Eric asked:

I'm inclined to believe that logical languages are definitionally true. Yet, I still perplex. Some think that
logic is the analysis of the propositions and their implications, and others think that logic is a study
concerned with things and their relations, and still others think logic is a cognitive model employed to
increase consistency within the system of knowledge per se. I'm not sure if this is much of a
difference. Meaning that, although the thing and the symbol representing the thing are different, we
only speak of one and the same. My question may or may not have an absolute answer, but I am just
searching for one more well-developed then my own — I am only an undergraduate philosophy
student.

My questions are: What are desirable attributes of logical languages? i.e. provability power,
consistency, strong or weak entailment rules, few assumptions and/ or definitions, etc.

Also, If no logical system can prove or speak of itself and meta-languages are needed to do so, are
the relationships between things or propositions (or both) representative of the nature of reality or is
all that can be hoped for definitional truths like '2+2=4' or 'All men are mortal'?

============

I'll say at the outset: this is not really my area of expertise, but I am interested in some small and
specialized aspects of the field of logic and analytic philosophy, so I'll say a bit on this question.

Now, as far as logic goes, there are people who hold a) that logic involves only propositions and their
implications, some who hold that b) logic is concerned with things and their relations, and others who
maintain that c) logic is a cognitively-based and derived model. The first two may not be mutually
exclusive, depending on your metaphysics. If you believe that the world is ultimately comprised of
some sort of "atoms", in a very general sense of that term, and that they interact and interrelate
through rules or laws, then you can hold both a) and b) above. In order to hold all three, however, it is
necessary that one believe, in addition, that the mind is describable as (indeed, equivalent to) a
Turing machine (to put it rather baldly). These are extremely contentious issues, and there are and
have been enormous debates around all of them. My own tendency is decidedly nontraditional; I think
that the world is not(ultimately) comprised of atoms, and in addition I do notthink that the mind is
Turing-equivalent. But I am nonetheless an empirically-oriented materialist. A nasty position to hold,
I'll tell you.

I'm not even sure what you mean by "logical language". According to people like, say, Chomsky and
even Pincker, and those of similar bent, all languages are "logical" in the sense that they all consist of
a finite set of elements operated on by a finite set of rules. I do not agree with this interpretation, but
that puts me in a distinct minority. So what "desirable" means is up for grabs, depending on what you
want out of a language. You want ease of translation? Ease of computability? Ease of metaphorical
expression? Ease of application to some particular area, like mathematics or logic? All those
requirements might impose different restrictions, and result in different languages.

Are the relationships between things and propositions representative of the nature of reality? I'm
tempted to be flippant... what do I or anyone know about the nature of reality and its relation to
language? That question is one that people have been contemplating for... oh... 3000—5000 years,
I'd say offhand. At the least. It's great that you're thinking about all this, but you've just jumped, as far
as I can tell, head first into an issue that has been around forever, and has been hotlydebated for
about the last 200—300 years.

If you really want to even begin to understand howto address these questions, much less actually
address them, you need to read, read, read. And read. I mean, I don't want to discourage original
thought... but, you know, it's hardto have an original thought (i.e., one that someone else hasn't had)
in this area. Why not take advantage of others' thinking? After all, that's what you'dwant, isn't it?

I am notgoing to suggest a reading list. Anyreading list, anyset of intro courses, especially
analytically oriented, will get you into this area. If you really want hard-core stuff, look at Alonzo
Church, but he's not easy; Turing and Kleene, among others, were his pupils. If you specifically want
language/ thought relationships... well, I'd really recommend starting with Kant before you get into
modern analytics. Then there are the empirically-oriented fields of linguistics, psycholinguistics and
cognition, not to mention various aspects of computer programming. Have fun.

Steven Ravett Brown