Jeff Riggenbach's review of Veatch’s ~Two Logics~


Roger Bissell

Recommended Posts

[This review was originally published in AA Book News: Fall 1972 no. 9. It is also posted here on OL in the Epistemology section under the topic of existential import---reb]

Subtitled “The Conflict between Classical and Neo-Analytic Philosophy,” Professor Veatch’s most recent book on logic is an analysis of two distinct kinds of knowledge—a knowledge of what things are and why they behave as they do, and a knowledge of how things may be usefully related to each other.

In pursuit of the first kind of knowledge, which is particularly important in philosophy and in the humanities, man needs what Dr. Veatch calls a “what-logic,” a logic which enables him to talk or think about what something is. In pursuit of the second kind of knowledge, which is particularly important in mathematics and the sciences, man needs a “relating-logic,” a logic which enables him to organize reality into coherent, non-contradictory paradigms or models.

In the wave of Neo-Analytic philosophy which has all but dominated Western thought in this century, the principles of Classical realism, which must underlie any what-logic, seem to have been mislaid. “Has it never struck anyone as passing strange,” Dr. Veatch asks in his first chapter, “that the logic of Principia Mathematica, for all of its elaboration, provides no means either for saying or for thinking what anything is?” Rather, he argues, modern symbolic logic treats entities in what might be called a purely contextual way—it deals with them exclusively in terms of the relations in which they can be made to stand to other entities. It is, in short, a relating-logic.

Professor Veatch develops this thesis at length, discussing the meaning in modern symbolic logic of such concepts as causality, induction and deduction. He goes on to identify the metaphysical and epistemological assumptions which underlie the logic of Principia Mathematica and even to speculate on what the world would have to look like if modern symbolic logic were used to describe it.

Two Logics is not only a brilliant presentation of a highly original and provocative thesis; it is also a delight to read, a proof in itself that philosophical style may be at once accurate and urbane, technical and witty. Moreover, certain sections of the book transcend the scope of Professor Veatch’s central argument by providing the kind of intellectual ammunition which may be applied to countless other philosophical disputes. Chief among these is the detailed analysis and refutation of the Analytic/Synthetic dichotomy which occupies almost a quarter of the book. But it is the author’s careful defense of logic as an instrument by means of which we are able to think and talk about what things are that is the book’s primary virtue and most important achievement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you are referring to Whitehead and Russel's -Principia Mathematica-. Is that the case?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you are referring to Whitehead and Russel's -Principia Mathematica-. Is that the case?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Just to clarify, "you" in the present instance is Jeff Riggenbach. I posted his review here.

And yes, he is referring to the Whitehead/Russell work.

I was working on a post on this review, including a quote of your comments on the "existential import" thread, but we had a power outage, and I lost my work. <Grrrr>

So, stay tuned, if you're interested in having a discussion on this.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you are referring to Whitehead and Russel's -Principia Mathematica-. Is that the case?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Just to clarify, "you" in the present instance is Jeff Riggenbach. I posted his review here.

And yes, he is referring to the Whitehead/Russell work.

I was working on a post on this review, including a quote of your comments on the "existential import" thread, but we had a power outage, and I lost my work. <Grrrr>

So, stay tuned, if you're interested in having a discussion on this.

REB

I am.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now