right here and now.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
Very good! Thank you for this.
You speak very clearly, it gives me the same feeling that I got from reading the dialouge "Is God a Taoist?" by Smullyan, who is in fact a mathematician and a logicist. A feeling of things falling into place.
You are aware, though, that premises will ultimately have to come from outside of logic?
heimspekingur 3 years ago
Only if you define logic as being everything but the premises because, ultimately, the logical validity of your conclusion depends on the logical validity of your premises.
...I can derive any number of conclusions, using valid linkage statements, from the invalid premise that "since the moon is made of green cheese". But, since that premise is invalid, so will be the conclusions drawn from it.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
Understanding intent is crucial. I have given it 2 names, shared/recyclable. The first is a known and the latter is also a known but also it has a ' requirement aspect'. I say this because it is never clear when congruency is not present. That is to say means and method are not equal. Am I clear?
Whistlejocket 3 years ago
Sorry, but I don't understand. What I do understand from what you just said is that "means and method are not equal"... that part is clear. But, the rest is not to me.
When you introduced the importance of intent, where I apply intent is in our ends. The ends is our true motive, our goal. Intent is what we're really trying to accomplish... and that doesn't usually reveal itself until the end result is accomplished, especially if the planner shows no signs of disappointment in the outcome.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
In your earlier video, "What the hell is logicism" you mentioned the use of logic to help or to harm. Is it safe to say that logicism is a theory that is based on intent? I am confused as to which one holds the other or is dependent upon. I don't think we can ignore either. clarify please.
Whistlejocket 3 years ago
I think you're right... I don't think we can ignore either. It's critical to understand that intents (a.k.a., "the ends") are just as important as methodologies (a.k.a, "the means").
This is because sound and valid means are sure to lead us to some ends, so we always have to closely monitor them to see if they are, in fact, leading us there, or somewhere different. Also, our means can be flawless but lead us to bad ends, because we never properly understood our ends in the first place.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
This, as a society, has destroyed itself, because we tend to either meticulously focus on means and get them down flawlessly, or we focus on ends, but ignore our means to get there, so we often end up in a completely different place.
This is all a fancy way of saying that we don't expand our logic to encompass both our methodology rituals AND our desired ends. Put even more shortly, we don't think, and we even make it a social crime to do so.
In our society, thou shalt not think.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
Good stuff, LogicJunkie!
I am a Karl Denninger reader, and somehow found your stuff, and am starting at page 6, and working my way to the newer stuff.
So far I like what I see.
We share many similarities, and I look forward to asking you questions that puzzle me.
~Lance
sportsbettingman 3 years ago
Cool. Of course, now that you said that, I'll be waiting for the other shoe to drop, and for you to see something that makes you hate me rabidly. *L*
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
does being a christian disqualify me from being a logicist?
megamanpda 3 years ago
If your primary agenda is to truly resolve logical contradictions AND you can accomplish that entirely within Christianity, with a perfect overlapping consistency of the two, then, no, it doesn't disqualify. But I suspect that you would probably have to compromise one to some extent to remain faithful to the other.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
Thank you for this video. I think I am a Logicist. I also find the things you said about the teaching the procedures rather than the logic of things in school. Here in Germany that is very common in schools (more so since serveral federal states took one year off the secondary schools but nothing off the curriculum) and universities (the new Bachelor degree is only three years, they have more to learn and less to choose). That's a thing that always bothered me. Space is running low ;)
Cheerio!
Ylven 3 years ago
Woo hoo! Kinfolk!
I'll go fetch some banjos and moonshine!
In all seriousness, though, it's depressing to hear that the ritualism is being enshrined as "education" in places like Germany.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
great video. AND EXCELLENT POINT about contradictions and the logic we base our conclusions on! thanks for sharing :)
LoveShallThee 3 years ago
In essence, the golden rule is also stateable as Newton's third law of motion, which is "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction", and that is a law of physics itself. So it has to be already "built in" to the way the machine already functions.
However, the very nature of a computer is that it cannot perform any function that wasn't specifically built into it by humans. So, if you built into it the capability to trial-and-error its way to the best strategy, then
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
yes, it seems reasonable that either some kind of reactive or proactive strategy towards interactive reciprocity would be arrived at... in other words, the "golden rule".
With that said, I think there are flaws in the golden rule, because anticipating others' needs based on your own is not necessarily valid. Others very often have very different needs than your own, so you have to put a bit more effort into understanding their particular needs, in order to accomodate them, if possible.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
So, as I consider the golden rule as a general life-policy conclusion to be arrived at, it's entirely possible that something actually smarter than the golden rule could and would be arrived at.
In fact, the idea of "check your premises" might actually be the smarter rule yet... or any rule which instructs us to survey the terrority itself, before starting to draw a map of it.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
Long live logic indeed! Usually Spock was not the inspiring one in the duo :)
However I have question:
Do you believe that morals come from god or that it can be "resolved" so that we can understand every moral rule as a function upon society "if we do it this way it is better because X".
So that a computerprogram with sufficient data could formulate the "golden rule or "thou shalt not lie" etc.
CognosSquare 3 years ago
One other thing you commented on -- it was actually the very first thing -- is that Spock was not the inspiring one. I actually think completely otherwise! He always inspired me unbelievably, although I think his antipathy towards emotion was ill-informed by Vulcan culture and, thus, illogical itself.
Finally, I note in my book that Kirk's role around Spock was to "check premises". Kirk was often the one who would think and exist outside Spock's mental box. But Spock also reciprocated.
TheLogicJunkie 3 years ago
check out richard dawkins. he touches on that.
i believe he said that morality is derived from our interactions with each other through evolution. in order to regulate relations with other tribes ect...
djtanner66 3 years ago