I speak with many atheists that seem to ‘deify logic’ and try to live by logic alone. (or so they say.)
Irrespective of the religious debate. If one sides with only logic, is that all that is need to live a flourishing human life?
Again, do not get stuck with religion, I am speaking about a balanced life here.
V
I’m not sure what “live by logic” is supposed to mean. One needs assumptions, before one can live by logic. For any given person some assumptions are better than others, some are more useful, some are more honest.
Assuming that one wants to live by the assumptions or convictions that one holds, outside of religion logic is the best way to acheive this. Without logic and reason one may have assumptions, but end up living contrary to it.
Logic ensures that if you want to live with a certain assumption, you will be able to do it consistently, outside this, it offers nothing in the form of how to live.
To answer your question directly, more is required than just logic.
As Nihilistic said, if all you have is logic, you cannot propose a positive belief system. You can, however, propose negative beliefs by pointing out internal inconsistencies in other’s positive beliefs. That is what’s called the Socratic Method. It works well for atheists, who tend to adhere to principles that will refute mainstream religious beliefs.
I’m skeptical, though, that it is even possible to be completely devoid of assumptions.
I am an atheist, but I utterly reject the false worship of logic that some philosophers seem to enjoy. (Think logical positivism)
It is important, and useful in it’s own way, but it can’t answer every question, and sometimes, the answer you get from it is just plain unsatisfying.
just my opinion.
gemty
I find myself agreeing with Carleas and Nihilistic.
Logic systems offer logically proven, internally consistent rules to clarify situations.
That said, I feel that they ultimately found themselves on a fundamental assumption.
This is part of the conversation on spiritual studies. It seems that sometime being ‘too logical’ blocks one’s mind from balanced thought?
Condemnation prior to investigation?
Condemnation of the basic premise. One can’t logically arrive at
valid conclusions from invalid premises, so why read the invalid
conclusions that follow the invalid premise?.
What is “spirit”? Without knowing what you mean by the word, one can’t
know what you mean. What do you mean by “agnostic”? In philisopical
discussions, it means that you believe the nature of something is
unknowable. It does not mean that you aren’t sure.
No, I just don’t know and have not found anyone that has the answer
that has convinced me.
Why study something for which you not only have no evidence, but not even a definition?
V
I do not use logic this way, as I do not understand what you mean. My mind is more simplified in its design.
I will give another example of “If one sides with only logic, is that all that is needed to live a flourishing human life?”
In Plato’s Republic he proposes utopia a city that is divided by gold, silver and bronze classes of people. No marriage, just organized breading according to the gold, silver and bronze classifications. Slavery is OK as long as it is not a local resident of the city. Old people must leave the city at a certain age and those that do not take care of their health and cause themselves disease will not get medical attention as it will be reserved for solders first. If a couple has a child that is deemed to be of a different class it will be taken away from that class to live with the proper class of gold, silver or bronze.
All decisions are to the benefit of the city and not the individual. Utopia is run the same way as an ant hill or beehive, which is remarkably well run to logical perfection and natural law. Utopia is all very logical, it aligns itself with natural law, but it succumbs to ‘what is logical is not always practical’ when it comes to emotional humans. Few humans would like to live in this logical society, but we can all agree such a city would be run ‘logically’ to the perfection and benefit of that city and not any individual.
Same with Plato’s Gorgias pages 447 -527. Socrates is very logical regarding pain and punishment, but again when dealing with humans what is logical is not always practical.
Practical application is very important to me. Here is an example of my use of logic through practical application, although I submit it anecdotally.
jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … opic=318.0
V
Yes, I generally agree with you.
V
vfr, Plato uses more than logic to set up such a utopia. There are value judgements about what should strived for in an ideal society. There are more or less justified empirical claims about what policies will best achieve those goals. It does not function purely on logic.
Logic by itself is static. It is only when it is applied to a set of assumptions that it produces results. And the assumptions can only ever be assumptions.
The Socratic Method looks for internal consistency by deducing from a set of assumptions and looking for contradictions. For instance, let’s say that I belief in the scientific establishment and in free will. Science indicates that our thoughts are simply chemical and electrical signals in the brain. It further states that these chemical and electrical signals are made up of tiny particles interacting with each other in regular and theoretically predictable ways. But if that’s true, then we cannot be truly free of will, because our choices will ultimately be based on the regular interactions of tiny particles. So these beliefs are not internally consistent, because a little logical manipulation ends us with the conclusion that there both is and is not free will, a contradiction. (this isn’t a great example, and I don’t actually agree with it, but it demonstrates the principle)
Logic is a tool, not an answer.
Thanks for your reply Carleas. Can you give me an example of how Socrates deviated with a value judgment proposal when setting up utopia as opposed to what would be the purely logical choice for his goal of a perfect city? I have a hard time seeing this aspect.
Yes, I believe we all have to blend our ideas with logic, but some people seem to be overbalanced with logic and lose the aspect of human satisfaction as was noted in an earlier reply.
v
Well, isn’t the very idea that perfection is better than imperfection a value judgment? Or that justice is better than injustice? I’m not saying he was wrong; I prefer justice to injustice and perfection to imperfection, as I’m sure do a vast majority of people. But he takes perfection and justice as the given good, and then attempts to reach perfection and justice through logical means.
I might’ve midunderstood your question, if so I apologize.
I think if you find yourself being too logical you’re being illogical.
Plato defines a perfect city in some way. His definition is laden with value judgements. For instance, he seems to value efficiency and smooth function over personal autonomy.
He also incorporates beliefs about how best to achieve such a society, i.e. allowing slavery, division into classes, etc.
Think of logic as a calculator. Without any input, a calculator just sits there. Until numbers and operations to be performed are chosen, the calculator doesn’t produce any answers.
Likewise, without assumptions, logic doesn’t produce any answers. It is necessary to input givens in order to produce any conclusions. The Socratic Method is simply taking a given set of assumptions and manipulating them to see if they produce a coherent belief-space, i.e. if they do not produce pairs of sentences that are mutually incompatible.
Then, as a system designed for humans, it can’t be very logical can it?
The great rival of metaphysics is logic, assisted by its accomplice, language, for logic necessarily stops at speech since for logic reality is the being of reason, in other words a being born from a relation created by intelligence.
By definition, logic cannot “block you from balanced thought.” However, bad logic can do that. A bad logician is capable of suffering from that problem. Just like a bad carpenter will suffer from bad technique.
Logic itself is the only way to achieve “balanced thought” in a proper sense. If you don’t think you use logic pretty much all the time, you’re just not understanding what logic is. Philosophical logic just attempts to make those processes explicit and scriptable.
Definitely logic is not the only thing a human needs. Think Data from star treck. Massively logical, massively unhappy.
Thanks for your reply jagermeister330 . Your, response seems ‘logical’ and well put.
What is missing from Socrates / Plato’s equation? Is being ‘too logical’ blinding them from the ‘humanity’ of utopias design? Or to put it another way - too much logic not enough humanity? Balance seems to be lacking with utopia.
Yes, I agree it is a pretty good design for a city that is all about cities and nothing about humans happiness. But just as utopia may excel at being a model city in the mind of its designer, it equally is bankrupt of most of the qualities that humans desire for personal happiness. In a nutshell, it is an anthill of gigantic proportions.
So in addition to logic, for a balanced approach when dealing with humans one must temper logic with certain ‘human values’ as opposed to just calls for perfection, justice and injustice that apply to the non human ideals of a city planner?
These missing values that were left out of utopia seem to be that of spiritual values. And defining ‘spiritual values’ is another story as we all know. But just like the wind that cannot be seen or its source defined, we can see the ‘effects’ of the wind very easily. So it goes when spiritual values are lacking - hard to define spiritual values, but easy to see when spiritual values are lacking.
V
Thanks thezeus18. Good to remember.
A few years ago I read an article in the Wall Street Journal about Charles Ponzi, an Italian immigrant, was born in the late 19th century and was credited with developing the first pyramid scheme in the 1920’s, which has appropriately been dubbed “The Ponzi Scheme” He would deliver the promise “Would you like to be rich? I can double your money every ninety days, guaranteed” and was successful with bilking people out of many millions of dollars For those that do not know what a pyramid or Ponzi scheme is, here is the definition from Investors World dot com:
“An illegal investment scheme in which investors are promised impossibly high returns on their investments. These are scams in which money from later investors is used to pay earlier investors. The creators of the scheme get most of the profits while those who come later are left with nothing because there are eventually an insufficient number of new investors to pay the existing ones. These scams inevitably collapse because they require exponential growth in the number of participants at each step, which is impossible.”
The article stated when Ponzi was interviewed he was asked how he was able to swindle so many people so easily, his responded, "When a man’s mind is concentrated he is blind.
v
What I wonder is this. Are certain people making ‘logic their god’ and discounting the other components that make a decision rational as well as human?
V