|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Logic
#5737505 - 06/11/06 10:46 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
What is it?
This is a question for those who think they know, specifically for f_g.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|

I'd answer, but I'd hate to support state-sponsored trollism.
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
|
This is a simple question. That you do not answer tells me you do not know.
You don't even know what logic is, yet you accuse others of being illogical. Put up or shut up.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
|
it is all about style: the most refined monkey see monkey do.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Well, judging from the behavior of those who maintain that they are logical, logic is something that causes someone who is using it to direct ad hominems agansit another when their points are questioned, and then to ignore subsequent replies in that thread, and then to start a new thread in which one can continue to direct ad hominems agansit that person, while altogether escaping any responsibility to properly support the points that one expressed that were questioned in the first place. 
Quote:
That you do not answer tells me you do not know.
Stunning deduction. It is interesting to find out that such conclusions are based in logic. 
Quote:
you don't even know what logic is, yet you accuse others of being illogical. Put up or shut up.
It is no fault of mine if others cannot operate with valid reasoning, and it is not my responsibility to condescend when they get upset that they cannot substantiate their illogical claims. 
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Huehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly


Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,685
Loc: On the Border
|
|
That was a very logical response.
-------------------- "A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
fresh313
journeyman


Registered: 09/01/03
Posts: 2,537
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
|
The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning. - webster
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Logic, of course, has multiple definitions, most of them pertaining to a system of reasoning, with one specifically referring to valid reasoning. 
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
|
We have a definition from Webster. Thank you fresh313.  It's a good start, but the dictionary definition is a little thin. After all, many volumes have been written on the topic of logic. I will attempt to flesh it out a bit.
F_G said:
Quote:
Logic, of course, has multiple definitions, most of them pertaining to a system of reasoning, with one specifically referring to valid reasoning.
Not much substance there f_g. Pay attention and you might learn something.  ------------------------------
I passed logic 4 years ago with an A, and I have since tutored other students who were struggling. I also just finished my BA in Philosophy (with distinction GPA 3.89), and I have been accepted to grad school. I plan to teach philosophy at the college level. Philosophy is my true passion; mushrooms are just a hobby.
Logic is the first class philosophy majors are required to take, because it is foundational. Without a proper grasp of logic, one cannot hope to understand complex philosophical arguments.
So... Logic.
Logic is derived from the Greek word logos which can be translated either as "word" or "reason".
Logic is the discipline of correct reasoning using words. In philosophy, logic almost exclusively applies to arguments.
Validity and Soundness
Many students confuse these two terms, so it is essential that we be sure of their meanings before moving forward.
Validity "Validity" is a term that refers to the structure of an argument. A valid argument is one in which the conclusion is supported by the premises. Every valid argument that has true premises will have a true conclusion, but valid arguments need not have true conclusions if one or more of the premises are not true.
Example:
All cats are blue. Fireworks_gad is a cat. Therefore, fireworks_gad is blue.
Though the conclusion is false, the above argument is completely valid, because the conclusion is supported by the premises.
Soundness Soundness refers to the truth value of the conclusion of a valid argument. If all the premises are true, and the the structure of the argument is valid, then the conclusion will be true. In this case we have a sound argument. But not all arguments with true conclusions are sound.
Example:
Bill Clinton was the first president of the United States. The first president of the United states was a Democrat. Therefore, Bill Clinton was a Democrat.
Though the above argument is valid, and the conclusion is true, it is still not a sound argument because it contains false premises.
-------
I hope the distinction between validity and soundness is now clear. Unless there are questions, I will next move on to the structural requirements for validity. From there we will tackle theories of truth in an attempt to discover the the grounding principle of logic.
Peace
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
|
Logic is more than deduction, no?
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said: Logic is more than deduction, no?
It can be. People just haven't learned all of its uses.
I can deduce the easiest way to make dinner in 10 minutes or I can induce a more complex menu that will take 60 minutes to prepare. Both will require some form of logical order and reasoning.
Even if I reason preparing the meal that takes longer to make by saying, it will taste better, or I have a craving for it, or, I have to use up certain items in the fridge before they go bad, those are all valid reasons to me, to spend more time on it.
Something being valid doesn't always mean it is objective or has to be and that you can prove it or have to.
Can I and do I have to prove to you that something tastes better to me for my decision to spend 60 minutes on dinner to be a logical one?
Can I and do I have to prove my food craving to you for my decision to spend more time making dinner to be a logical one?
Logic is a line of reasoning. You can use it to reason anything small and simple or grand and complex to yourself and often others.
Logic itself does not validate or invalidate a goal or idea. We use it to validate or invalidate goals and ideas to ourselves and each other to serve our intended purposes and preferences. There is a difference.
It's just a tool that can make things small or big, simple or complex. Logic was used to create tha atom bomb and wireless internet. Those are grand and complex things.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
|
Sure, there is also inductive logic, but I gotta start somewhere.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
shroomydan said: Not much substance there f_g. Pay attention and you might learn something. 
I wasn't attempting to provide much substance. I do, however, intend on paying attention with the intention of learning something. 
In addressing your point in the other thread, I failed to effectively represent my point. I should have said that your premise was faulty, eh? 
I appreciate the time you are investing in this and look forward to reading more.
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Gomp
¡(Bound to·(O))be free!


Registered: 09/11/04
Posts: 10,888
Loc: I re·side [primarily] in...
Last seen: 10 months, 23 days
|
|
Logical..
|
michael_lifshitz
Student


Registered: 12/27/05
Posts: 436
Loc: here
Last seen: 16 years, 24 days
|
Re: Logic [Re: Gomp]
#5740050 - 06/11/06 10:45 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Logic is oh so interesting.
I like it and use it, but look forward to reading up on it more formally.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
|
Good. 
You are helping me become a better teacher.
The structural requirements for validity.
I first learned logic as an avionics technician in the United States Navy. My job was to troubleshoot and repair broken components of the F-14 weapons control radar system. This often required me to trace signals through a series of electronic logic gates: and gates, not gates, or gates, exclusive or gates, etc.
As a freshman philosophy student, I was pleasantly surprised to find that electronic logic and philosophical logic follow the same rules. The high and low of digital logic corresponds exactly to the true and false of classical logic, upon which it is based. If the logic is faulty in an electronic system, the device will not function properly, and if the logic is faulty in a philosophical argument, the argument will not lead to truth, and truth is what philosophy seeks.
At this point I could list the zoo of universally valid argument forms, which I had to memorize, along with a list of common logical fallacies, which I also had to memorize, but I think it would be more beneficial in this forum to look toward the foundation of all logical validity. We find this foundation in the principle of identity.
Principle of Identity:
A thing is what a thing is. A=A. If p then p.
The principle of identity is the foundational axiom of logic. From the principle of identity one can easily deduce the second foundational axiom of logic, the Principle of Non-Contradiction.
Principle of Non-Contradiction:
Two contradictory assertions cannot both be true. It is not possible for a thing to both be and not be, in the same way, at the same time. A ~= ~A ("~" is logical notation for "not"). If p, then ~ ~p.
The third foundational axiom of logic is the principle of the excluded middle. It is easily deduced from the two previous axioms.
Principle of Excluded Middle:
Either a thing is, or a thing is not; there is no third possibility. Either A or ~A, but not both. p v ~p, but ~(p . ~p)1 ("v" is logical notation for "or" and "." is logical notion for "and")
Aristotle held that these axioms are self evident; all rational beings will consider them to be true. Whether or not they are self evident, and how they are affirmed to be true, requires a discussion of truth theory, which I will address in the next post. For now let it suffice to say that all valid argument forms are rooted in these three axioms. Any statement or argument which violates one of these principles is absurd. Absurd is the technical term for an illogical assertion.
If anyone would like see the list of universally valid argument forms and the list of common fallacies, I will be happy look them up and post them.
Unless there are objections or questions, I will next address what grounds logic. There are three theories I like: Logic is self-evident (Aristotle), logic is rooted in Aesthetics (Peirce); logic must be taken on faith (Augustine & James).
Until next time,
Peace
1Some have argued for potential being as a third alternative, but this requires the use of Modal Logic, which is beyond the present scope of this discussion. Within classic logic, potential being is considered a category of non-being: An egg is potentially a chicken, but an egg is not a chicken.
|
Diploid
Cuban


Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
|
Two contradictory assertions cannot both be true.
Good luck convincing much of the S&P crowd that this is so. I've been there, done that, and finally gave up.
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Logic [Re: Diploid]
#5746985 - 06/13/06 07:32 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Man, like, did you notice how what that shroomydan guy said is true and is not true, in, like, every respect, dude?
|
Diploid
Cuban


Registered: 01/09/03
Posts: 19,274
Loc: Rabbit Hole
|
|
So:
p . ~p
OK
-------------------- Republican Values: 1) You can't get married to your spouse who is the same sex as you. 2) You can't have an abortion no matter how much you don't want a child. 3) You can't have a certain plant in your possession or you'll get locked up with a rapist and a murderer. 4) We need a smaller, less-intrusive government.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Logic [Re: Diploid]
#5750407 - 06/14/06 06:01 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, I have also tried unsuccessfully to hammer this point home, but I am no longer trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just letting people here know what logic is and what it is not, because there seems to be some confusion.
There are plenty of people out there spouting arguments against the principle of non-contradiction (contradiction BTW is a conjunction of two Latin words: "contra" = "against", and "dictare" = "to speak", directly translating as "to speak against"). Those who argue against non-contradiction necessarily speak against themselves, rendering their arguments absurd.
From a philosophical perspective, any words contra to non-contradiction must be summarily dismissed as gibberish. However, not all speech must conform to the rules of logic. Poetry for example need not confine itself to the rigorous tests of validity, to which philosophical arguments must adhere. Likewise, certain theological doctrines are beyond the scope of logic.
Those who dismiss such words as illogical (and therefore meaningless), should note that many of history's greatest philosophers (Plotinus being the foremost) have asserted that the highest reality is ineffable; it cannot be comprehensively described with words, it's apprehension requiring a mystical assent.
But I digress...
Philosophy requires conformity to the rules of logic. The philosopher may not contradict himself when formulating his system, just as the electronics engineer may not violate the rules of logic when constructing his devise.
Granted, there are plenty of idiots out there presenting self-contradictory theories of reality, just as there are many idiots out there soldering together random electronic components. Neither class of idiot will flourish.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
So all this seems well and good but I think plenty of people here know the basics of logic but then fail to apply it because they are not in control of their emotions.
It doen't do much good if you don't apply what you know to your discourse.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
|
That's true.
Emotions are often contradictory to reason. But think about this:
What is the foundation of reason? Why do some of us hold to logic and others do not, if not for emotional reasons?
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Right. What I'm saying is not many need schooling on the concepts of logic here, they need to learn when their ego has overridden there ability to be logical. Usually when that happens the personal ego is convincing the poster that their emotionally defensive outburst is logical. This is the problem I see mostly.
It's not that being emotional is anti logic. It's inappropriate emotional attachment to self-importance that is problematic for most of us most of the time. Don't you think?
If we are able to acknowledge that problem within ourselves then we might be able to grow out of it somewhat. But usually there is so much defensiveness that it's not possible or it's only some vague acknowledgement after the fact.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Schwammel
Auk

Registered: 12/10/05
Posts: 845
Last seen: 17 years, 3 months
|
|
so this is an ego breeding ground...
a consensus of what is appropriate
but that might be defensive too
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
|
I think some of the more vocal posters here do need remediation in logic. That's why I made this post.
Now that we are all on the same page, logically speaking, the discussion should naturally proceed to why the rationally minded hold to logical principles. I will address subjective affirmation of logic in my next post, probably after work tomorrow.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero


Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
|
> Two contradictory assertions cannot both be true.
Photons behave as waves. Photons behave as particles. A wave and a particle are mutally exclusive (contradictory).
My only gripe with logic is the requirement of duality. This isn't an issue when using logic for things that exist entirely within our reality. However, people tend to use logic to debate things that do not exist entirely within our reality (i.e. God). I guess my gripe isn't so much against logic, but against people misusing logic.
> As a freshman philosophy student, I was pleasantly surprised to find that electronic logic and philosophical logic follow the same rules.
As a freshman comp sci student, I was amazed as well. Complex conditionals are much easier to write when one understands DeMorgans, for example. I was amazed when we started taking english sentences and breaking them down into logic components to prove the statement correct or incorrect. (My logic prof wrote the book that was most commonly used in intro logic classes at the college level at the time. Heh, just looked it up on Amazon... in the tenth edition and still being sold. It was a very good class!)
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
slaphappy
Its just me


Registered: 10/29/04
Posts: 1,188
Loc: Norway, Eidsvoll, RÃ¥holt...
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
Re: Logic [Re: Seuss]
#5752929 - 06/15/06 09:51 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Is the world logical?
If the answer to that is yes, would that make the world a logical construct, or would logic be a natural/universal construct - i.e gift from the gods?
If it is neither, or both, or one of them, would all be logical answers?
Is the answer "no" to the question "is this logical?" a logical answer?
Is what logical?
Say, "this" = "Is this logical?" . Like "Is the answer "no" to the question "is "is this logical?" logical?"?
Is the answer "no" to the question "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "is "Is " is
-------------------- The argent messenger of truth beyond truth, the antithesis of life, cruel and bleak as interstellar space, pulseless and frozen as absolute zero, dazzling with the frost of irrefragable logic and unforgettable fact.

|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
Re: Logic [Re: Seuss]
#5753277 - 06/15/06 11:33 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Two contradictory assertions cannot both be true.
Neutrinos can behave as muons
Neutrinos can behave as tau's
Neutrinios can behave as electrons
A neutrino identity crisis? The strange disappearance of both atmospheric muon neutrinos and solar electron neutrinos can be understood as a process of "neutrino oscillation". What that means is that, given the proper conditions, a neutrino of one type can change into one of a different type; if all three neutrinos have a mass of zero, or even the same mass of any value, this would not be allowed.
If neutrinos have mass and therefore are able to change their stripes, both the atmospheric and solar neutrino anomalies could be solved. This is because muon neutrinos from the atmosphere which oscillate into tau neutrinos would be experimentally undetectable (in a practical sense). Similarly, if electron neutrinos from the Sun change into muon or tau neutrinos, they too will interact at a significantly lower rate.
A Wrasses fish can behave reproductively as a male and then change sex and reproduce as a female.
Granted, I think the contradiction rule of logic you posted said that something can not be two things at the same time. As I demonstrated and wrote in Veritas's Use of Logic post, something can logically contradict itself with "time".
The "time factor" is what a few logicians here have failed to factor in when they proclaim, "Contradiction!, Logical Fallacy!, You are a Liar!"
Where time is involved, logical contradictions can exist. Things are not always, black or white, where time is involved.
Quote:
Seuss said; My only gripe with logic is the requirement of duality.
Who says it's required? I mean, by what authority is it? I don't require it to make sense of what is and can be for myself.
Quote:
Seuss said: However, people tend to use logic to debate things that do not exist entirely within our reality (i.e. God). I guess my gripe isn't so much against logic, but against people misusing logic.
They only do it because logicians require them too, to take them seriously. Once we move beyond our physical reality, duality based logic doesn't apply.
This forum being half a spirituality forum, spirit being non physical matter, is it a surprise or wonder, why an average of half the discussion sound il-logical or non-logical?
Shroomydan, if your plan is to mold the members of this forum, to use of the rules of logic as you have prescribed them, you will cripple half of it.
If members were forced to use it, the spirituality half of this forum should be moved away from it then. If you want all members adhering to the rules of duality logic, then that should only apply to discussions of a philosophical, not spiritual nature.
Yet, for many members the two are the intertwined (logical contradiction perhaps? ) and they want them kept together.
If you want to teach the rules of philosophical logic, great! Expecting all conversation in a spirituality forum to adhere to them, is crippling to it and illogical.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
Re: Logic [Re: Seuss]
#5754171 - 06/15/06 04:37 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Photons behave as waves. Photons behave as particles. A wave and a particle are mutually exclusive (contradictory).
Empirical evidence suggests they are not contradictory.
Particle-wave theory does not violate non-contradiction, it says that photons are both particles and waves. If it said they are both particles and not particles, then it would be absurd. As it stands, particle-wave theory adheres to logical principles. It merely challenges the implied premise that particles cannot be waves.
I think it is better to call classical logic "binary" rather than "dualistic". Non-dualistic systems have been formulated using logical structure.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite


Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
|
As pointed out above, non-contradiction does not say that something cannot be two things. It says that it is absurd to claim something is a given thing and also not a given thing.
As for the "time factor", logic does not prohibit change. When I eat an apple, what was apple becomes non-apple. Note the second formulation:
"It is not possible for a thing to both be and not be, in the same way, at the same time."
Quote:
Shroomydan, if your plan is to mold the members of this forum, to use of the rules of logic as you have prescribed them, you will cripple half of it.
If members were forced to use it, the spirituality half of this forum should be moved away from it then. If you want all members adhering to the rules of duality logic, then that should only apply to discussions of a philosophical, not spiritual nature.
Yet, for many members the two are the intertwined (logical contradiction perhaps? ) and they want them kept together.
If you want to teach the rules of philosophical logic, great! Expecting all conversation in a spirituality forum to adhere to them, is crippling to it and illogical.
I have no intention of limiting anyones expression in this forum. 
I began this post because an ignorant person accused me of being illogical. I hope that I have alleviated some of his ignorance. As stated in an earlier post, certain forms of speech like poetry need not comply with rules of logical validity. Common emotional sentiments are often illogical, love-hate relationships for example. However, logic distinguishes philosophy and science from other forms of linguistic expression. The philosopher and the scientist do not impose logic because they are evil task-masters; they require logic because it is essential to the communication of precise ideas.
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger


Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
|
Quote:
shroomydan said: The philosopher and the scientist do not impose logic because they are evil task-masters; they require logic because it is essential to the communication of precise ideas.
There is but one reality. 
 Peace.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
gettinjiggywithit
jiggy


Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 7,469
Loc: Heart of Laughter
|
|
Quote:
The philosopher and the scientist do not impose logic because they are evil task-masters; they require logic because it is essential to the communication of precise ideas.
I must've spaced that last sentence and noticed it when FG highlighted it.
See, you are dismissing the spirituality side of this forum if you think only philosophers and scientists post and read here things here. The spirit requires the heart to feel the heart behind the words. Why did you leave that out? Is it not equally valid for this forum?
People writing from spirit, in spirit may be writing to communicate with others listening in and with spirit. When this takes place communication is precise and clearly understood between the two.
Perfect example is moons post that was written from spirit (poesy) . Those who listened to it from and within spirit had no trouble with understanding precisely what he was communicating.
If a logical minded philosopher or scientist read it from the material view and mental mind, of course they would find holes.
When you read with your heart, there were none.
Not everything posted in here coming from the heart of spirits language is meant to be read by anything but that for it to be understood.
The spirituality side of discussions are also often made up of metaphors. The beauty of metaphor is that the reader can make of it what they will and take from it something with personal meaning to them. They can just leave it too. The person speaking in metaphor doesn't care to communicating with precisional logic to reach the simplest of minds or they would be doing that instead of speaking in metaphor.
It wouldn't matter to me if anyone demanding logical precision was an evil task master or not. Half on average of this forums subject matter is expected to be of a spiritual nature. It's not to say the workings and musing of spirit do not adhere to some form of logical reasoning.
It's the difference in writing styles is the difference between those who go by book and those who go by feel and some easily move from one to the other, like you can and many of us can.
-------------------- Ahuwale ka nane huna.
|
slaphappy
Its just me


Registered: 10/29/04
Posts: 1,188
Loc: Norway, Eidsvoll, RÃ¥holt...
Last seen: 14 years, 4 months
|
|
Logic exists only within the logical construct of language.
Language can only vaguely describe, in logical terms, the abstract.
Nothing and noone observes and does not observe that which does and does not happen, and otherwise.
Everything that happens, everything that does not happen, everything that is, everything that is not - are all logic constructs explaining the abstract happening or nonhappening or otherwise.
Ever wondered why you can't make sense of anything?
You don't exist.
You don't have senses, there is nothing to sense, you aren't sensible. Neither are you not.
Sense make sense of sense, anything anythings anything.
Fear is afraid, fun laughs, food eats, death dies. Food never eats, death never dies. Fear never fears fear, fun never lauhgs at fun.
Death cannot die, it has never lived.
The logical construct of the abstract spuriousness will never explain itself logically - the abstract is abstract, the spurious is spurious, the will wills, never ever, the explenation explains, itself is itself.
And the only logical, is logic.
-------------------- The argent messenger of truth beyond truth, the antithesis of life, cruel and bleak as interstellar space, pulseless and frozen as absolute zero, dazzling with the frost of irrefragable logic and unforgettable fact.

|
|