Skip to main content
7 votes

Who ever argued that natural languages have an exact logic?

I think nobody has seriously argued such a thing. Given how easy it is to formulate semantic paradoxes in natural languages, it would seem to be impossible. Leibniz did some work towards what he ...
Bumble's user avatar
  • 26.4k
7 votes

What is language? Why can I “just understand” it?

I am sorry to read that your mental health is deteriorating, and wonder how it may be related to your question. To my mind, the fact that we are endowed with capacities which we may not be able to ...
Olivier5's user avatar
  • 2,234
6 votes

Are all languages universal?

You're correct in stating that one of the current controversial issues in philosophy is determining to what extent language is in some sense universal. True language certainly, according to ...
J D's user avatar
  • 28.6k
5 votes

Who ever argued that natural languages have an exact logic?

Noam Chomsky posited deep structure to account for apparent differences in languages at the surface of regular usage, such as sentences having the same meaning across slightly different sentences. (I ...
J Kusin's user avatar
  • 2,794
3 votes

Who ever argued that natural languages have an exact logic?

Richard Montague argued quite explicitely in this direction, for example in his work Universal Grammar: There is in my opinion no important theoretical difference between natural languages and the ...
phipsgabler's user avatar
2 votes

Who ever argued that natural languages have an exact logic?

Leaving aside the question of what "exact logic" refers to (you seem to mean the certainties of formal, mathematical logic), your question still hinges upon the meaning or characteristics of ...
Olivier5's user avatar
  • 2,234
2 votes
Accepted

Going against the limits of language

You may be looking for section 119 of Philosophical Investigations:- The results of philosophy are the discovery of some piece of plain nonsense and the bumps that the understanding has got by ...
Ludwig V's user avatar
  • 2,888
2 votes

What is language? Why can I “just understand” it?

Language is a tool developed to communicate sensory information. Language consists of combination of signs of the six senses ,that is , visual signs, verbal signs, auditory signs, touch signs , mental ...
SacrificialEquation's user avatar
2 votes

What are all the uses of the word 'reality', that is, what does 'reality' mean?

What has any effect is real. Falsehoods, delusions, illusions, abstract concepts, the hypothetical have an effect above nothing. Therefore, they are real. Real by at least their effect. Falsehoods and ...
retrospace's user avatar
2 votes

Are all languages universal?

Are all languages universal? The universal feature that all languages possess is the ability to pass information between entities. It's typically (but not limited to) communication between living ...
Idiosyncratic Soul's user avatar
1 vote

What is language? Why can I “just understand” it?

Language as a skill There is a lot to go into here, but the first thing I would remark is that language is a taught skill. You spent two or three years becoming conversational in it enough to advocate ...
CR Drost's user avatar
  • 187
1 vote

What is language? Why can I “just understand” it?

I just want to know why I can understand language and use it so easily to communicate to other human creatures without even trying. The only reason I can understand language is because I learned it ...
Simon Crase's user avatar
1 vote

The relationship between logical systems and natural language semantics

You are asking if there is some sort of methodology applied to natural language that resembles that of the logician, mainly by building an abstract, symbolic system for examining the structure of ...
J D's user avatar
  • 28.6k
1 vote

What is the logic of the coordinating conjunction BUT?

If you had no idea of what the word "but" means and would just identify it as a conjunction, given that it rests between 2 propositions and look at the resulting truth table then "A BUT ...
haxor789's user avatar
  • 6,413
1 vote
Accepted

Is disjunction pointless in intuitionistic logic?

Intuitionism has a verificationist semantics. The point of a disjunction, like any connective, is that it tells you how to verify it. You want to verify φ ∨ ψ? Well then verify φ or verify ψ. Those ...
Bumble's user avatar
  • 26.4k

Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible