Let me recap what I am trying to say in these blogs, in the light of informal comments that it is rather unintelligible.
Except when one is playing solitaire of sorts or when when he/she is fooling around with others he/she is playing a formal game or is in a situation needing the notion of a Formal system.
As a matter of fact as I am writing this blog, I am playing a formal game and I leave it to the reader to figure out the rules of the game.
You might say blogging is about ranting and raving not serious thinking. In that case stuff like if x = blogging implies ranting (proposition that )
y = ranting is not serious .
z = blogging is not serious.
x
y
--
z
should be taboo in a blog.
Our friends in philosophy and those familiar with elementary logic will claim that propositions x and y imply z or that z can be deduced from x and y (Others might not).
This is a formal logic way of saying blogging is not serious because blogging is ranting.
Now you might say that feels too much to gulp. Well if you felt that way you are in right company.
We are led by tradition to believe that it is the only way to do business (of reasoning)
Formal Logic I claim is not the only way to do business. More of it in another post.
Well, all I am saying is that I am writing this blog to advocate agreement on the rules of the game before we start playing. I guess several will know all the rules of all the games. Great! we'll see how far the know it alls are true.
Some of you who might be familiar with standards like ISO9000 will recognise that FormalSystem borrows (or copies if you are uncharitable) from such standards.
To the extent that I am trying to sell you the notion of Formal system I have to use Communication Act Theory instead of Speech Act Theory.
We'll take a look 'Communication Act Theory' at this in another post.
In this post I am advocating a new way of doing philosophy by casting it in the mold of a FormalSystem.
Summary of Recap
Whenever two or more minds interact to accomplish a shared goal FormalSystem is the way to go.
Aside: when I started this blog I knew that model building or Theory building is an abstraction
and that all abstraction strips some content. But I hadn't known what Whitehead had said on the
subject.
Alfred North Whitehead, Modes of Thought:
"The topic of every science is an abstraction from the full concrete happenings of nature. But
every abstraction neglects the influx of the factors omitted into the factors retained."
Question: Does thinking have anything with to do with language?
we'll take a look at this in another post.
2.Philosophy as a FormalSystem
At the outset let me clarify that of necessity this is more in the nature of exploring a new path
than that it is an express highway (Formal logic claims it is).
we examine each of the requirements of a FormalSystem
2.1 An organised body of knowledge
Philosophers thrive on knowledge gathered from other sources and of course loads of common sense and a good dose of 'critical analysis'. There is no lack body of knowledge.
Is it well organised?we will look at this as we look at the fine print.
2.2 Domain specific terms and semantics
Lots of confusion in this area in spite of a century of analytical philosophy.
2.3 Procedures for working with/on knowledge
The only accepted and well known method is Formal logic and a set of Fallacies to be avoided.
There are other methods in the writings of individual philosophers, But there is no comprehensive list which says this is the most upto date list of methods which students,thinkers and professionals can employ to further the goals(what are these?). You apprentice to the various
philosophers and do your bit.
To me the present state is rather medieval.
2.4 A set of needs the system addresses
This does not seem to be stated explicitly or even acknowledged as being relevant to the enterprise (of philosophy).
As far as I am concerned the entire humanity is a customer of the enterprise and we should strive to meet the customer needs, especially in Areas where other human endeavours (science for example) cannot fulfill the customer needs.
What's all this stuff about customers needs?
Philosophy is not a commercial outfit.True. But one's place in society depends on how useful he/she is to the community. If you are not sensitive to the needs of the community, How can you be useful to others?(assuming your activities are also to help the community apart from any intellectual satisfaction)
More on the needs in specific domains of philosophy in subsequent posts.
2.5 A set of goals the system aims to meet
In general the goal of the philosophy enterprise from my point of view should be to -Increase the societal value ( value in the sense of money, GDP, feel good,quality of
life..)
- By developing a well knit (in the sense of understanding the interrelations ships) body of
knowledge integrating all human knowledge. - By making the implicit explicit in the sense of questioning belief system ( standard practice)
- By building knowledge bases, models and theories to address the needs.
Now if that sounds vague here's an example. Recall the question 'Does thinking have anything with to do with language?
'Let us suppose that answer is a no. and this comes as a majority vote from philosopher community.
We will further assume that the philosopher community is as influential as say the Medical
council, bar council,Engineering council..If the proposition 'thinking has nothing with to do with language' is regarded as true by appeal to Authority (of the philosopher community) then needless quarrels of language chauvinists everywhere can be settled leading to a better society.
You might say no this is not for philosophers this is for cognitive science.
I would rate it as secondary evidence -the cognitive science approaches.
You might say How can the contribution of one community be assessed?Some clever statistician could probably come out with an appropriate multi factorial design of experiments.
More on the goals in specific domains of philosophy in subsequent posts.
2.6 Limitations of the system If your problem's are getting solved elsewhere to your satisfaction those are not in the domain of philosophy. When all else fails take a look here.
More on this at appropriate places.
No comments:
Post a Comment