Quote:

I think logic is one tool, albeit a very important one, in our toolkit to understand the world.  However, sometimes we become a slave to logic and attempt to apply it in instances were it isn't the best tool.

---

Quote:

The analytic mind seeks structure, and sometimes, in its own way, safety from an abrasive and hostile world.  It can pare down things or events into a single category in order to make the world--in its interpretation--a more managable place.

---

In cases like these logic has not been applied properly.
We need to label things in order to make reality more accessible, and we need to find common ground in settling those labels so we can make ourselves understood and improve the quality of communication. Exaggerating, over-reacting and irrationally fitting things into categories is what's non-constructive, but if you have some basic knowledge about what logic stands for, you'll realize that those non-constructive ways have nothing to do with logics anyways.

Quote:

This tightening can result in a very small world and a very small worldview.  You can observe this best in persons who tend towards extremism.  Christians, Mystics, Skeptics and many other groups where common thought is shared can provide a safe harbor where the emphasis is not on learning, but being protected and safe.  It is their cocoon, so to speak.

---

Now this is a perfect example of irrational labeling, a labeling based on emotionalism, poor thinking skills and inertia. Exactly what's being successfully avoided when we correctly apply logic into our lives. It's so funny how you fell in your own trap.

Quote:

Logic can be understood as a knife, sometimes it heals, sometimes it kills and sometimes there are better tools.

Never bring a knife to a gunfight.

---

This statement doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

backfromthedead said:

Though a state of affairs that would contravene the laws of physics can be represented by us spatially, one that would contravene the laws of geometry cannot.

If a thought were correct a priori, it would be a thought whose possibility ensured its truth.

A priori knowledge that a thought was true would be possible only if its truth were recognizable from the thought itself (without anything to compare it with).

In a proposition a thought finds an expression that can be perceived by the senses.

We use the perceptible sign of a proposition (spoken or written, etc.) as a projection of a possible situation.  The method of projection is to think of the sense of the proposition.

I call the sign with which we express a thought a propositional sign in its projective relation to the world.

A proposition includes all that the projection includes, but not what is projected.  Therefore, though what is projected is not itself included, its possibility is.  A proposition, therefore, does not actually contain its sense, but does contain the possibility of expressing it. 

A proposition contains the form, but not the content, of its sense.
-Wittgenstein

---

Wiccan_Seeker said:

What if logic is a coping strategy of the mind to try make sense of the world...

---

Quote:

, and turns out to be just another interpretation of reality?

---

"Just another"? Clearly, logic is an interpretation of reality. The reduction being implied with this statement, though, is really confusing, as though the substantiveness that logic carries with it has been negated. Is this what was intended to be conveyed, that the difference between a substantiated line of reasoning and an interpretation that carries with it no basis has somehow been removed? I hope not, because I do not see how as much has been justified in this post.

Quote:

What if logic only can take you so far?

---

Quote:

Taste? Sweet, Salt, Sour, Bitter and Protein

---

How does "protein" fit in that list?

Quote:

What if logic is the same, that it can only give us an interpretation of one tiny drop in an ocean of reality?

---

Obviously, our sensory devices have limited means with which to obtain information through their interaction with reality; our ability to process, interpret, and perceive this sensory information is limited as well. Thus, it logically follows () that any system of reasoning that we subsequently create would be a limited interpretation of the vast, unknown nature of a phenomenon we simply could not grasp. I am still waiting for what is implied with the "what if?" to be revealed.

Quote:

Move over Sesame Street, lets talk about the number seven. Can we get 7 into our heads? You can put 7 nugs on the table and say "this is seven". And you may be right. What is on the table appears to be seven. But the thing that resonates in your brain, the "seven" in your mind, is only an abstraction of the seven thats on the table. In your head is not a reality of seven, just an interpretation thereof.

---

Quote:

We are being had GOOD people, by logic.

---

You, perhaps...

Quote:

Don't get lost in it and don't rely on it as your sole source in your quest for higher understanding.

---

So, developing a system of reasoning and maintaining it through observation and analysis shouldn't be relied upon... what else do you suggest?

Quote:

how everything is just an abstraction

---

Everything? Experience isn't an abstraction. Experience is a real phenomenon.

Quote:

how can we possibly ever assume to find but on e shred of truth beyond the shadow of a doubt.

---

We can't.

Quote:

Uncertainty is a cocoon that envelops our knowing like space envelops a planet. We can only get out of the cocoon by denying its existence.

---

The unknown may envelope and permeate existence, but I don't understand how denying the existence of the unknown accomplishes anything, but perhaps you didn't phrase what you were intending to say as eloquently as possible. Denial of existence is never beneficial.

Quote:

Though a state of affairs that would contravene the laws of physics can be represented by us spatially, one that would contravene the laws of geometry cannot.

---

?

Lion said:

Quote:

Though a state of affairs that would contravene the laws of physics can be represented by us spatially, one that would contravene the laws of geometry cannot.

---

?

---

That is in fact a spatial representation, an image, an optical illusion if you will that in no way contradicts geometry...  Can you bring that shape into the world so that I can hold it in my hands...??

Middleman said:

Right. No optical illusion breaks a law of geometry which is why it's called an illusion.

---

Its seems as though it relies on its geometry for its effect, no??

WhiskeyClone said:

In fact it makes us quite anxious, and we want to get rid of it.

---

fireworks_god said:

WhiskeyClone said:

In fact it makes us quite anxious, and we want to get rid of it.

---

Speak for yourself.

---

Yes, I like uncertainty...it means that there is still more fun to be had by discovering!