60904@bestweb.
net>
In-Reply-To: <49947C8B.8060904@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic
Date: 2009年2月12日 21:49:28 -0000
Message-ID: <004e01c98d5b$c7f14cf057ドルd3e6d0$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AcmNSos+dR8AW5m0TguXyIUPrRLOVwAD/G0Q
Content-Language: en-gb

John,

CP> I think John was espousing in an earlier set of emails (in

relation to Aristotelian syllogisms), which is that logic is

a formalism for describing the way the world is - or more

grandly, what exists. And that in some way the form of the

logic reflects the structure/nature of the world.

I didn't claim that logic reflects the structure of the world,

but that logic in combination with an ontology can be used to

describe someone's conception of the structure of the world.

Apologies. I may have been a little unclear. My point was intended to be the
well-known one that it is extremely difficult to eradicate ontological
commitment from a form of representation - and that the form of a logic
being used for description is likely to imply some ontological commitment to
the form of what is being described.

And you are right, you did not
explicitly make this point, though hopefully you do not disagree with it.

So, for example, in the case of the syllogism, the form of the syllogism
reflects the transitive nature of the subsumption/subtype relation between
types in the world.

Chris



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx