And relationships between propositions don’t explain things??
Please define logic.
Then explain what it means to use logic to explain something.
Logic relies solely upon the law of non-contradiction/non-hypocrisy
That’s all it is.
How do you use logic to explain something?
And what does it mean to explain something?
Does it perhaps mean to use words to stimulate the memory of it in others?
Well… It all has to do with desire fulfillment ultimately. Accurate reference. If I’m allergic to peanuts and I don’t want an allergic reaction, I don’t eat peanuts.
It’s all ultimately based on desire, from desire comes truth; non hypocrisy …
Like I said earlier…
Everyone has a love (an affinity, a desire). Some people want to unexist, and others want to always exist.
The law of non contradiction means nothing without desire, and everyone has desire.
K: I know you don’t understand the question…
kinda my point…
Kropotkin
What does it mean to explain something?
Can we agree that this something is always some kind of experience?
If so, what does it mean to explain experience?
It can, for example, mean to represent the experience using words such that when others come in contact with the representation, they are, or can be, reminded of the experience.
Or it can mean to describe the procedure that can bring the experience into existence.
What do you mean, Kropotkin?
Not without clear definitions of the terms involved, which logic can’t address. And it’s those definitions (and the acceptance of them) that really does all the work.
Logic is (A → B) → (A v ~B). That can’t explain love, or cats, or elephant poop or much of anything.
And logic doesn’t even provide the relationships, it just analyzes them, like I said.
So you don’t think relationships are provided. period.?
Logic is the law of non contradiction / non hypocrisy.
You don’t think it’s possible for those to speak about themselves in logical format?
What do you think the relationships are and from where do they come?? You already stated they can’t describe themselves. Yet, you describe one!
It’s a miracle!
I have done that many times at this site.
All you have to do is look at what it is that “love” refers to (a particular behavior), use the alternate wording consistently, and you have your “logic” (actually merely a definition).
But since you have no understanding of what “logic” means, you probably think that it means the same as “rationale” and thus you are really asking to “explain the rationale of love”.
The rationale of love (or to You, the “logic of love”) involves the benefits of recognizing a serious hope in something and yearning to possess and/or support that something because you perceive it as seriously “good”. Like all emotions, the urge to love is felt so as to emote the conscious person into following the hope and avoiding the threat. And although emotions are often inaccurate, they are what allows(ed) the less conscious creature to manage life above that of the non-emoted, simple-minded mechanism. That is the rationale behind the sensation and urging that you call “love”.
Not by pure logic, they are stipulated, and then logic is applied to see if they are sound or not.
You’re incapable of comprehending what I’m talking about or responding to it in a meaningful way.
Not true. Logic is a variable. Plugging into the variable is not a step beyond logic, it’s what logic is for, and logic can certainly comment on it’s own system.
Stop calling me a moron Uccisore.
Providing definitions could be considered the “zeroth rule” of constructing logic. After that, logic is showing the relationships between those defined concepts.
Non contradiction is definitional.
It’s also the foundation of all logic.
Therefor, logic doesn’t exist outside the definitional.
Non contradiction is only determined by desire (what works and what doesn’t ).
Logic is ultimately emotive of our conditional reality.
To say that logic doesn’t involve definitions is absurd.
It has nothing to do with desire, but of the mechanics of the language and its consistent use.
Bullshit! Funny to watch you of all people use wiki.
James, logic doesn’t mean shit without desire.
What about the desire to make language consistent ??
Contradiction can also be defined as a mismatch between what one expects (Ec’s desire I suppose) and what one gets.
To the extent we live in a conditional universe …
That is how we find contradiction; that’s how we find laws.
That’s not how it works. You explain love however you want, then you look at the explanation to see if it violates any logical rules.
That was Google. Find even one reference for what their word “contradiction” means that references desire.
What you desire to do has nothing to do with what something is or is not. Logic is entirely objective.
But more to the point, “The Law of Identity” states that “A is A”, meaning that every language use of “A” shall remain consistent. And then “The Law of Non-Contradiction” states that “A is not A-not”, meaning that nothing can be what it isn’t.
You personally have claimed anti-logic as the way you reason, but what THEY CALL LOGIC, defined by THEIR LAWS, not yours or even mine.
We do not own the words they have defined, thus we cannot merely pick and choose what we “desire” for them to mean.