Sunday, September 23, 2007

Predicates

How exactly does one define a predicate? Definition of 'large': what? is it 'big'? But then what is 'big'? Is it defined as 'large'? Or do we define 'large' as 'greater than small'? Same problem, which is this: is there a way to positively describe without predicates? Is there a way to put a positive descriptor into logic?

"Nothing can be red and green all over at the same time". How could we boil this down to a logical statement? Could we follow Leibniz and create a list of negative terms to describe each of the colors? Is that sufficient without a positive indication?

--------------

The failure of logicism and the concept of ordinary language philosophy; how far can we push our system of thought into a logical form? Is it even worth the effort, or should we just consider our language system as largely arbitrary, with form recognized and 'put in' after the fact?

2 Comments:

Blogger sidfaiwu said...

Hello Snurp,

Clearly, language, and indeed even logic, requires some empirical basis. We can learn what is meant by 'Large' through experiencing a sequence of pairs of objects and being told that the larger of the two is the 'Large' one. We seem to have a generalizing instinct that allows us to understand what is meant by 'Large'.

Once we have a sufficient language built up from experience, we can define new terms based on the ones we already know. Using your example, once we understand 'Large', we can learn what 'Big' means without reliance on purely empirical means.

October 4, 2007 at 10:13 AM  
Blogger Derek said...

Generalizing instinct...there's something that would prove interesting for further study.

October 4, 2007 at 1:45 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home