1

What is the teleology of logic? Every body of knowledge has to have a teleology for which it's designed. The body of knowledge in logic doesn't clearly have any teleology or any purpose to which it has been designed. Whether it is mechanization of language calculations or just formalizing language, what use is symbolic logic meant to have eventually?

I was reading Modal Logic and all the axioms with the manipulation of symbols made me think, what does all this really amount to? Will there be another Charles Babbage who would make use of all these axioms and logic systems? Why build logic systems by adding more and more axioms? Why can't there be a single Logic system rather than this progressive increase in systems by adding axioms to previous systems? Why are deontic logic systems constructed? What benefit will philosophers or scientists accrue from them? There are many such questions that occupy my mind.

Conifold
  • 42,225
  • 4
  • 92
  • 180
user43163
  • 47
  • 3
  • 4
    "Every body of knowledge has to have a teleology for which it's designed. " WHY ? – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Nov 24 '19 at 14:42
  • 1
    No teleology at all. It is the study of deductive reasoning, today mainly applied to mathematical reasoning through the modern form of formal logic: mathematical logic. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Nov 24 '19 at 14:43
  • What does an answer to this question look like to you? (For instance, would the idea be relevant that one goal of logic is clearer, more consistent and more coherent thinking and speaking?) —It might also help to share what you might have been reading or studying that sparked this question, or made it interesting/important from a philosophical perspective to you – Joseph Weissman Nov 24 '19 at 14:44
  • Welcome to SE Philosophy! Thanks for your contribution. Please take a quick moment to take the [tour](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/tour) or find [help](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/help). You can perform [searches here](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/search) or seek additional clarification at the [meta site](https://philosophy.meta.stackexchange.com/). Don't forget, when someone has answered your question, you can click on the checkmark to reward the user! – J D Nov 24 '19 at 15:01
  • I think I know what you are asking. In an important sense teleology is gone, it is an historical artifact. But what you are speaking of seems more to me like Sociology of Knowledge study of ideology (broadly construed). For instance, what is really going on with all this “logic talk” and so on, what is the net effect, what is the philosophical “big move”? The problem is Sociology of Knowledge is almost dead today. It probably should not be dead, it may wake up again. – Gordon Nov 24 '19 at 16:14
  • You can look at it also as science “won the day”. Now empiricism is a patchwork, it is not a satisfying narrative. And philosophy with all this logic was going to become a handmaiden to science, since science won the day. Even some logicians did not go this far, and still insisted on a place for purely philosophical logic. But some like Mario Binge say just move it all into mathematics, mathematical logic. – Gordon Nov 24 '19 at 16:23
  • I was reading Modal Logic and all the axioms with the manipulation of symbols made me think what does all this really amount to? Will there be another Charles Babbage who would make use of all these talks of axioms and Logic systems? Why build Logic systems by adding more and more axioms? Why can't there be a single Logic system rather than this progressive increase of systems by addition of axioms to the previous system? Why do Deontological Logic systems exist? What benefit will the philosophers or scientists accrue from them? There are many such questions that occupy my mind making progress – user43163 Nov 24 '19 at 16:33
  • 1
    You are in the right track imo. Your intuition is good. The fact-value dichotomy came out of logical positivism. You may want to read Hilary Putnam’s book on the subject. Here is a video with Putnam discussing the problem. I apologize to other members that I keep posting this video. If this video means nothing to you now, it think it will one day as you continue to pursue your thoughts. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oLJfEVu3kbY – Gordon Nov 24 '19 at 16:49
  • 1
    "I was reading Modal Logic and all the axioms with the manipulation of symbols made me think what does all this really amount to? Will there be another Charles Babbage who would make use of all these talks of axioms and Logic systems?" Exactly; see e.g. [this post](https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/23929/what-are-the-practical-applications-of-modal-logic). See also [Dynamic logic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_logic_(modal_logic)) : "an extension of modal logic originally intended for reasoning about computer programs". – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Nov 25 '19 at 12:04
  • All the talks about uses of Modal Logic in computers is just way above me at this moment. I feel, I've just started on the journey of Modal Logic and I started gaining such intuitions along the path that any foreward movement was becoming increasingly jarring without having understood the relevance of Modal Logic in the first place. Thus, now having known the relevance of Modal Logic in actuality, I can move forward with my study, as I feel it was an itch I badly wanted to scratch. After having known about its relevance, I can get busy learning Modal Logic, keeping uses for later. – user43163 Nov 25 '19 at 17:01

0 Answers0