Hell is just what happens in basements.
Mostly in debasements
True. I knew a guy who entered hell on the top floor.
{See a movie “Platform” if get the chance. It’s literally about that.
Redemption is on the very bottom, not to give away the plot.}
quote=“Fixed Cross”]True. I knew a guy who entered hell on the top floor.[/quote
[quote=“Meno_”]
quote=“Fixed Cross”]True. I knew a guy who entered hell on the top floor.
[/quote[/quote]
I knew one who exited heaven from the bottom.
Very few people truly understand what logic is–formally speaking–that is, as a set of rules by which propositions can be derived from other propositions–and they confuse it merely with the flow of their thoughts in moments of serious engagement with reality (i.e. trying to figure reality out).
The fact is, the flow of our thoughts will always come with a sense of necessity or justification–one thought always leading to the next–but this is a feeling that comes with all mental states; take anger for example. We feel that our angry mood justifies lashing out or hurting someone–they deserve it, we say–but this is not formal logic–it’s just a bit of self-scrutiny to show how our mental state gave rise to our actions or further mental states–in such a way that we hope others will see it as justified. We’re doing something similar when we argue our points in philosophy or debate–we’re trying to show what thoughts we started with in the hopes that everyone will see how those thoughts reasonably give rise to the conclusions we arrived at. We hope that the same flow will occur in their minds when we start them off with the same thoughts we started off with, and if so, we share a common feeling of justification or necessity, which is just how such a flow feels.
But formal logic is more than just this feeling of justification or necessity, it is also the set of rules our thoughts must follow in order to get reality right. We must hone our thoughts, structure the flow, such that we make a habit of following these rules, making them second nature, and always testing them against reality to confirm that we got it right. We learn these rules slowly as we develop from childhood to adulthood, committing the common mistakes you find in any beginners guide to logic (under the section Logical Fallacies), and being shown that they are mistakes by the way reality turns out different from what you predict. Eager to get things right, the child learns not to make those mistakes, how to think in a different way that more reliably yields predictions that do match with reality, and eventually develops at least a rudimentary set of logical rules (although in most adults, this doesn’t get perfected).
Now the rub is that in order to figure out reality, one must have not only a set of reliable rules for thinking, but a set of assumptions, of starting points–and these cannot be derived logically (or if they are, then whatever started that logic had to be derived by some other means). Most people would say that empirical experience is where it starts–I experience something in the real world and that becomes an original thought from which I can follow a line of logic to arrive at certain conclusions–and there is truth to this–but I find most of the time, people start with assumptions that are inherited from faith in the words of other people–authority figures, teachers, parents, preachers, scientists, whatever source you trust–and we begin our arguments with these, not because they are logical–simple as that–but because we assume they aren’t too controversial (that is, that most people will agree with us anyway).
^ This is one of the biggest misconceptions about logic. Logic alone is useless for figuring out anything about reality–it’s just a set of rules, not facts–you need to start with certain pre-logical assumptions–and all logic can do is show you where you can go from there.
Exactly. People will fight this position endlessly. I had one guy on another forum recently telling me that with logic alone you could figure out everything. I asked for examples, then pointed out all the information, in those examples that had come via perception, empirical study and assumptions (intuitive or other) and then that the person had used logic on propositions based on these to draw conclusions. He just laughed at me. I might as well have been questioning the existence of Zeus.
I think this is connected to people wanting to think they are utterly logical (read: rational, read: right). They want it all to be clear, all their beliefs, and that they can be proved. And that no religion, cultural biases, intuition, guesswork, perception issues, psychological issues, the fact that they are time-bound primate, 5 sense organisms are having any effects on any of their conclusions. So, logic has to be both foundation and process, nothing else. Unlike other people.
Did he go by James S Saint?
The primary difference between logic and reason is that reason is subject to personal opinion, whereas logic is an actual science that follows clearly defined rules and tests for critical thinking. Logic also seeks tangible, visible or audible proof of a sound thought process by reasoning. quora
That’s why I always suggest we need an actual context in which to explore this distinction given our reactions to the behaviors that we choose. Especially in sets of circumstances in which these behaviors come into conflict over value judgments. Moral and political assessments for example. Or, for others, esthetic evaluations.
Logic seems more about precision given rules of language given a species able to construct one. Being reasonable on the other hand often seems harder to pin down.
For all practical purposes in particular.
We clearly come into this world with a “built-in” genetic/biological capacity to invent language. But, having invented it, what, when, where, how etc., might there be limitations imposed on it, given a particular context.
Assuming of course some measure of free will here.
And challenge has come up recently in reference to a lot of things, as man’s prerogative.
Ideomatically, a challenge supreme in reference to fallacious thinking can’t differentiate between what is reason able and logical, since they along with most people devalue that difference by virtue (or value) of what such difference has become: almost as one mans opinion against another’s.
Why is that one may ask, and the answer really is, foundamentally based on the search for the power that could will it’s own zone of safety.
The basic fear of losing that zone, has actualized into primordial angst, and it has transfixed into existential despair.
Not all can transcribe basic nometic structure into transcendent reality, and that is the biggest hurdle.
The closest one can come to overcome that invisible block is through the maps of Tolkien. But those who have successfully cut away the last veils of unreality, need not read fantasy to feel what that means.
It does transfix a grey area between higher -( highest orders ) of logical apprehension, from those that appear of a lower order.
The veil, usually progresses to and include the 6 th.; with the seventh , the key to relevance is forged by sets of keys closed to most but the most earnest and sincere in their attempt to reach it. Those keys , are tantamount to the multifold rings of power, whose reach is available only to the those unacquainted with the basic connections of how to traverse the differing realms of power.
The lack of inducement , or the power of trying to deal with them as barter , immediately breaks the invisible chain.
Hence, there remains no trace dof any sensible deduciable luminosity as do the onset of a twilight brought on by the gods’ themselves return to Walhalla.
Note: zone of safety is representative of( ref: Schopenhauer’s the world as will and representation) very early, or, earliest attempt to form a logical system out of spatial-geometric arrangements, which in modern terms is characterized on basis of -fight or flight . Giving rise to the notion of the spatial origin to logical sequencing.
If understood this way, necessary logic is a posteriori, to induce a higher, formal , less substantial structural form of it.
Although, this is also debatable.
Sorry: double post.
This is why I use the guerrilla logic of valuing-based arguments and you end up with a kind of geometry, mapping the terrains and substances in terms of the self-conscious premise.
In absence of being a creator-God who can scope out the whole deal in one glance, I need to anchor myself somewheres and deep in it enough that it doesn’t matter what substance it is;
whatever the substance, whatever the meaning, and whatever the logic, my premises are equipped at least to compare to nature’s premises, even if identity logic has a hard time reading through the camouflage. But then there is always Darwin.
I think it’s safe to say . . . We all agree that not all beliefs are formed via deductive reasoning (a.k.a. logic) and that there are beliefs that are formed by other means such as imagination. (Pretty much in alignment with Popper’s hypothetico-deductive model which is an idea previously introduced by Sir Charles Sanders Peirce.)
But I’m sad to see there isn’t much love for deduction. Of course, deduction is about following rules, but does that mean it’s less significant (not to mention insignificant)?
Here’s a question:
What percentage of our beliefs is a product of deduction and what percentage a product of imagination?
How many beliefs are axiomatic (= pre-logical = conjectural = hypothetical)?
And how many are logically derived?
I’m inclined to think that around 95% of all of our beliefs are either logically deduced or based on direct sensory experience and only around 5% are axiomatic. And though a good chunk of 95% of them are produced by the repetitive, mechanistic, process that consists in nothing more than following a set of boring rules, this does not mean it’s an easy thing to do. We use calculators for a reason.
It’s easy to make a logical mistake. Even easier if there are people trying to ensure that people make one. And one must also take into account that it is these final beliefs, the deduced ones, that have a direct influence on what we do in life.
And what about disagreements between people?
To what extent are they caused by different axioms and to what extent by differences in things such as logical ability and experience?
No, I haven’t seen James for a while.
And this argument was in the last week. James was much smarter than whoever it was, so it wasn’t an alter ego, unless James was playing dumb.
I don’t think that makes much sense.
- I wouldn’t call logic a science.
Sciences are empirical, logic isn’t. Logic has to do with premises and conclusions and the relationship between propositions.
2) Logic seeks…(nope it doesn’t seek and it doesn’t seek tangible or visible proof, let alone ‘audible’
I doubt anyone remotely expert wrote that.
What’s why? You suggest actual context because of what that ridiculous statement says logic seeks? But that statement is incorrect. In fact it is closer to describing empirical research, not logic, expect that it mentions ‘proof’.
James died 2 years ago, I think.
We’ll need an actual context here as well. A set of circumstances in which men and women choose particular behaviors in interacting. Then they have a discussion regarding the consequences of those interactions.
The words “logical” and “reasonable” will come up and the serious philosophers here can note for us what “for all practical purposes” the distinction is.
You pick it.
That’s the impression I got. But I never knew if the people who said it knew for sure.
To me this is just another example of a “general description intellectual contraption” that “serious philosophers” love to exchange. This time about logic.
Is it logical? Is it reasonable? Well, it would seem this depends on whether or not others agree with the definition and the meaning given to one set of words insofar as they establish or sustain the definition and the meaning of another set of words.
On the other hand, what is the use value and the exchange value of these definitions and meanings in regard to making a distinction between arguments of those on, say, either side of any particular set of conflicting goods?
And, no, not just abortion. That just happens to be own favorite.