Don't take logic too seriously

There are many kinds of logic systems, such as classical logic, modal logic, multi-valued logic, mathematical logic and so on. But no matter what kind of logic, it is synthesized by human beings from innate reason, not by the imagination of language itself.

To use an inappropriate analogy, the inner workings of basic human language and advanced machine language are similar. For example, a simple .java program written in java, the gibberish will be skipped by the program, the logic crash will be judged as a vicious bug, the program will automatically stop, and a machine will pop up to laugh at your nightmare small frame .

Using gorgeous logic does not necessarily write a gorgeous program, it depends on a combination of factors such as architecture and even imagination. But the basic logic is a necessary condition for the program to run. Otherwise, the machine will not only understand what you are talking about, but will even fall into self-destruction because of what you are talking about.

The reason why this analogy is inappropriate is because the person who is the subject of language also thinks as the subject of expression, so compared to machines, humans have a rather abnormal real-time debugging ability. It also means that our language system can tolerate the perverted ability of bugs: for example, the quotation-style teaching from old and stubborn parents, and prove these quotations with a bug - "I have lived longer than you, seen more than you, and thought. It must be more profound and far-sighted than you." However, "living longer" has nothing to do with "the reasonable degree to which thoughts reflect reality". Otherwise, it should not be Einstein who discovered the photoelectric effect, but the centenarian who squatted on a stool and ate steamed sweet potatoes in Changshou Village .

Luckily I don't have such a parent.

Logic is the most basic tool used to test these bullshit, and prove other bullshit. Just like direct sales, the effect of the product is constantly repeated to the believers, and the product that uses flour as bone meal cannot evolve the effect of bone meal . Only tests can prove it. In the same way, logical and valid deductions can prove the validity of language, otherwise only flour that is eaten as bone meal has only the effect of psychological comfort. This kind of vicious bug with inconsistent logic will not cause any party to collapse, but will only let the person who found the bug skip this paragraph, because it doesn't even make sense to inspire the imagination.

Another kind of language is the metaphorical ability that seems to escape from the existence of logic. Most of people's metaphorical ability comes from the associative ability that neuroscience talks about. This seemingly loose ability actually has its inner logic to maintain its operation. For example, an image in L'uomo verde d'alghe in Calvino's Italian fable is a large octopus violent to women. This image is easily associated with the illustrations of Katsushika Hokusai in Eastern culture, but in the West, people before the 19th century could not have the same association. In addition, even esoteric verses are supported by a large number of Buddhist scriptures and ideas behind them. Therefore, metaphors must have reality as the logical bridge of association, otherwise they are just pure self-righteous preaching. If self-righteous preaching is compared with verses based on knowledge background, I am afraid that preachers think too highly of their own illogical "theories". This self-centred metaphor, rather than a scripture or thought-centred metaphor, can be roughly boiled down to a psychological phenomenon called "narcissism." However, since when I say this word, I am afraid that "self-centered" will be misunderstood as "determined", it is better to use it sparingly. Otherwise, I think too highly of myself, thinking that what I have learned is common sense.

In addition, the correct logical form does not mean that the proposition must be meaningful, such as the implication of tautology: A→(BV~B), A implies B or non-B, its logical form is absolutely correct, no matter if A Replacing B with anything is logically correct, but it also does not prove that there is any connection between A and B, even a metaphorical one. This kind of words belong to the meaningless language that the program uses 0.01 seconds to verify the correctness and skip, not even nonsense.

Therefore, logic, as the most basic proof and test tool of language, should not take it too seriously according to the inertial thinking of everyday language: this is the irrationality that language can tolerate.

other crap

I write things that I find fun based on my own ideas and knowledge. It is normal for people who have never studied philosophy to not understand, so I don’t need to feel inferior. But since I didn’t force anyone to read it, I also didn’t modify it according to someone’s understanding level so that this person can read it. duty to understand. If this is seen as pretentious, it can only be that you set the standard of "ordinary" so low that when I speak intuitively, it will cause you to think that I am suspected of showing off.

Let’s adapt a sentence of Osamu Dazai with meaning: I’m sorry for learning too much.