|Forum Home > General Discussion > ... Toward Tetralectical Logic?|
Please, fellow members, philosophers: correct me if I am wrong -
We could say, perhaps, that from the rather static classic Aristotelian logic, which establishes what is and what is not, a certain "evolution" of reason brought us to dialectical logic. Whereas it too can be regarded as rather static, it yields something anew from the synthesis of the thesis and the antithesis.
What happened next seems to me a devolution, an involution of reason, which brought us to the modern/postmodern trialectic logic, in which the thesis, antithesis and synthesis are "denominalized". They do not carry the "valence" of what they are anymore, they are just things in a process, things that change and "reframe" themselves. There seems to be no place there for thinking, reason, or purpose: it just happens, and it is the very process of this reframing happening that is the substance of trialectic logic.
That's it??? In our contemporary age, in the XXI Century, we are going to be satisfied to be passive oberservers or objects of a senseless "reframing", and we shall call that our contemporary philosophy of logic? Of reason? , of the mind?
I cannot agree with that premise.
Rather,I believe that in our age we must be proactive in all endeavors in our time: always driven from X to Y by a definite stated or unstated, conscious or subconscious intent. That is to say, we must integrate in our tralectical logic paradigm to notion of intent and purpose. Yes, reframing, but reframing to what end, for what purpose...
Thus, and when we incorporate the " valence" of intent in trialectical logic and reason, we establish a novel model of logic, a truly contemporary "intentist" model of reason: tetralectical logic.
Please correct my errors of thought - thank you my new friends