Author: Warren Tang

I write about linguistics and philosophy. I also write poetry and take photographs.

Deductive reasoning is flawed, therefore we should move on.

Warren Tang1 Comment

Consider this common example for an argument of deductive reasoning.

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

We start with a major (general) premise, move to a minor (particular) premise, then draw a conclusion. Not so difficult. But let’s look at the major premise again.

All men are mortal.

I have met many men. Hundreds, perhaps thousands. But to be sure I have not met all men. Every time I go shopping I see someone I have yet to meet. So what am I basing this statement upon, if it is not based upon observations of the men I have met until now. Where do I find the universal truths? I may ask my wife, children, relatives, friends and co-workers too “have you met any man who isn’t mortal?” and usually (there is always one wisecrack who would claim “yes, I have!”) get a favourable answer (does hearsay count?), but I still have not confirmed that all men are indeed mortal.

What I really have done is enumerated (enumerative induction) all of my experiences with men and come to a probable conclusion that this statement ‘all men are mortal’ is a “truth”. What I really should be saying is that “all the men I have met (and heard about) are mortal”. It would not be truthful to make that major premise. It seems, then, all deductive reasoning is based on an assumption from an experience of high-probability without acknowledging itself to be doing so. There is no true deductive reasoning that can be true as such, only probable conclusions.

Now I am not saying probability are not good. I am saying exactly the opposite, that we only ever have most-probable-answers and likely-to-be-true statements to work with. I am saying, deductive reasoning is flawed, therefore, we should move on.

Conditioned and unconditioned things

Warren Tang1 Comment

saṅkhārā aniccā — “all saṅkhāras (conditioned concepts) are impermanent”
sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā — “all saṅkhāras (conditioned concepts) are unsatisfactory”
sabbe dhammā anattā — “all dharmas (conditioned or unconditioned concepts) are not self”

I have had a tough time translating sanskara (conditioned) and dharma (unconditioned) in this passage. The question is the what is conditioned and what is unconditioned.

Perhaps it is better to translate sanskara as subjective concepts and dharma as objective concepts. As the fourth category of the skandha (personality) sanskara comes after feelings (vedana, pleasant, unpleasant and neutral) perception (samjna, identification of differences).

So this could be summed up as all subjective concepts are temporary and unsatisfactory. And all concepts – subjective and objective – are without substance.

But what does that say about objective concepts? That they are permanent and satisfactory? But since both subject and objective concepts are without substantiality we are left to wonder what we should be placing our trust in.

So, being equally insubstantial, the objective concept (as a concept) can only be a temporary solution as well. Here lies the paradox.

Words and actions

Warren TangLeave a comment

Yes, I have privileged access to my thoughts, words and actions.

But what access do I have of someone else’s thoughts, if it is not only their words and actions. Equally, no one has access to my thoughts except for my own words and actions.

The concepts in one’s head remains in there until it reveals itself in the form of matter as representation to me or as representation to them.

Object Philosophy

Warren TangLeave a comment

As I work through my philosophy it is slowly becoming clear that it is best named Object Philosophy. I had considered “concept philosophy” as well but because my philosophy is about fully engaging with the physical world in a meaningful way it seems more accurate a name than concept philosophy, even though concepts play a huge part in it.

Object Philosophy explains how the ontology of things, and the processes of conceptualisation (concepts) and symbolisation (signifiers) relate, and how many of our fundamental assumptions have been wrong, leading to many of the problems and dead-ends in current philosophy, thinking and way of life.

halfway through the show

Warren Tang2 Comments

forever, we come in
“halfway through the show”.
never to go back
to the beginning of time,
to our parents’ birth or
even to the last minute
or second that had just past.
for that is time’s character.

there is neither reverse to reality,
nor fast forward, but only ‘play’
we must live with it, deal with it,
but also enjoy the show while it’s on.

Alien archeology

Warren TangLeave a comment

In the future, human beings may (will) disappear from the face of the earth and cease to exist in the universe.

“Aliens” may visit earth and see the bones and ruins and surmise in an act of archeology what kind of being created these things. They will see the books and writings (words) but not understand them. For they have no access to the concepts (mind-objects) that no longer exist. What is left are only things and words (as things).

There are no concepts lying around to be found like cultural artefacts. For that is the case. That is the only reality.

The unwilling(ness of) coronavirus

Warren Tang1 Comment

“Back in June I said that everyone is trying to will the coronavirus out of existence. And look where that has gotten us to,” my friend said.

While it is fine to think of everything as objects of the mind one still questions whether it is helpful to do so or not.

Because in the end, objects of the mind of object of reality must be dealt with in terms of being objects of reality, not as objects of the mind.

In short, given that all things are equal to prioritise the mind over matter is more problematic the opposite.

If we are to survive this pandemic we need to take physical as well as mental precautions. We cannot believe that by simply ignoring it or by willing it away, it will go away.

Ice hockey fan (philosophy)

Warren TangLeave a comment

I am a Toronto Maple Leafs fan. Does that make me anti-Oilers, anti-Jets, anti-Bruins? Or does that just make me a Leafs fan?

I am a Buddhist. Does that make me anti-Christian, anti-Islam, anti-Hindu? Or does that just make me a Buddhist?

Do you see where I am going with this?

The “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” thinking turns everyone else into an enemy when there is no evidence for this. And you can never assume that the other person also thinks like you. There is no evidence for that either.