Truth,Experience,Language,Logic

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Thu, 1 May 1997, Srinivas Sista wrote:

> Disclaimer: The following questions are only meant to engender enquiry.
>
> Now how are you going to prove that?
> Where did you infer that from?

In the 19th century people were confident they would soon be able to
explain the foundations of logic logically.  By the early decades of the
20th century, it had become apparent that in fact this couldn't be done.
Any logical system depends on certain postulates which can only be proven
outside that system.

> Or is it your definition of truth? If it is somebody else's definition,
> what made you accept that?

It is the definition of truth which I accept.  It is the definition
everyone else accepts.  (You'll notice this discussion is occurring
entirely on the theoretical plane.  There isn't one single solitary
person certainly not on this list who doesn't use language and logic no
matter what they may protest.)

> What is the status of a truth that is validated
> only through language and logic and not otherwise?

How else could it be validated?  Under what circumstances?

> How sure are you that
> language and logic are not a result of your being drunk or feverish or
> any number of other things? Why are the chirpings of birds unintelligible,
> whereas the blabbering of humans suddenly acquire enormous significance?
> Why are patterns of grass/leaves meaningless whereas scribblings of humans
> carry lot of meaning?

Because logic and language is used by every single other person I've ever
come across (some more successfully than others but that's another
matter.) Thus it isn't an aberrant state.  Even animals are capable of
this in a very limited way.  I have a cat called Soneri.  She has learnt
that the approach of a red car (amusingly enough a Toyota Corolla :-)
signifies the imminent arrival of food and that she should go and stand
outside the door.  And while I can't claim to understand cat "language" I
can understand some of what she is trying to convey to me (mainly
"feed me", "let me in", "let me out", and "go away" :-) simply through
much observation.  The so-called unintelligibility is more due to lack of
observational data than a lack of meaning.

> How broad is this truth which you are formulating, if
> it is only objective and constant?
>

That's quite a big only you put in there.  It is a very big deal to be
objective and constant.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas [jaldhar at braincells.com]   And the men .-_|\ who hold
Consolidated Braincells Inc.                          /     \
http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/ -)~~~~~~~~  Perth->*.--._/  o-
"Witty quote" - Dead Guy   /\/\/\ _ _ ___ _  _ Amboy       v      McQ!