Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!sri-unix!sri-spam!mordor!lll-lcc!pyramid!thirdi!sarge From: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Logic and coercion Message-ID: <69@thirdi.UUCP> Date: Wed, 29-Jul-87 01:19:29 EDT Article-I.D.: thirdi.69 Posted: Wed Jul 29 01:19:29 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 31-Jul-87 01:36:09 EDT References: <58@thirdi.UUCP> <2401@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <66@thirdi.UUCP> <1537@botter.cs.vu.nl> <68@thirdi.UUCP> <1541@botter.cs.vu.nl> Reply-To: sarge@thirdi.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) Distribution: world Organization: Institute for Research in Metapsychology Lines: 66 Keywords: truth knowledge belief absolutes certainty Summary: Still seek an answer to what coercion is. In article <1541@botter.cs.vu.nl> hansw@cs.vu.nl (Hans Weigand) writes: >Consider the sentences: > Please believe me! (Don't believe it!) > *Please know it! (*Don't know it!) >The ungrammaticality of the latter stems from the lack of control >of "knowing". Evidently, this does not apply to the former. > While admittedly, use of "know" in the imperative is rarer that "believe", it is not unheard of. For instance: "Know your multiplication tables by tomorrow!" or "Know ye that He hath come amongst you," etc.. I don't think the difference is all that major. A minor point. >According to Heidegger, logic has its roots in the original Logos >(cf. Heraclitus). This Logos is defined in a rather violent way >("The Logos holds men together not without violence"). Compare >also the view of violence as "ultimate reason". At the >other hand, philosophy (science) has attempted to escape >from violence since the days of Socrates (see in particular the >work of the Frankfurter Schule). I'm going to display my ignorance here, I'm afraid. I find Heidegger rough going, and I'm not at all sure what he means by "the Logos" and whether it has anything to do with logic. My philosophy dictionary gives several definitions for "Logos", the Heracleitean one being something that sounds like "natural law -- that which, in nature, corresponds to reasoning in persons". I'm not sure, though, if this is the meaning you meant to invoke. Nor am I sure what is meant by "violence as ultimate reason". I also don't know what the Frankfurter Schule is. In order to understand and discuss the issue, we need to understand what is being said, and others (especially Americans, who are generally not steeped in phenomenology) probably share my ignorance in this respect. >I think that anybody will agree there is an important practical >difference between the force of brute violence and the force >of logic, or (in general) language. I tend to agree, but what *is* the essential difference, I wonder? >But the relationship >between violence and truth has always been a fundamental and >unresolved problem of philosophy, and it is not likely to be >resolved in this discussion. I have a lot of faith in the notion that fundamental truths are simple and simple to express. I see no reason not to discuss these matters. Practically everythinng that appears in *.philosophy.* is something that is a fundamental unresolved problem of philosophy. >Refusing to accept a logical >argument (not believing it) obviously endangers the communication >possibilities.... An excellent point. It seems to me that communication is endangered in such a case because a person cannot get a clear conception of something that is self- contradictory or otherwise illogical. -- "Absolute knowledge means never having to change your mind." Sarge Gerbode Institute for Research in Metapsychology 950 Guinda St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 UUCP: pyramid!thirdi!sarge