The more I stir this around, the muddier the water becomes. Initially, I had all sorts of analogues to low-level formatting, Turing Machines, shell accounts and such to try and make a point, but it turns out that was all really unsatisfactory for what I was trying to convey. So here's the basics:
I think there is a level of logic below what we normally think of as systematic logic (formal or informal) when we hear the word. A more fundamental logic that without it it would be impossible to form any thing resembling a coherent thought at all. This level of logic is absolutely essential. It's more instinctual, but that's not quite the right word either, because it is a step above that. It's more akin to that level of logic you described Adam an Eve as having prior to acquiring the knowledge of good and evil, but I can't think of a logical way to differentiate it. Without it, though, concepts like "I feel that it is false", "God told me it is false" or "the people have voted that it is false" would have no bearing and be absolutely vacuous. In fact, concepts couldn't even exist at all.
Surely philosophers have thought about this, but I haven't seen it specifically addressed by anyone. That leads me to believe that I am somehow overlooking something exceedingly simple and blatantly obvious.
|