AboutMaciej St. Zięba Expertise I can answer questions concerning Eastern (Oriental) philosophies and philosophers (Indian, Tibetan, Indonesian, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese: Hinduist, Buddhist, Confucianist, Taoist and other; alas not Islamic or Jewish) - both in terms of notions and facts (history of their development). I can write in English, French, Esperanto, Polish and Russian, German, Dutch and Norwegian. I can also understand questions in Spanish and Italian.
Experience I have been teaching Indian and Chinese philosophies since 1987 and in 2000 I started a project on Oriental philosophies within the scope of the Universal Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Powszechna Encyklopedia Filozofii) published in Polish by SITA-PL (7 volumes, A-Pan, published 2000-2006, containing ca. 300 entries in Eastern philosophies, written by a team of a dozen of Polish scholars).
Organizations The Catholic University of Lublin (KUL), Poland, History of Philosophy Department
Publications Several publications in Polish; in English: The Origin of the World according to Rigveda (Montreal 1996), Contributions to the History of the Buddhist Classifications of Dharmas: Pancavastuka of Vasumitra (Bulletin, Polish Institute and Library, Montreal 1997)
Education/Credentials philosophy (KUL, Lublin, 1976-81); M.A. in history of Indian philosophy (KUL, 1981); Ph.D. in history of Indian philosophy (KUL, 1989); other studies: Indian and Chinese philosophies (Institut Catholique, Paris, 1985-6); Tibetan language (INALCO, Paris, 1985-6); Chinese language (McGill University, Montreal, 1995-7)
Question can someone re-invent logic? also does logic have categorical definitions?
Answer Hi Gabriel Onyewu,
What do you mean by "re-invent"?
Is it:
1) Invent a new, completely different logic?
or rather
2) "Invent" for the second time the same good old logic we know?
If it is 1) - I may say - it is rather a fultile attempt. Some people have tried, but still - as the science of logic is a description of how correct reasoning functions - they have from time to time make recourse to the good old logic we know. There are different systems of logic, each of which depend on a set of axioms accepted as basic [because in fact our reasining may differ in some points] - but in general they have the same basic core so they may be considered subsets of the same logic [because the areas where our reasoning and thinking differs are but the border areas of thought, and not the main battlefiled]. To make a comparison: Each man and each woman can have a slightly different pair of trousers, as people differ a bit [by weight and length of their legs], but each pair of trousers can easily be called "trousers" as they fulfill the same function - they cover the lower part of the body of a human being, i.e. two legs (but not feet), starting from the waiste downwards, so you can borrow the trousers from your neighbour (be it a man or a woman) and wear it, and although sometimes it may be too tight or too wide, or too long here and there, you may still use them to cover your body from cold or rain, althugh sometimes you might want to adapt them, because they were sewn for a different set of axioms (different size of a body).
If you mean 2) - the answer is: Of course someone can. It has already happened many times in various cultures which did not have direct contact between themselves. That's why we can understand Chinese texts on logic (like the Mohist canon) and Indian texts on logic (like the Nyaya treatises and handooks or Buddhist manuals and discussions with Nyaya), and in fact we can use these books for our (Western) courses in philosophy.
Some people wanted to prove that the "Eastern logic" is different from "western logic", that the first one is rational, and the second one is irrational, the first one is based on the law of non-contradiction and the second one is based on paradoxes, but believe me - nothing of it is true. If you read the texts you will find that what is taken for "logic" by these modern critics is in fact "language of metaphors" or "mystical experience description" anfd not logic. The same is true about those who pretend that there is one logic of the Eauropean-American world (namely an intellectual one, good for natural sciences) and another on of the African world (namely an emotional one, good for human relationships, magic etc).
I do not know much about Nigerian writers and thinkers, but I am sure about one thing: there is nothing like "Nigerian logic" or "African logic" which would be impermeable to the outer world, which could be not understood by an American or European or Chinese or whoever. Some cultural aspects thereof (like the way to express specific approach) might need special introduction to it or special explanation, but the core will always remain the same. Otherwise you could not understand me and I could not understand you.
What do you mean by "categorical definitions"?
Do you mean
1) definitions of certain categories, specific to logic?
or rather
2) definitions that are fixed, unchangeble, absolute?
If 1) then of course - logic has such definitions as each area of human knowledge or each science has some specific objects, specific approaches - which require specific definitions. In logic these may be the definitions of what is a "syllogism" or what is a "proposition", or what is the "rule of separation", the "law of contradiction", an "axiom", etc.
If 2) then of course - logic has such definitions, and they are axioms. These might be
"a = a" or "if a = b then b = a" or "if (p and q) and (not-q) then (not-p)" etc.
