|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 3, 2020 0:47:54 GMT
Coherency and consistency is subject to the observer and is highly relative.
If coherency and consistency existed then we would not have so many different interpretations of the philosophical "greats".
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 19, 2020 22:36:21 GMT
Coherency and consistency is subject to the observer and is highly relative. If coherency and consistency existed then we would not have so many different interpretations of the philosophical "greats". May be, but the terms must be determined firstly for the sake of clearance. (Some greats could think they would be interpreted. Composers or artists never thought they wouldn't be interpreted, why to philosophers? Are they pursuing the mono-crystal absolute truth? What about philosophy as the art?) (S is coherent) if and only if {[(S is a system of statements)&({P, Q, R...} belong to S)], and while P has a certain meaning {T,F}, each Q, R... has meaning {T,F}}.
(S is consistent) if and only if {(there's A which is a system of statements)&(there's a set X in a system A where S doesn't belong to {F}}
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 21, 2020 3:57:49 GMT
Coherency and consistency is subject to the observer and is highly relative. If coherency and consistency existed then we would not have so many different interpretations of the philosophical "greats". May be, but the terms must be determined firstly for the sake of clearance. (Some greats could think they would be interpreted. Composers or artists never thought they wouldn't be interpreted, why to philosophers? Are they pursuing the mono-crystal absolute truth? What about philosophy as the art?) (S is coherent) if and only if {[(S is a system of statements)&({P, Q, R...} belong to S)], and while P has a certain meaning {T,F}, each Q, R... has meaning {T,F}}.
(S is consistent) if and only if {(there's A which is a system of statements)&(there's a set X in a system A where S doesn't belong to {F}}
Determining coherency through trying to be coherent necessitates coherency as a self referential loop thus is a feedback loop of what and how the observer interprets reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 21, 2020 6:34:10 GMT
May be, but the terms must be determined firstly for the sake of clearance. (Some greats could think they would be interpreted. Composers or artists never thought they wouldn't be interpreted, why to philosophers? Are they pursuing the mono-crystal absolute truth? What about philosophy as the art?) (S is coherent) if and only if {[(S is a system of statements)&({P, Q, R...} belong to S)], and while P has a certain meaning {T,F}, each Q, R... has meaning {T,F}}.
(S is consistent) if and only if {(there's A which is a system of statements)&(there's a set X in a system A where S doesn't belong to {F}}
Determining coherency through trying to be coherent necessitates coherency as a self referential loop thus is a feedback loop of what and how the observer interprets reality. I like your objection, because Quine is the ine who's tried to accomplish such an argument (coherent → coherent). But the evolution might show us the same in logic, for instance: from analogy to induction, from induction to deduction, from deduction → correspondence, correspondence → semantical truth, semantical truth → coherency... (The spiral could differ from it, but the idea – to make our next step better.) And this may lead us to a thought that each new objection can be made only if pre-objection has no such new element(s) as the objection. And you know what – it doesn't seem to be untrue: each our senseful (=mastered, developed) sentence must show our level of the grow or, let's say microevolution (ontogenesis) of ours. Else: our objection wouldn't have senseful (=sense), and its "objectness" (=potential or force to object smth) wouldn't be showing any grow or positive evolution. And so on. |
|
