material object of logic?

Question

material object of logic (formal object) explain

Answer 1

There can be no material object of logic, it is an abstract concept.

If you wanted to represent it, your best bet would be some type of maze, as a maze requires decision making, which is the essence of logic.

Answer 2

Materials of Logical Order.:
In some sense, these materials are acts of the mind, like apprehension, judgment, ratiocination (reasoning); but strictly speaking, only apprehensions are the material object of logical order

1. By apprehension the mind represents to itself one thing or many things, without either affirming or denying anything. Concepts; the product of apprehension, are expressed by names or terms.

2.To establish a relation of identity or non-identity, of agreement or non-agreement, between the objects of two concepts, in affirming or denying one object of another is to judge. A judgment is expressed in a proposition.

3 To reason is to combine two or more judgments so as to form a new one. The complete ordinary expression of this simplest exercise of reasoning is the syllogism.

The Formal Cause of the Logical Order:
The formal object of logic, or the point of view from which logic regards the acts of the mind, is their adaptability to certain processes of thought which are called either particular sciences or philosophy. These processes imply stages. The mind must grasp the numerous aspects of reality one after another before co-ordinating the fragmentary explications. Judgment is the first step in combining ideas; judgments in their turn become the materials of reasoning; an isolated piece of reasoning does not suffice to produce adequate knowledge of things, but several reasonings become materials of a scientific system. This rational arrangement of ideas constitutes the logical order properly so called: "the order which reason constitutes for its own acts".

Answer 3

I don't really get the question, but if you mean like a physical representation of the concept of logic, conveyed as a materialised object then I would go with a chess piece. Since chess requires alot of logic to play.

Answer 4

no longer unavoidably. it truly is an invalid commonly used end from inductive reasoning. Say you've a bag with 100 gumballs in it -- you do not comprehend what coloration they're. You attain in (with out looking) and pull one out, and it truly is purple. are you able to then finish that the different ninety 9 are purple also? for sure no longer, you nevertheless do not comprehend what coloration the others are. in case you pull out 50 of them and they are all purple, are you able to at the moment finish that all 100 are purple? Nope, you nevertheless can't attain that commonly used end out of your inductive reasoning. How about in case you pull out ninety 9, and they were all purple -- does that recommend the purely right one there is purple also? Nope, you nevertheless can't finish that, because if it truly is blue your end replaced into invalid. till you've examined each and every gumball (or each and every "cloth merchandise,") you are able to't validly finish they're all purple (or all of them "had a initiating"). keep one mandatory element in concepts, even with the reality that: we are able to illustrate by evidence that gumballs exist, and by pulling them out of the bag can exhibit by evidence how lots of them there are contained in the bag. there isn't any evidence that there is any "god," so arriving at ANY conclusions about the attributes of that god isn't achievable with any validity. preserving this claimed god DID have a initiating or preserving it did not (and continually existed) are both both flawed -- the god would must be shown to exist before you are able to say something about its attributes. the well-known utilization of what you're speaking about with reference to "beginnings" is somewhat only a refutation of the claimed "common sense" contained in the ontological (first-reason) argument for a god of a few variety, shown flawed more effective than 2300 years in the past. The argument is going that each and every thing that exists has a "reason" (an invalid commonly used end from inductive reasoning). It then is going on to declare that there is an "uncaused reason" (a god). If something exists that doesn't have a reason, the foundation that each and every thing that exists needs a reason is invalid (besides being inductive reasoning), because you purely reported that something exists with out a reason. and also you may't declare something about this meant "god" besides, because you haven't yet shown it exists. Get it? Peace.

Answer 5

explain your question