Some philosophical reflections related to logical structure of judgment.

Key words: Features of structure of judgment interpreted in classical philosophy of language. Features of structure of judgment interpreted in non-classic philosophy of language. Logical categories in structure of judgment. Linguistic categories in structure of judgment. Specific features of structure of judgment in Russian and English. Specific features of structure of judgment in Mongolian. One of crucial philosophical issues in logical theory of judgment is concerning what components its structure has. Some logicians think that issue is relevant to science, but I suppose philosophical. Let me give ground for such view following arguments. First, the rationalism has been being an epistemological basic of traditional logic, and it is valid for theory of judgment as well. For instance, a view in which the content of a judgment described as a production of thought and basic thought structure is judgment has been dominated in logic and reached its peak in Hegelian philosophy. Second, the views opposed to rationalist explanation taking judgment as thought basic structure has been proposed abreast with Hegelian philosophy or one by one within decades after his time. One of the first distinctive representatives among them is a German philosopher and linguistic Wilhelm von Humboldt. He understands language does stand between subject and object; furthermore, man, world, and God. Thus, language is the formative organ of thought. Humboldt view on relation between language and thought is a turning point in classical philosophical views on language inquiring that relation. Representatives of classical philosophy came into a view that thought determines language and is expressed and signified through language. For instance, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels said in their collaborative work The German Ideology language is direct reality of thought1.On the contrary, W.von Humboldt established the foundation for the view that language forms thought. Linguistic philosophy has improved and refined W.von Humboldts such theoretic inheritance. A founder and the greatest figure of that philosophy is an Austrian-British philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein who was a professor at Cambridge University. His philosophical works are divided between early period, aimed to create an ideal language removed from fault of native language by analyzing formal language, particularly language of mathematic logic; and later period, criticized such procedure and pursued to examine native language. Here, some main arguments related to theory of judgment and relevant to his later period are referenced. From behaviorist methodology, Wittgenstein regards thought as material. Such view is revealed in his interpretation separating notably thought and opinion. He noticed in his
1

., .. , -3, ., 1955, ,448

lectures in 1930-1932 thought is a process upon various schemas. Opinion is not schema. That is why opinion does not requiretransformation, but schema does. Schema is identified with concrete proposition(without being interpreted separately) transforming it into statement2. In the work, it was stated that statement and judgment are same; hope, fear, and doubt are separate forms of opinion3. From these citations we can infer followings. For instance, Thought is schema. Schema is statement. Statement is judgment. Scheme is sentence. Thought is sentence. Thus, Wittgenstein identifies thought with sentence at last. However, in later Wittgensteins view, opinions are forms of thosesensations that have not to be expressed through sentence (that is to say through schema). Furthermore, Wittgenstein assumes that even opinion is not mental process, but material one. So that, what is main difference between thought and opinion? An idea that could be answer to the question has been mentioned in his above work.Hence, opinion is symbolic process, while thought is explanation of schema4. As he interprets, the sign is the written scratch or the noise.5 It could be meaningless. But symbol has to have meaning6. Everything giving significance to sign is a part of symbol. For example, when one heard that I am tired, it is less significant than when the one actually see what he/she spoke and perceive how his/her lips move. Here lips motion is a part of symbol. Briefly, symbol is all important a sign takethe significance. In this sense, symbol is a kind of statements, later Wittgenstein says. Representatives of analytic philosophy such as Frege describe the difference between significance and meaning, which has been applied in native language by Wittgenstein. According to Wittgensteins interpretation, the significance of word is to use it (word) in language, and a meaning is a concrete realization of significance. Thus, issue on relation between thought and language is resolved from mutually opposed methodological position in classical and non-classical philosophy of language. Inclassical philosophy, it is explained that thought determines language; language becomes sign of thought in relation of vital unity of these two. In non2

. : 1930-1932. : . ., 1993, .292-293 3 For these, see op. cit., c.293 4 Op. cit., .294 5 Op. cit., .295 6 For this, see op. cit.,

classicalphilosophy, especially in Wittgensteins linguistic analysis, it is justified seriously that language is the organ and the formative means of thought. This view seems to let some authors rejected from the traditional logic teaching practice that fits with methodology of classical philosophy. Such authors have renamed the chapter traditionally called concept with name, and judgment with sentence so on. I assume that it is proper to consider the issue of relation between thought and language according to following methodology when one explains logical structure of judgment in textbook or teaches logic. Therein, neuropsychology have being not yet given ultimate answerto the question Is an organ of thought a brain? as by 90s of the twentieth century. If even the brain is the organ of thought, such ability of the brain would possible in only limited condition of the subject, particularly, when the subject produces a new knowledge. But we acquire knowledge from others and through spoken or written language in very different conditions. It could be important evidenceto confirm the conclusion that organ of thought is language. Briefly, both arguments arguing that an organ of thought is a brain or a language are not up-to-date scientific valid conclusions, but a conclusion from value theory. Consequently, in contemporary time, answering to which one of thought and language determines and produces the otherone is not result ofepistemological, but of value conclusion in the end. Given judgment is only expressedthrough a sentence, whereas several judgments can be produced from a sentence in a way to put logical meaning into any member of that sentence. It is an indicationthat sentence is not only means expressing judgment, but also organ or means that form a number of judgmentsdue to the subjects concrete activities. To mention one more testimony, inner mongolians call judgment as 7, whereas, we call as . I expect that knowing such specific characters of relation between judgment and sentence is useful to define correctly what is proper to how explain logical structure of judgment in theoretical research and teaching logic. That is reason why professionals have given different explanation to whether the expressions except S and P are classified in logic or linguistics when they formulates judgment in Russian S ( )P, S ( )Pso on; in English All S are P, No S are P, Some S are P, Some S are not P so on; in Mongolian S P , S P so on. There is no controversy to explain that the signs S and P as two main components of logical structure of judgment represent various concepts in given conditions. However,
7

For this, see Bayart (translated) Logic, Inner Mongolian University Press, 1999

followings are observed when I have focused how rest linguistic expressions except these two signs are used in learning. Therein, A view that those expressions are logical categories. A view that those expressions are linguistic categories. A view in which no any word concerning whether those belong to linguistics or logic. Above conclusions are inferred from relevant contents in some textbooks, handbooks, and dictionaries of logic in Mongolian, Russian, and English. I must confess I did not make citation in order tonot expand this article range. A view that judgment has three components has being dominated in history of logic. Thus, it explains that subject and predicate are logical terms composing a proper judgment, and third component or element is copula. But there is still no explanation to Is copula logical or linguistic term? Shall we express our personal views regarding how it is appropriate to understand judgment copula in theoretical level. Taking the distinctive features of judgment in Mongolian into my account, I hold that copula is not logical, but linguistic term that expresses the unity of subject and predicate on the one hand, and the difference of those on the other. Judgments logical structures in Mongolian could be S P , S P , S P , S P , and so on. I consider , , , and in the expression ascopula (with linguistic meaning as above mentioned). The has being mainly used in theory of judgment because of its comfortable usage. The words such as , , , and express the affirmative form in which the sign expressed by predicate of the judgment exits in the object expressed by subject of the judgment; and these words such as , , express the non existence in negative form. Being represented affirmative words with , and negative words with respectively, it is prevailed to express that S P , S P . Definitely, these features are not in English and Russian. Let me clarify. Such words is, are, is not, are not in English, , , , in Russian and other words with identical significance have played function roles of copula as and of words , which express whether given judgment affirmative or not. For example, Any S is a P, All S a non-P, Not every S is a P, S P, S P S P so on. It is common to be written in recent logic textbooks or handbooks that quantifier is one of important elements of judgments logical structure. The words such as , ,

 in Mongolian, , , in Russian, every each any all only in English indicatethat what extent of quantity of an entity expressed in subject of a judgment appears in the judgment. These words have being called in contemporary formal logic as quantifier words. They have not logical constant, but linguistic sense. To conclude based on all we have discussed above, S and P within any native language formulation expressing logical structure of a judgment have represented logical concepts, and the rest words are linguistic categories with concrete functions. This conclusion could be justified by either classical or non-classical philosophy of language. As for classical philosophy, thought must be expressed through language. To make it relevant to judgment, copula, quantifier, affirmatives, negatives etc. express linguistically what relation subject and predicate of judgment in connection with its volume and content is. Moreover, there is an argument to give ground for our conclusion from viewpoint of nonclassical philosophy. For instance, -()-is(are)expresses the existence of attribution, equality, more, less, equivalent quality in mathematics as well depending on how the subject use these in its action. In other words, the latter example shows that words are not mere signs of thought, rather producer of the thought. It gives evidence that judgments are not only the connection of logical categories, but also of logical and linguistic categories as well. The result of our activity, which has intended to review the features of logical structure of judgment, shows that it is appropriate to consider that methodological oppositions of classical and non-classical philosophy of language are not contradictory to each other in theoretical investigation, but these two types of philosophizing enrich and supply each other in concrete condition. Thanks for your attention.

Summary I have prepared this article accounting that answering and explaining properly the question about logical structure of judgment has a great significance in either from requirements of teaching practices or theoretical inquiries. As concerns practical importance, I have expected that if we come in proper decision about different explanations saying that logical structure of judgment has 2 or 3 components, or 4 components through result of joint scientific research in logic, linguistic, and neuropsychology etc., it has positive effect on learning activity and psychology of learners. With regards to theoretical importance, that the relation between thought and language is resolved in the opposed position in methodological field by classical and non-classical philosophy of language has became two different approaches to solve the relation between judgment and sentence further. Followings are my philosophical position in this article: The classical and non-classical philosophy of language have not rejected each other, in contrary, both have contribution in explaining properly the respective characters of thought and language and their unity. At last, language is able to be organ of thought. I take it as one crucial theoretical orientation in this research. Judgment has two components as subject and predicate (S-P) with respect to its logical structure. It is proper to explain that linguistic expressions expect these two elements in judgment are not logical, but linguistic categories. The present tense verbs in English such as is, are, is not and are not and Russian , - have linguistic function that expresses the unity of subject and predicate in given judgment on the one hand, the difference on the other, furthermore, indicates whether the reference of subject of judgment has the sign that is expressed by predicate in affirmative or negative form. However, above linguistic functions are not unified in only one word in sentence expressing logical structure of judgment in Mongolian, but are divided in other words separately. For instance, connection word as points out the unity and difference of subject and predicate, affirmative particle as and negative particle as indicate affirmative and negative form of judgment respectively. I support that some authors has being written about an element as quantifier in logical structure of judgment. However, quantifier words are not logical, but linguistic categories that express whether the concept as subject of judgment has expressed by full or half in respect to its volume. * * *

To conclude, two terms as S and P in formulation of logical structure of judgment in any language represent logical categories, the rest are linguistic means,

some of which express the unity and difference of subject and predicate, the some indicate how volume of concept revealed, and some present how predicate are connected to subject. Bibliography . . ., 1993 .-., .. . .3. ., 1955. . .. () . ., 2010 . . . ., 2004. II , 1 . . . 1999. . . . . ., 1959. . , 2 ... . ., 2000. IV ... . . ., 2004. IV. Stephen Layman. The Power of Logic. Second edition. Seatle Pacific University., 2002. Chapter 5 Presenter: Gombosuren Tsedendagva, Emeritus Professor, National University of Mongolia, Sc.D., Professor.