I'm not sure I think thoughts must be "logically coherent", but this may be a terminology dispute, as I take your point about objectivity. My sense is that a contradiction is still a thought, just not a factual, logical, or coherent one. Yet such "thoughts" seem easily accessible to us as humor or metaphor. A great old song lyric goes, "It rained all night the day I left, the weather it was dry. The sun so hot I froze to death; Susanna, don’t you cry."
Certainly, *explanations* must be factual and logical, though. Ultimately, there should be a coherent framework supporting things all the way down to one's axioms. Perhaps it amounts to needing a different word than "thoughts" here.
Thank you for reading and commenting. This is my most controversial argument, but also my favorite to defend.
Thoughts are what is shared between parties, transmitted in the form of language but represent something independent of language. For it to be transmitted, it must be *comprehensible*, as we cannot comprehend terms like "square circle" or a statement like "the cup is red all over and blue all over." We may *interpret* it in a certain way, but that would be to export our subjectivity into the statement to *make* the statement logical.
No thought is transmitted from pure contradictions or sentences that contain them. What does "This sentence is false" say or "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" mean? They cannot represent a thought in mind, not at least without interpreting out the contradictions to give them a logical form. Pure contradictions are undigestible.
You are correct that the most meaningful statements can be contradictions *on their surface*, but that is because they have a deeper truth that they invite the listener/reader to explore (e.g., "there is nothing to fear but fear itself" or "The one thing we have learned from history is that we do not learn from history"). Humor and metaphor are like this.
I make these arguments below (including the ironic nature of comedy).
Are you offering how *you* define thought (in which case, fine) or that said definition is objective (in which case, I'm not persuaded)? How do you label mental content that does not involve logical language? How do you approach a "love/hate" perception?
I use “thought” here to mean anything that can be transmitted to another thinker. They are essentially universally acceptable, for any thinker could “think” these “thoughts”. “Emotions” I take as “subjective thoughts” since while they are mental they cannot be transmitted, they are personal not universilizable. But sentences and images and ideas can be transmitted as “objective thoughts.”
“Propositions” may be a better term and I use it interchangeably with “thoughts”, but the term carries vagueness and baggage, so I view the term “thoughts” sufficient enough for my purposes here. But “thoughts” “ideas” “senses” and “propositions” I take as having the same meaning for my purposes. Just thoughts that anyone in principle could understand through the intellect.
Okay, I'll understand your usage. FWIW, to me, it seems like you are both overly reductive in conflating those things you list in the second paragraph as thoughts but in the first paragraph excluding emotions and non-verbals, both of which in my experience can be effectively communicated between people. Aren't basic emotions — anger, sadness, joy — pretty universal? Doesn't watching joyful people communicate their joy?
I think about all the communication possible with animals — especially dogs. All non-verbal. I have a hard time dismissing these things as not "thoughts" or "ideas" — I think those are broader categories.
Prepositions are a certain kind of thought — a subset of possible thoughts — and we certainly expect those to be coherent and logical (and expressed per the protocols of syntax and word meanings). My sense is that a view that conflates "senses" with "propositions" might be too reductive.
I'll keep that criticism in mind. Emotions are universally understood but are not conveyable. You cannot convey subjective experiences; the best you can do is convey representations of your experience (statements, music, poetry), and those representations would need to be logical and coherent to be understood (not necessarily on their surface as discussed, but they have to convey some definite meaning).
Some decades ago, I had second-story office with a window that looked out over the parking lot for the building. On the first floor was a hair salon I frequented. One day, out the window, I saw the gal who’d been cutting my hair walk from her car to the building. Everything about her posture spoke volumes to me — in that short time I realized she was very depressed. I checked in with her and found out that, yep, something bad had happened.
This and many other similar experiences tell me that emotions are conveyable. Even the emotions of dogs convey themselves.
That said, this still feels like something of a terminology or labeling issue. Perhaps these ideas are too fundamental to lend themselves to easy definition.
From our first discussion on my blog, I got the impression you were an idealist or had idealist leanings. So far, here you seem a realist, so I’m looking forward to where you go with this.
Hey, my nerdness loved it, although the prose is a bit of a speed bump for those of us whose day job is not philosophy. But, I guess the audience you have in mind are more familiar with this kind of prose.
I think I am looking at reason from a very different angle than yours, so I need to reread it to be able to elaborate on what I agree with and what I don't and why.
Thanks for the feedback. Apologies, I should be more conscious of how I communicate my "thoughts". Please don't take any limitation of your understanding of the prose on your part, attribute it to my laziness (writing is a chore for me, and I find writing about ideas that have been explained as a waste of time, so only original ideas are worth writing), but I'm happy to address any questions personally
I'm not sure I think thoughts must be "logically coherent", but this may be a terminology dispute, as I take your point about objectivity. My sense is that a contradiction is still a thought, just not a factual, logical, or coherent one. Yet such "thoughts" seem easily accessible to us as humor or metaphor. A great old song lyric goes, "It rained all night the day I left, the weather it was dry. The sun so hot I froze to death; Susanna, don’t you cry."
Certainly, *explanations* must be factual and logical, though. Ultimately, there should be a coherent framework supporting things all the way down to one's axioms. Perhaps it amounts to needing a different word than "thoughts" here.
Thank you for reading and commenting. This is my most controversial argument, but also my favorite to defend.
Thoughts are what is shared between parties, transmitted in the form of language but represent something independent of language. For it to be transmitted, it must be *comprehensible*, as we cannot comprehend terms like "square circle" or a statement like "the cup is red all over and blue all over." We may *interpret* it in a certain way, but that would be to export our subjectivity into the statement to *make* the statement logical.
No thought is transmitted from pure contradictions or sentences that contain them. What does "This sentence is false" say or "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" mean? They cannot represent a thought in mind, not at least without interpreting out the contradictions to give them a logical form. Pure contradictions are undigestible.
You are correct that the most meaningful statements can be contradictions *on their surface*, but that is because they have a deeper truth that they invite the listener/reader to explore (e.g., "there is nothing to fear but fear itself" or "The one thing we have learned from history is that we do not learn from history"). Humor and metaphor are like this.
I make these arguments below (including the ironic nature of comedy).
https://neonomos.substack.com/p/the-laws-of-thought
https://neonomos.substack.com/p/yes-non-existent-entities-exist-part
https://neonomos.substack.com/p/all-comedy-is-irony
I'll check out those posts when I get a chance.
Are you offering how *you* define thought (in which case, fine) or that said definition is objective (in which case, I'm not persuaded)? How do you label mental content that does not involve logical language? How do you approach a "love/hate" perception?
I use “thought” here to mean anything that can be transmitted to another thinker. They are essentially universally acceptable, for any thinker could “think” these “thoughts”. “Emotions” I take as “subjective thoughts” since while they are mental they cannot be transmitted, they are personal not universilizable. But sentences and images and ideas can be transmitted as “objective thoughts.”
“Propositions” may be a better term and I use it interchangeably with “thoughts”, but the term carries vagueness and baggage, so I view the term “thoughts” sufficient enough for my purposes here. But “thoughts” “ideas” “senses” and “propositions” I take as having the same meaning for my purposes. Just thoughts that anyone in principle could understand through the intellect.
Okay, I'll understand your usage. FWIW, to me, it seems like you are both overly reductive in conflating those things you list in the second paragraph as thoughts but in the first paragraph excluding emotions and non-verbals, both of which in my experience can be effectively communicated between people. Aren't basic emotions — anger, sadness, joy — pretty universal? Doesn't watching joyful people communicate their joy?
I think about all the communication possible with animals — especially dogs. All non-verbal. I have a hard time dismissing these things as not "thoughts" or "ideas" — I think those are broader categories.
Prepositions are a certain kind of thought — a subset of possible thoughts — and we certainly expect those to be coherent and logical (and expressed per the protocols of syntax and word meanings). My sense is that a view that conflates "senses" with "propositions" might be too reductive.
I'll keep that criticism in mind. Emotions are universally understood but are not conveyable. You cannot convey subjective experiences; the best you can do is convey representations of your experience (statements, music, poetry), and those representations would need to be logical and coherent to be understood (not necessarily on their surface as discussed, but they have to convey some definite meaning).
Some decades ago, I had second-story office with a window that looked out over the parking lot for the building. On the first floor was a hair salon I frequented. One day, out the window, I saw the gal who’d been cutting my hair walk from her car to the building. Everything about her posture spoke volumes to me — in that short time I realized she was very depressed. I checked in with her and found out that, yep, something bad had happened.
This and many other similar experiences tell me that emotions are conveyable. Even the emotions of dogs convey themselves.
That said, this still feels like something of a terminology or labeling issue. Perhaps these ideas are too fundamental to lend themselves to easy definition.
From our first discussion on my blog, I got the impression you were an idealist or had idealist leanings. So far, here you seem a realist, so I’m looking forward to where you go with this.
Hey, my nerdness loved it, although the prose is a bit of a speed bump for those of us whose day job is not philosophy. But, I guess the audience you have in mind are more familiar with this kind of prose.
I think I am looking at reason from a very different angle than yours, so I need to reread it to be able to elaborate on what I agree with and what I don't and why.
Thanks for the feedback. Apologies, I should be more conscious of how I communicate my "thoughts". Please don't take any limitation of your understanding of the prose on your part, attribute it to my laziness (writing is a chore for me, and I find writing about ideas that have been explained as a waste of time, so only original ideas are worth writing), but I'm happy to address any questions personally