Analyzing statements is one of the major tasks of philosophy, because it helps us to think clearly and precisely, which is important because we cannot be free or have a democratic society if we have never learned to think clearly.
The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.
Nikola Tesla
This is a question that is not asked very often, but all of us use words words all the time. We have conversations, write blogs, talk on the phone read newspapers, etc.
The meaning of words is important in philosophy. Even if we cannot define exactly what we mean by a word - and we often cannot - we need to be as precise as we can. This includes consciously being aware that we may well be using words that cannot be defined clearly. If we do not take the trouble to do this, we risk living in a language community (of whatever language) that eventually becomes meaningless.
Linguistic analysis:
Linguistic analysis claims that almost all philosophical problems can be dispensed with once their underlying linguistic basis is exposed. In other words, "linguistic analysis claims that if we fail to solve a problem no matter how hard we try, then we are dealing with a false problem, or, more likely, we are dealing with a meaningless set of words." (Rethinking our world, Juta, Philip Higgs&Jane Smith)
The following statements must be true:
- Two and two equals four.
- No bachelor is married.
- A woman is either either pregnant or not pregnant.
We do not have to check whether they are true. Statements that must be true (or false) are said to be true (or false) by definition.
Two British philosophers, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) and A.J. Ayer (1910-1989) focused on three things as means of arriving at truth:
- logic
- linguistic meaning
- verifiable facts
They attempted to 'get to the bottom of reality' by closely analyzing how language worked and by closely analyzing what a 'fact' is.
Logic formalises deductions with rules precise enough to programme a computer to decide if an argument is valid.
For example:
All humans are mortals. Sam is a human. Therefore, Sam is mortal.
To arrive at the basic structure of truth, we can use a process that is facilitated by representing objects and relationships symbolically.
- We could use: h for the set of human; m for the set of mortal creatures and S for Sam.
- We use the symbolic expression x E y to say that object x is a member of category y
- Thus, we represent 'Sam is a human' by S E h
- We use the quantifier # to indicate that all objects satisfy some condition. For example: 'All humans are mortal' can be written as : # x E h ---> x E m . This reads that every x that has the property of being human must also have the property of being mortal.
- Then we restate the syllogism as follows: # x E h ---> x E m; and S E h therefore S E m . This reads that anything that is of the category x where x is a human, h, is also of the category mortal, m . Sam (S) is of the category x, which therefore means that Sam is mortal.
(Rethinking our world, Juta)
Phew, that took me an hour!
Any statement that is true or false by definition can be expressed in the form of symbolic logic.
