This is where philosophers get their reputation

Russell: Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy

I should have a rudimentary understanding of the significance of the word "the" after our discussion in class today, so I'll be happy to explain later.

 

Very true.

What isn't clear is whether there is someone studying logic that isn't a nerd. It may be the case that all people who successfully study logic are now nerds.

 

Okay, sorry to hold you guys: I know you were all waiting with bated breath. Here's my current understanding:

So then, "the" is a signifier that makes a claim about an object's existence. In essence, I am saying there exists an object, and it is unique in some regard, specifically in the context I am presenting it. For example, if I say "the man walked to the pier" then in this context I am highlighting the uniqueness of this particular man, probably (in this case) because he either did something and we are now tracking him after the fact, or because something in particular will happen to this man.

Unfortunately, our discussion today was purely focused on using "the" as being an implicit claim of both existence and uniqueness. The professor used the phrase "The present King of France is bald" and stated that it was false. By the fact that either a claim is true or its negation is (the law of excluded middle), it must be true that the present King of France is not bald. Well, that's not true either. What we want to say is that the present King of France just doesn't exist. For that, we have to unpack the statement logically, and realize that the statement actually contains two additional statements: the King of France exists, and there is only one King of France. Thus we circumvent the apparent paradox by realizing that "the present King of France doesn't exist" is a negation of the original statement.

[MENTION=442]arbygil[/MENTION]: I'm sure this leaves you wanting, as I have hardly said anything about the essence of the word "the", but that's all I have learned on the issue.

 

I actually talked with someone afterwards about the issue, and we basically ended up talking about the fact that all we convey in language is just concepts that represent how we see the world, and that we can't really fully understand anything beyond well defined ideas like mathematical theorems. If you say you understand what a cat is, you've basically said that you've collected enough data regarding cats that you know what to expect from them. But it's still just a working approximation, and insofar as I hold on to the idea I "know" what a cat is, I'll be jarred when I learn something new about cats that fails to meet my expectations.

I suppose this would be clearer if I refer to the idea that we can think of someone as "a nice person" and not be able to accept when that person does something bad. But really, the concept of "nice" is just an approximation that allows us to predict someone's behavior, and all that really exists are our judgments about that person's past actions. Once we go beyond the level of sensory details, we must realize that we've entered into the world of concepts and interpretations. Not that conceptualization is bad, but rather that conceptualizations are approximations. This is, in essence, what language is.

 

Interesting question. I would say that conceptual thinking has aided us tremendously technologically speaking, but that it gets in the way emotionally and spiritually. I'd say it's a tool that we need to learn to set aside when it isn't necessary.