Lets say there is a master logician out there (not me), and they decided to use his/her skills in a devious way and simply deconstruct and dismantle every argument that is offered. In fact, you could feed his deconstruction back in, and he would pick that apart in turn. No matter the argument, he would pick it apart, pick apart the use of logic and attack the premises. I wager that the best you would be able to do against this perfect rationalist would be to create valid arguments, and never a sound argument because there are no defensible premises. At some point, all arguments are based on assumptions. The soundness of a argument is a meeting of the minds by the parties involved on the premises, a terrible weakness in arguments built even with seemingly flawless applications of the laws of logic.
Thus, absolute truth cannot be demonstrated through logic.
But - we can also see logic as a coherent system and a great evaluatory tool in spotting flaws and internal contradictions within other systems of thought. The problem of soundness only occurs when we attempt to show these other systems and even logic itself corresponds with a “objective reality” or demonstate an absolute truth. Rather we should see systems of thought as simply concepts, intellectual constructions, and tools that have a non-absolute, pragmatic, doubtable truth value.
The way I would respond to this master logician were he a male, would be to ask him if he has a girlfriend.
Logic is important, but sometimes it just doesn’t matter how logical you are, it just doesn’t apply. People aren’t always rational, and so to be a perfect rationalist misses the point.
Flaws and internal contradictions? What exactly would you compare them against? If all was relative, this is all your logician would need to argue for. But then again, what would be the point? Does my big toe neccessarily need to be connected to my foot? I could almost unequivocally say yes. In other words everything seems to have its place, specifically, within the structure that defines it. Could you imagine yourself walking (very well) without a big toe?
Logic is much more than merely an evaluatory tool. We seem to make statements such as “Logic does not apply to certain things” - why not? Where did we get our concept of logic from?
From our surroundings. Logic is not just a linguistic concept, it is a physical one. Look where you are sitting, in order that you understand what is around you, you must use logic. Comparing two red balls, without logic there is no reason why, to me, they don’t merge into one object. Or seven. Logic, on a very simple level, tells us that one object is clearly different from another by the elementary fact that it is one object.
It is absolutely impossible to imagine a world that does not obey the laws of logic. I also completely disagree with those who say that people don’t act logically - yes, they do. I cannot think of a situation in which someone does not act according to logic. Stuff does not just happen - it is cause and effect, which is logical.
Logic is not just a clever tool we apply to arguments - if it were, why would we use it? We could decide not to use it, and have fun without it. BUT THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. In refuting the laws of logic, one has use logic. In this case, logic involves one being able to say “this denotes this, and nothing else”, in the same way that in the physical world, one can say “this object is this object and nothing else”. The only way one can at least attempt to disobey the laws of logic is by saying nothing whatsoever.
Logic most certainly is absolute. It permeates everything around us, and we reflect the universality of logic in its effect on our thought-processes.
There is a fundamental point in which we disagree.
It seems you believe that logic exists in the physical world, and our abstract concept of logic is derived empirically. Much like mathematics? There is one apple, there is another apple, thus we have 2 apples. But even within mathematics, we eventually need to create awkward principles and rules to keep mathematics as a coherent system.
I believe that through logic we can have a rational perspective upon the world. But the resulting correspondance is NOT a proof of a rational world, but rather that logic and all its siblings (science, physics, math) are a effective tool in understanding the world. Logic is a thought system that is APPLIED to reality, not a thought system that is DERIVED from reality.
It may very well be possible that we are incapable of viewing the world though a illogical or even alogical perspective, but this is only a reflection of the inherently pragmatic evolutionary process that has come to form our mind. It is very difficult for us to not create a subject object dichotomy, but that does not prove a subject object dichotomy. And… it can be argued that the universe can be viewed from a holistic viewpoint (Buddhism). “Lines are drawn within the mind”
You are right that I can only try to argue against logic with logic, but this simply reinforces my claim that logic is a tool, a thought system can be applied to anything, even itself. Last but not least, i didnt say logic does not apply to certain things, logic can be applied to everything - and it will probably be effective - but that does not reflect a inherent logic in the subject of its application. What it does is brings the subject into context with us in a way that we can understand it.
Hitler hated the Jews for a number of reasons, including the fact that they seemed to be exemplary in the field of business, which often conflicted with German business interests as they lost out to Jewish competition. Also, when you consider the large number of Jews living in Austria around the time of Hitler’s childhood, Austria being where he grew up, one can imagine the the possible ways in which an hatred of Jews could have been propagated within him - general racism towards Jews (as even Britain pre-first world war indulged in a little anti-semitism, like many countries) would have most likely been rife, and he could have had negative experiences of Jewish people.
Obviously a lot of this is merely conjecture, but my point remains - people certainly do act for definite REASONS. That is what when I say people act logically.
OK there may be a certain “logic” in his hatred and its genealogy but surely its based, in the end, entirely on irrational “emotions”
So while we may all be logical - accept certain rules of argument, inference etc - surely many/most of us (Hitler certainly and most of his hundreds of thousands of followers) are motivated by pure willful irrationality (eg “the Jews” are responsible for every problem).
Hitler could defend himself on the basis of some of the points you raised. But ultimately its a logic dictated by his irrational anti-semiticism - i.e. after the fact. Is logic not an agreed tool to further “an argument” which may or may not have a rational basis.
Are logic and reason two different things which are often confused?
You can only be sound as your basis for assumptions.
That’s why I stick to God. I have felt God, so I know the force is real. If you say God is me. Then you are wrong because it is above me. If you say God is a collective concious, and only free thought can make God better. Then you have ignored what God does for people.
Fact. The Holy Spirit heals the soul into something simular of the innocents and purity of a new soul. That’s why Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven is that of a child. Yet the residual effect of the Holy Spirit (I’ve herd many complaints how it doesn’t last and that’s why they give up on God),… well this charge goes away as you go down the thought process that leads to “sinfull” or ignorant feelings. How you feel about a situation depends on what you think about it. Yet feelings are of two basises. Reacting to worldly things, and spiritual. Frustraition begets anger witch begets hate. Acting on hate begets hate. Having too much of these forces you to compensate with temporary thrills to balance your demeanor. Love allows you to want to understand. Loveing life allows you to enjoy life. Loveing your purpose allows you to be content (attention and acceptance play in). Being content and having joy and friends and family allows you to have self control over all worldly things.
the difference between worldly things and spiritual things are that spiritual things exsist without the world. You’d live in complete understanding of each other if we were all spirits. There would be no physical obsticals.
Hitler’s anti-semitism could have been irrational, in so far as that he may have individual bad experiences with Jews in childhood or later and then equated them with the whole and wanted to act accordingly, by killing the whole. BUT it seems to me that Hitler hated the Jews as a race, and so he did act logically - if one hates a race, one destroys it. It may not be morally acceptable, but it is most certainly a rational consequence of hate.
Phil -
When and where did you experience these feelings? I’m guessing it was in a group, with worship music and mass-prayer. I have had a lot of experience of hypnotherapy, where one is put into a trance for relaxation and mental healing, and the kind of things one does in a religious, supposedly transcendental setting are massively akin to the kind of hypnotheraputic, trance-inducing exercises one does through hypnosis.
Sorry anvil, i missed your post a while ago - here is a reply.
Ok, then where did we acquire this tool? And how? During evolution, were we first alogical and then, over thousands of years, did logic become absorbed into our thought processes?
Aristotle’s Law of Identity corresponds entirely with reality. We are able to correctly, and across the differing perceptions of other people, attribute qualities to objects. The tree is brown, and hundreds of people all looking at the same tree would be able to agree.
When we go to down to something as basic as this law, or your “apples” example, it is not the case that we have created these things systematically. We have just given them names, and then carried out further theorising past its immediately perceivable levels. Just because Aristotle named such a basic law, obviously does not mean he created it and this is a fallacy that people often make. Just because we decided that an apple, or any other object in the singular, should be designated with the numerical value “1” and then in multiplicated forms should be designated with further titles corresponding with the “amount” that the objects feature in, does not mean that we created this concept.
If you can hypothesise how this thought-process became absorbed into our cognition I’d appreciate it.
To act on hate maybe a logical consequence of that hate (I’m not making a moral call - to hate racists irrationaly or rationaly for example is good in my book - motivations are not at issue!)
but is not the hatred of an entire race for something they didn’t/probably couldn’t do not still fundamentally irrational? (If as you said he’d had a lot of bad experiences as a child with Jews that might lead to hatred at least with a (very) tenuous link to reality)
Anti semiticism was rife throughout Europe at the time and i think they just gave absolute power to a “particularly bad one”
btw I think most people are mostly irrational and I’m not saying this is good or bad in and of itself
though given massive power and absolute rule the consequences of certain irrational beliefs can be horrific!!
On the other hand the Bolsheviks et al claimed to be rational and, indeed, scientists - in practice they proved as “rational” as the rest of the human race
As for the master logician, I had one in high school. We had this one philosophy course where all of us exceptional nerds flocked too, and Zakis was essentially the reincarnation of any logician ever known to mankind. Every argument was assumption, everything based out of doubtful sentences, nothing is true, nothing, and any thorough argument was in turn shot down.
The only solution to someone who is that stubbornly attached to mathematical systema in a system that even truth can be debated is to offer them higher level calculus, where impossible solutions are incredibly common, and ask them to find out where the assumption is in that. We broke Zakis of his habit in two days.
The methodology of human existence, the values – are determined by internal, instinctive, emotional reaction to external situations/systems.
Direction & method should be judged by their efficiency & sustainability.
The ability to defend & find merit for an opinion is accelorated by IQ, which makes learning work faster. Once enough “facts” are set partially behind something, it appears to be the holy-truth-of-god.
Reason, Logic, Intelligence & Knowledge all are nutral resources within the mind, and their value is only determined by their application & goal.
As humans were designed for a short term, compeditive, generational, personal goal, – their mental facalties will usually not extend beyond a single generation or system.
Possibly, but since this master logician is not anvildoc, the original poster,
I assumed that this master logician was a hypothetical master logician who anvildoc made up. If anvildoc is talking about a real master logician then it is ad hom, and I hope I didn’t hurt his feelings. (But then feelings are so illogical, so it doesn’t really matter I guess.)
Since there is some indication that the “perfect rationalist” is made up, what I was really engaged in was a furious beating of a straw man. But then again, since he’s made up, we can attribute all kinds of attributes to him. Like how his life would look - my question of whether or not the perfect rationalist would be able to land himself a girlfriend.
The only reason I ask is because it’s been my experience, that when it comes to love, logic is absa-fuckin-lutely useless. Relationships absolutely defy logic.
Lies. I really don’t think they do. The reason one feels love for another could be due to a number of different factors, all greatly akin to the connecting factors we see in animal relationships.
“Love” for a girlfriend/boyfriend is due to a number of different factors: 1) that you find him/her most desirable out of any you’ve experienced. This is akin to how a lion will choose a mate for the qualities she exhibits. 2) He/she may possess attributes you’d want your kids to have. Again, this happens in the wild. 3) He/she provides for you very well, which again is shown in animals.
Because human relationships are so much more complex than animal ones, we seem inclined to hyperbole in our descriptions of the feelings involved, notably “love”. I’m not saying love is a meaningless concept, it’s just a lot more simple and tangible than most people would like to describe it as.
Comrade Elvis, I believe that comrade gemty was talking about feelings overpowering thoughts.
I do also realize that feelings and instinct are forms of “logic”, as they each have reasons and meanings – but these are inborn instinct, not aquired knowledge, and the inborn instinct reacts to knowledge; knowledge is experience.