These days I have been quite sedated - due to the cold too - and have been slowly reading a few university papers on Goedel and related issues (eg Russell and a couple of paradoxes being used in formal logic).
Anyone who is familiar with use of ambiguity in literature will have noticed that in the case of the latter one can build and sustain a much more complicated double-meaning, doubtlessly also due to the fact that a lit story isn't a formal logic system (has no set of known axioms and its syntax is also more intuitive than purpose-driven). That said, any ambiguous sentence which spreads its shadow on a large part of the story can function as a self- referential statement (which is what is used in systems such as Goedel's, with the so-called 'liar paradox' etc).
The first time I came into contact with formal logic-heavy philosophy was in my first year in university, when I picked up the infamous book by return to castle Wittgenstein. At the time I wasn't interested, and hadn't been aware of formal logic anyway (had been reading various ontological philosophers before starting my uni studies). But now I certainly do like how contained formal logic schemes can be, because essentially in cases like Goedel they are used for one specific thing, so you can pile up more tools to make use of by altering them.
In a literary story one can develop a highly intricate web of connections, which he may aspire will have a given effect on the reader. But unlike formal logic, the effect cannot be as full-proof. One example, from Poe:
In the story "The man that was used up", the titular character is very good-looking, but in the end it is revealed that he has been cut to pieces by the american indians, so it is all a show and he is wearing mechanical parts. Poe manages to hide this up until the end. While formal logic tends to use a very specific and limited phrase with inherent ambiguity (eg in the case of Goedel it is a paradox such as the liar: "this sentence is false", leading to the sentence connoting falseness which can cast its shadow on other sentences if the structure of the piece allows it), there is no reason to expect that similar effect cannot be established with a much more complicated ambiguity.
It does make me happy, because I always was of the view that non-formal logic (ie what most people mean when they use the term 'logic'), a larger set of mental relations and calculations, can be used in a formal setting, possibly with good result. I always thought that the full phenomenon of consciousness is usable in math setting, given that math rests on part of human mental qualities.
Note to self: in the repetition of this life, also show more interest to formal logic in your next first year at university
Anyone who is familiar with use of ambiguity in literature will have noticed that in the case of the latter one can build and sustain a much more complicated double-meaning, doubtlessly also due to the fact that a lit story isn't a formal logic system (has no set of known axioms and its syntax is also more intuitive than purpose-driven). That said, any ambiguous sentence which spreads its shadow on a large part of the story can function as a self- referential statement (which is what is used in systems such as Goedel's, with the so-called 'liar paradox' etc).
The first time I came into contact with formal logic-heavy philosophy was in my first year in university, when I picked up the infamous book by return to castle Wittgenstein. At the time I wasn't interested, and hadn't been aware of formal logic anyway (had been reading various ontological philosophers before starting my uni studies). But now I certainly do like how contained formal logic schemes can be, because essentially in cases like Goedel they are used for one specific thing, so you can pile up more tools to make use of by altering them.
In a literary story one can develop a highly intricate web of connections, which he may aspire will have a given effect on the reader. But unlike formal logic, the effect cannot be as full-proof. One example, from Poe:
In the story "The man that was used up", the titular character is very good-looking, but in the end it is revealed that he has been cut to pieces by the american indians, so it is all a show and he is wearing mechanical parts. Poe manages to hide this up until the end. While formal logic tends to use a very specific and limited phrase with inherent ambiguity (eg in the case of Goedel it is a paradox such as the liar: "this sentence is false", leading to the sentence connoting falseness which can cast its shadow on other sentences if the structure of the piece allows it), there is no reason to expect that similar effect cannot be established with a much more complicated ambiguity.
It does make me happy, because I always was of the view that non-formal logic (ie what most people mean when they use the term 'logic'), a larger set of mental relations and calculations, can be used in a formal setting, possibly with good result. I always thought that the full phenomenon of consciousness is usable in math setting, given that math rests on part of human mental qualities.
Note to self: in the repetition of this life, also show more interest to formal logic in your next first year at university
