[PREV - LINGUISTIC_LOGIC]    [TOP]

LOGICAL_LANGUAGE

                                             January 5, 2019

 Bertrand Russell on the
 power of a logical language:                       Russell also speaks in
                                                    praise of the utilty
 From Bertrand Russell's                            of linguistic logical
 "The Philosophy of                                 imperfections.
 Logical Atomism" (1918):
                                                        LINGUISTIC_LOGIC
 "I propose now to consider what sort of language a
 logically perfect language would be. In a logically      Here he tries the
 perfect language the words in a proposition would        opposite tack.
 correspond one by one with the components of the
 corresponding fact, with the exception of such           (If you think like
 words as 'or', 'not', 'if', 'then', which have a         Russell, examining
 different function. In a logically perfect               A and Not A is
 language, there will be one word and no more for         roughly equivalent:
 every simple object, and everything that is not          if you can prove
 simple will be expressed by a combination of words,      whether one is true
 by a combination derived, of course, from the words      you know whether the
 for the simple things that enter in, one word for        other is true.)
 each simple component. A language of that sort will
 be completely analytic, and will show at a glance
 the logical structure of the facts asserted or
 denied."

And that, back in 1918, is a nice
statement of the grand dream of the
artificial human language.                 BABEL-17



 Russell continues:

 "The language which is set forth in Principia
 Mathematica is intended to be a language of
 that sort. It is a language which has only
 syntax and no vocabulary whatsoever.  Barring
 the omission of a vocabulary I maintain that
 it is quite a nice language. It aims at being
 the sort of a language that, if you add a
 vocabulary, would be a logically perfect
 language. Actual languages are not logically
 perfect in this sense, and they cannot
 possibly be, if they are to serve the purposes
 of daily life."


 He expands on the reasons, stating that it
 would be "intolerably prolix" (which is, I         I'm not so sure about
 think a very good point), but also repeating       that claim--
 his claim that the meanings of terms would
 have to be so individually customized that               LINGUISTIC_LOGIC
 it would be a set of private languages.
                                                    This might reflect
                                                    Russell's experience with
                                                    the "language" of Principia
                                                    Mathematica, which everyone
                                                    respects but very, very few
                                                    have been willing to learn.


 "Altogether you would find that it would be a very
 inconvenient language indeed. That is one reason why
 logic is so very backward as a science, because the
 needs of logic are so extraordinarily different from
 the needs of daily life. One wants a language in
 both, and unfortunately it is logic that has to give
 way, not daily life."

    Try telling that to a Python programmer.

                                                  THE_PERL_AFFAIR


  From Bertrand Russell's introduction to Wittgenstein's
  "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus":

     "We here touch one instance of Wittgenstein’s
     fundamental thesis, that it is impossible to say
     anything about the world as a whole, and that
     whatever can be said has to be about bounded portions
     of the world. This view may have been originally
     suggested by notation, and if so, that is much in its
     favour, for a good notation has a subtlety and
     suggestiveness which at times make it seem almost
     like a live teacher. Notational irregularities are
     often the first sign of philosophical errors, and a
     perfect notation would be a substitute for thought."


--------
[NEXT - CERTAINTY]