This is largely a reference request, but supplementary explanations are welcome.
I describe my thoughts on the paradox of analysis here.
I recently tried to derive the form of first-order logic more or less a priori (and got side-tracked).
My hypothesis was that first-order logic is an inevitable structure that emerges when you try to specify a set of rules for “valid reasoning”. One’s train of thought could go something like this:
Is there a most conservative thing I can say, about the nature of “valid argumentation”? I’m not sure there’s a single most indubitable place to start. I can observe that sometimes when people say something, I tend to ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’, but sometimes neither. Sometimes, some statements, like ‘3 + 3 = 6’, strike me as ‘true’, in a very strong sense - but at the same time, I feel that that is a certain ‘kind’ of truth - not ‘true’ in the way other things are true - one reason why is that they are only really symbols; I could break free from them and deny the statement’s truth if I chose to change the meaning of the symbols…
And so on. Instead of diving head-on into established ideas in logic, such as that ‘a statement is either true or false; there is an implication symbol; the implication symbol is transitive’, we are trying to not close any doors, before we have explored where they lead.
I was thinking a generalization I felt comfortable with looked like this:
some kind of “thing”
+--------------------+
| Units of meaning |
+--------------------+
| statement |
+--------------------+
| sentence |
+--------------------+
| idea |
+--------------------+
| claim |
+--------------------+
| intuition |
+--------------------+
| feeling |
+--------------------+
| thing |
+--------------------+
| opinion |
+--------------------+
| fact |
+--------------------+
| truth |
+--------------------+
| suggestion |
+--------------------+
| proposition |
+--------------------+
| notion |
+--------------------+
| … |
+--------------------+
some kind of “relationship”
+---------------------------------------+
| Ways those things might relate to each other |
+---------------------------------------+
| suggests |
+---------------------------------------+
| implies |
+---------------------------------------+
| is similar to |
+---------------------------------------+
| relates to |
+---------------------------------------+
| goes together with |
+---------------------------------------+
| fits in with |
+---------------------------------------+
| … |
+---------------------------------------+
I have tried not to make any “ontological commitments”. Everything is still open-ended. We can choose any of the above, and develop it with further “tentative considerations”. I could consider the case where one of the above relations is transitive:
If A being True implies B being True, and if B being True implies C being True, I will hold the transitory consideration that therefore A being True implies C being True.
Or, I could consider a case where a relation is not transitive:
There are cases where I might feel that A and B go together well, and where B and C go together well, but then I no longer feel that A and C go together well in the same way.
Either of the above increases the amount of information, in a system. You could say it increases “definition” or “resolution”, like a high-resolution camera. In the beginning, there are less rules, so “anything goes”. The more rules we add, the clearer it becomes when something violates them. The first example (above) is almost the axioms of category theory, we just need to add a few more ideas. If we ever felt discontent with how a chain of hypothetical considerations evolved, we could go back and consider some other basic conceptual elements as being what we derive a formal system from. But we are also free to choose “all of the above”, and see how they interact. (This reminds me of the recent idea of a “multi-way system”.) I think of this as a ‘thinking methodology’ one could call “coherentizing”, as a possible solution to the paradox of analysis. In a way, you begin from the murkiest, vaguest sketches of ideas, meanings, rules, claims, statements, or concepts. You try, in an inoffensive way, to develop them in minorly incontestable ways. Each time you do that, you are able to see what the emergent system is like. Is it “self-coherent”? Does it act in the way you wanted it to? I would like to know about philosophical literature which basically takes the philosophy of “coherentism” and turns it into a methodology of thinking.