Has Any Philosophical Problem Been Solved? The case of psychologism in logic.

For Cyrus

...............

A reader is skeptical of my solubility skepticism. He adduces the problem of psychologism in logic which, he suggests, has been definitively settled in favor of the anti-psychologizers.  Here, then, is a problem that supposedly has been solved. There is progress in philosophy after all. My reader is joined by Robert Spaemann who, in his Persons, tr. O'Donovan, Oxford 2006, writes:

The refutation of psychologism in logic, with which Husserl and Frege are associated, is among the very few philosophical achievements that have brought an existing debate to a decisive close. (54)

Would that it were so! But alas it is not.  The existing debate rages on. Having been brought up on Husserl, and influenced by Frege, I was for a long time an opponent of psychologism in logic, and thought the issue resolved. Time to revaluate! Here is a post from August 2004 from my first blog:

ARE THE LAWS OF LOGIC EMPIRICAL GENERALIZATIONS?

Someone on a discussion list recently resurrected the old idea of John Stuart Mill and others that the laws of logic are empirical generalizations from what we do and do not perceive. Thus we never perceive rain and its absence in the same place and at the same time. The temptation is to construe such logic laws as the Law of Non-Contradiction -- ~(p & ~p) -- as generalizations from psychological facts like these. If this is right, then logical laws lack the a priori character and epistemic ‘dignity’ that some of us are wont to see in them. They rest on psychological facts that might have been otherwise.

But now consider this reductio ad absurdum:

1. The laws of logic are empirical generalizations. (Assumption for reductio)
2. Empirical generalizations, if true, are merely contingently true. (By definition of ‘empirical generalization’: empirical generalizations record what happens to be the case, but might not have been the case.) Therefore,
3. The laws of logic, if true, are merely contingently true. (From 1 and 2)
4. If proposition p is contingently true, then it is possible that p be false. (Def. of ‘contingently true.’)Therefore,
5. The laws of logic, if true, are possibly false. (From 3 and 4)Therefore,
6. LNC is possibly false: there are logically possible worlds in which ‘p&~p’ is true. (From 5 and the fact that LNC is a law of logic.)
7. But (6) is absurd (self-contradictory): it amounts to saying that it is logically possible that the very criterion of logical possibility, namely LNC, be false. Corollary: if laws of logic were empirical generalizations, we would be incapable of defining ‘empirical generalization’: this definition requires the notion of what is the case but (logically) might not have been the case.

The above is a good, but not a compelling, argument. For it presupposes the distinction between necessary and contingent propositions.  Is that distinction objectively self-evident? Martin Kusch, Psychologism, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Massey also invokes the stronger form of the claim that logical truths are not necessary (1991, 188). According to this criticism, the very notion of necessity which is presupposed in calling logical laws ‘necessary truths’, is beset with difficulties. The argument leading to this conclusion was developed in a series of well-known papers by Quine. Quine argued that the notions of analyticity, necessity and aprioricity stand or fall together and that the traditional distinction between analytic and synthetic truths is relative rather than absolute. But once this distinction becomes relative, necessity and aprioricity go by the board (Quine 1951, Engel 1991, 268–70). Massey summarises the implications of Quine’s arguments succinctly:

If we reject the concept of necessity … we also forego the concept of contingency. If it makes no sense to say that the truths of mathematics are necessary, it makes no better sense to say that those of psychology or any other so-called empirical science are contingent. But if we may not employ necessity and contingency to demarcate the deliverances of the empirical sciences from those of the formal sciences, how are we to distinguish them in any philosophically interesting way? (1991, 188).

Now I don't much cotton to Quine, but he is no slouch of a logician!  And he is certainly a looming presence in 20th century American philosophy.  So on the basis of his dissent alone, we ought to agree that the psychologism problem has not been solved.   I am assuming that a problem hasn't been solved unless it has been solved to the satisfaction of all competent practitioners.  It hasn't been solved until the debate about it has been brought to a decisive close. Kusch gives several reasons in addition to the one cited above why this is not the case with respect to the psychologism debate. 

Comments

[Cairo Ayres Costa]

Hi!

Do you think a normal person would ever be able to educate himself in philosophy and theology without going to a university? In the same level as you, professor?. I'm a young catholic converted interest in studying aristotelian/thomistic philosophy. I want people to see that my faith isn't irrational, it is the truth...

[BV]

Cairo,

I would say so if you are dedicated and hard-working. The Internet offers many resources for independent study and it's free! Since you are a young Catholic convert, I especially recommend the work of Edward Feser. He has written many books in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition that will prove helpful and he has an outstanding blog.https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/

There are other Catholic bloggers online, but Dr. Feser is the best for your needs.

Best wishes,

BV

[Cairo Ayres Costa]

Thank you for your answer!!!

[Elliott]

It has been said that the logical version of the problem of evil has been resolved, but that the probabilistic version of the problem is a live issue.

[Hector]

Dear Cairo,

Studying philosophy at university is not necessarily an advantage! I took two years of philosophy as a 'minor' at a very reputable university in Britain and it was awful - generally poor quality lectures, poor tutorials, and the required reading and focus of the courses were heavily contemporary (contemporary secondary texts were almost always given priority over those few historically major texts we were required to read - in fact, I read more of the latter studying English literature!). Quite soul-destroying unless you really want to spend weeks discussing things like Peter Singer's ethics (and learn why he thinks it's okay to kill disabled infants), Dennett and the Churchlands (who think the mind doesn't exist), and read badly written academic philosophy papers before you've tackled the giants of the field. And don't expect a fair hearing as a theist, unless you are lucky.

Thankfully my interest survived that. I have learned far more from blogs like this one and Dr Feser's, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (which is online), the very useful 'History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps' podcast series by Peter Adamson (https://historyofphilosophy.net/ ), and by just carefully reading the classic texts from Plato to Searle, than I ever learned at university. Simon Blackburn's book The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy is also really useful when you are starting out. Now aged 32 I have a pretty good grasp of the subject historically (though I still have big gaps in my reading such as Hegel) and can understand fairly well some pretty arcane stuff like Levinas. And I have gained a pretty good grounding in why I believe what I believe (I'm a theist myself). I've achieved that even though philosophy is only one of my secondary interests, along with history, politics, and anthropology, my primary interests being literature, music, film and art. So if I can get to that stage in twelve years or so (and I'm not a fast reader), I'm sure someone dedicated primarily to philosophy can do a great deal better than I have!

The other downside of university is that there are a lot of distractions and most of your fellow students will not be that interested in studying at all. The level of debate in class is likely to be poor at undergrad level. Half the students or more won't have read the required texts at all. The best thing about university, at least a good one, is you get access to a good library, and you will probably meet two or three really interesting and intelligent people whom you can discuss things with. However, the internet used intelligently can also go some way towards answering those needs.

Interested people on the internet are often much more helpful than most university staff. They are often generous with their time and happy to point you towards what to read and study. If you have difficulties with something, at the very least you could see what the regular commentors at Ed Feser's blog say, as most of them have a good handle on A/T metaphysics and are lively and enthusiastic debaters.

Also, try and befriend a student or academic who has JSTOR access - otherwise this is prohibitively expensive - it gives you online access to most philosophy journals. Someone with access can download what you want to read as a pdf and send it to you. If you can't find books that are out of print and don't have good library access, you'd be surprised what you can find as pdfs online also.

Hope this is helpful and encouraging.

[Hector]

Dear Dr Vallicella,

You may recall that Kolakowski in his book on Husserl also argues that the debate on psychologism is not resolved. He claims Piaget has a psychological conception of logic which resists Husserl's criticisms. I can't be alone in wishing he discussed this in a little more depth! 

[BV]

Hector,

Right you are about Kolakowski. I should have mentioned him earlier.

And thank you very much for responding to Cairo. Very kind of you. And I can relate to your statement.

>>The other downside of university is that there are a lot of distractions and most of your fellow students will not be that interested in studying at all. The level of debate in class is likely to be poor at undergrad level. Half the students or more won't have read the required texts at all. <<

More than half! I came to the conclusion that teaching philosophy at a so-called university is an absurd activity and so quit a tenured position in 1991 -- and that was before the PeeCee insanity was in full flower as it is now. The Brits are no better than the Amis -- worse, actually. It sickens me that the English who came up with the great ideas without which there would have been no America have lost the will to defend their culture.

By the way you can use JSTOR for free w/o academic affiliation. Go here: https://support.jstor.org/hc/en-us/articles/115004760028-How-to-register-get-free-access-to-content

[Hector]

Dr Vallicella,

If Cairo doesn't see my comment, and you think it would be useful to him, perhaps you could email it to him if you have his address and it's not too much trouble. Thanks!

I think the situation is worse in Britain too - I generally try and ignore our seemingly terminal decline and focus on the relatively few positive things that remain. I try to defend my culture, surely one the very greatest achievements of mankind, in my own small way, and hope at least to be able to make a small contribution to it. But it is hard to feel optimistic about the wider situation here.

Re JSTOR - oops, silly me. I had it in my head that the 'free usage' for individuals was much more restricted than that - perhaps it was when I was a student. Anyway, even better for all of us!

[BV]

Hector,

I don't have Cairo's e-mail address.

A part-cause of the Decline of the West is that we have been weakened by our own virtues, toleration chiefly. We have become so tolerant that we tolerate the barbarians who would replace us. They have no respect for our culture and no intention of assimilating. The problem is exacerbated by leftist complicity.

If, on the other hand, we get on the stick and start procreating to stave off demographic disaster, the added population has its own downside.

I pity the poor secularist who has nothing good to look forward to.

[Hector]

Dr Vallicella,

I agree. But liberal toleration has morphed into pseudo-toleration, in which the perverse is often 'tolerated' at the expense of the normative. It is not true toleration but approbation of the Other at all costs and the concomitant denigration of the native. The conservative or classical liberal on the other hand is tolerant of difference but reserves his right to judge - after all why would you need to tolerate what you consider morally praiseworthy? I would argue that true tolerance of other cultures is linked to patriotism, which seems to be nearly dead in England (except for national football matches in which near-fascist fervour suddenly erupts among the populace). If you don't appreciate your own culture you are hardly likely to have a true assessment of another's, let alone an appreciation for it.

The barbarism of the Islamists is one thing, but the West might be the only civilisation that has ever produced its own barbarians. The spiritual degradation of many in our society nowadays is in certain ways more shocking than material poverty, and so the added population you mention is no guarantee against increasing barbarism. England is the trailblazer in this - with a fair percentage of the ethnically British population looking like they are on day release from prison and behaving like drunken chimps, in many places you'd be forgiven for thinking some terrible calamity had beset us, rather than us being one of the wealthiest and luckiest nations in the world.

[Cairo Ayres Costa]

Thank you Hector for you response!

I am very relieved and eager to study hard after reading your experience.

You know, I've been going through difficult times since my conversion. Everything in this world worries me a lot now, it seems that we are living at least something very similar to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World dystopia, I constantly wonder if I'm starting to go crazy or if I'm finally starting to see the absurdities in which lived in my childhood and adolescence.

I think Cardinal John Henry Newman was the one who said that it is not the fear of death that drives elderly people to religion; the religious aspect tends to develop when we get older because, as the passions calm down, the fantasy and the sensitivity are less excited, the rationality of man is less disturbed by desires and distractions. Thus, with the need to rely on something that remains, something solid, God emerges as the only stable firmament of reality: the truth, absolute and eternal.

So, I feel that I really need to study philosophy, I no longer want to be ignorant about the important issues of life and follow the consensus of society on them today. I am seriously thinking about becoming a Dominican friar after college, to dedicate my life to prayer and study, but I do not know if I will be able to fulfill the vows of poverty, celibacy and obedience.

My email is this one: [email protected]. I was wondering if there is a way to be notified when someone answers me hahahah.

[Hector]

Cairo,

You're not going crazy! Almost ever since I can remember I thought something was amiss with my society and the feeling just gets stronger and stronger the older I get. I think it is natural that as we grow older we become, or should become, more concerned about the wider world. Rather than being focused on trivial aspects of our own lives we start to have more and more concern for both our spiritual lives and the state of the world - that is if we mature correctly, which very few people now do it seems, instead projecting their own shallow self-obsessions onto the world (that being the root of the 'woke' phenomenon). Be glad you have your faith, otherwise recognition of our present predicament could lead to almost bottomless despair.

Have you ever come across the French Catholic philosopher Remi Brague? I discovered him a year or two ago, he's an astounding scholar and has very interesting things to say about our present predicament, which chime with your point that we need a transcendental horizon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9mi_Brague
(links on here to his articles)

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2013/10/the-impossibility-of-secular-society

I've always really admired friars and monks and envied the life, I just know I can't forgo female companionship! The best thing if you can't hack the vows I think is to try and replicate that type of spiritually-focused, scholarly life as much as is possible with a reasonably like-minded spouse. Incidentally, if you are interested in monasticism, I'd recommend a very beautiful documentary film called Into Great Silence (Die grosse Stille) by the German director Philip Groening. It follows, with no commentary, the lives of the Carthusian monks at the Grand Chartreuse. It's very beautiful. I think Dr Vallicella would also enjoy it! It is available on DVD in the UK and the US, but I don't know about elsewhere!

I think there is a way you can set it up so you get notified when someone comments. I think you need a typepad account though.

If you'd like to continue this conversation, perhaps we should move it over to email, in case Dr Vallicella gets fed up of us using his site as a chatroom! Haha

Best wishes,

Hector