Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 22:49:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: More on Modernism, Reason and Myth


On Tue, 9 Apr 1996 LeoCasey-AT-aol.com wrote:

> Not really. I thought you might concede that I am not launching an attack
> upon logic and reason in general, as you originally asserted, just a critique
> of a particular conception of it.

I'll accept that an attack on reason as such wasn't your intent. Whether
you made one anyway, I'm still not sure.
> 
> Leo:
> ------
> If I am not mistaken, Justin is saying that I use the term 'logic' too
> broadly, as synonymous with reasoning in general, and this is not the way it
> is used within academic philosophy, but he concurs with my substantive point
> that inductive arguments and analogies are essential parts of reasoning. He

Yes.

> technical use of the term. I can't help wondering, however, of the utility of
> work in such a narrowly framed conception of logic; it sounds an awful lot
> like (if I may be forgiven an analogy which can not be empirically tested)
> the much maligned lit crit papers on the feminine phallus.

Well, outside of artificial intelligence and computer programming, formal
logic has no relevance to life whatsoever, just like the rest of
mathematics. The difference between it and the lit crit stuff is that it
is rigorously reasoned knowledge, not idle academic babble. 

Btw I was also trained as a polutical theorist, but that was after I
finished my training in analytical philosophy of science, including
classes in math logic and advanced physics. 

--Justin 




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---