Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[JackDaydream]

I have been thinking about this for a while, since reading the topic, 'Is Atheism Logical?' I have been reading, ' The Art of Logic: How to Make Sense in a World that Doesn't' by Eugenia Cheng(2019). The author argues that,
' Logic and abstraction are like shining a light at things. As we get more abstract, it like raising the light off the ground.'

However, logic is central to philosophy and the author argues that,
' Logical connectives are the way that logical statements are connected to form bigger, more complex statements. It is a general principle in mathematics that a good way to understand something complex is to break it down into simple constitutive parts. Then you have to understand simple building blocks together with the ways of sticking them together. '

I am asking about the importance of logic in philosophy and its limitations.

[LuckyR]

I have been thinking about this for a while, since reading the topic, 'Is Atheism Logical?' I have been reading, ' The Art of Logic: How to Make Sense in a World that Doesn't' by Eugenia Cheng(2019). The author argues that,
' Logic and abstraction are like shining a light at things. As we get more abstract, it like raising the light off the ground.'

However, logic is central to philosophy and the author argues that,
' Logical connectives are the way that logical statements are connected to form bigger, more complex statements. It is a general principle in mathematics that a good way to understand something complex is to break it down into simple constitutive parts. Then you have to understand simple building blocks together with the ways of sticking them together. '

I am asking about the importance of logic in philosophy and its limitations.

Logic is the framework upon which we can test out theories of behavior in a moral dimension. The limitation is that people do not always behave rationally (logically). This difference between what makes sense and what people actually choose to do is the difference between philosophy and psychology/sociology. That's why some folks are "right" and others are successful.

[JackDaydream]

@LuckyR
After having a thread on emotions, I think that the integration of them with logic is complex, especially in relation to morals. It is may be that it is difficult to live up to what one feels is right to do logically. This may involve aspects of emotional aspects which are not taken into account consciously. So, in that sense it may be that logical thinking about one's own emotional values may need to be fuller in self awareness, in order to bring greater balance and enable more achievable moral goals. Also, there may be clashes between different duties and this is likely to need the ability to think about this, but logic without emotion may be lacking in empathetic understanding.

Also, logic may have limits to the way which aspects of life are understood because it does not include the full picture of psychology. Human beings are not abstract,so have needs which are not logical.

[stevie]

I have been thinking about this for a while, since reading the topic, 'Is Atheism Logical?' I have been reading, ' The Art of Logic: How to Make Sense in a World that Doesn't' by Eugenia Cheng(2019). The author argues that,
' Logic and abstraction are like shining a light at things. As we get more abstract, it like raising the light off the ground.'

However, logic is central to philosophy and the author argues that,
' Logical connectives are the way that logical statements are connected to form bigger, more complex statements. It is a general principle in mathematics that a good way to understand something complex is to break it down into simple constitutive parts. Then you have to understand simple building blocks together with the ways of sticking them together. '

I am asking about the importance of logic in philosophy and its limitations.

If Pyrrho-skepticism counts as "philosophy" then it is an example of a philosophy that rejects logic as used by what it calls "dogmatic" philosophies because any dogmatic reasoning will necessarily entail infinite regress, reciprocal reasoning, dead-lock of ungrounded hypothesis or end up in relative argumentation which undermines dogma. Therefore the limitation of logical reasoning is that it cannot establish absolute truth aka "dogma". But Pyrrho-skepticism itself uses logical reasoning in a polemic way to expose the absurdity of any philosophical dogma through inferring absurd or contradictory consequences.
Having said that most known philosophies certainly rely on logical reasoning to some degree.

[Steve3007]

I am asking about the importance of logic in philosophy and its limitations.

If logic is a set of rules we've invented to govern the way that we use things like propositions and statements in language, then presumably logic is important insofar as we ever want to propose or state anything. Do we ever want to propose or state anything?

[Ecurb]

Logic is the science of non-contradiction. A mathematical proof simply states that granted the postulates and definitions, any result other than the proved theorem would be contradictory.

Another way of stating this is that any logical proof is simply a restatement of the postulates.

Of course it is important to learn (and demonstrate) what can be inferred from a set of postulates (or principles) -- and logic is the tool we use to do is.

[Pattern-chaser]

I am asking about the importance of logic in philosophy and its limitations.

Logic is, in general terms, a collection of guidelines that assist in formulating ordered and considered arguments. It is difficult to see a downside to this, although perhaps the authoritarian application of logical 'rules' might be counter-productive in some cases?

[Gee]

I have been thinking about this for a while, since reading the topic, 'Is Atheism Logical?' I have been reading, ' The Art of Logic: How to Make Sense in a World that Doesn't' by Eugenia Cheng(2019). The author argues that,
' Logic and abstraction are like shining a light at things. As we get more abstract, it like raising the light off the ground.'

I did not read the topic, 'Is Atheism Logical?', probably because the title would have put me off the idea. As Cheng stated, one has to "understand simple building blocks" before one can use logic, and I have not yet found enough people, who understand the building blocks of religion and "God" to attempt any debate regarding logic in those subjects.

However, logic is central to philosophy and the author argues that,
' Logical connectives are the way that logical statements are connected to form bigger, more complex statements. It is a general principle in mathematics that a good way to understand something complex is to break it down into simple constitutive parts. Then you have to understand simple building blocks together with the ways of sticking them together. '

I am asking about the importance of logic in philosophy and its limitations.

I agree that logic is central to much of philosophy, but would caution that it is necessary to always remember that logic is a linear process. Logic takes connectives and examines their sequential order in order to validate some truth or idea. This order is sequential and can be examined for what is causal because logic works within time -- important to remember. The unconscious and emotion do not give two hoots about time, but are the source of religion and "God" ideas, which is why I generally ignore religion, atheism, and "God" ideas that try to work with logic -- they don't work. Often they are simply rationalizations.

The other thing that must be considered about the linear aspect of logic, is that it starts somewhere and ends somewhere, so it is an internal examination. What if you don't have all the facts? What then? Consider the following:

A man has been invited to his neighbor's house for dinner, so he will (A) walk, or (B) fly to his neighbor's house. Most of us will assume that he will (A) walk as that is the only logical response. But what if the man is a forest ranger, who owns a sea plane, and his closest neighbor is three miles across the lake? That further information takes the logic right out of walking to the neighbor's house.

What if you are looking for new information? What if you don't know where the logic will take you? If logic is a linear process and you are trying to find out new information, you will have problems just starting out in some direction. Where do you place the first step? Then the next step? The only way to accomplish this is to have a general idea of where you are going, which means you have already decided. This is what we call a rationalization, when we decide what is true, then build the sequential steps necessary to that "truth" in order to prove it.

So logic is an internal linear examination that can lead us astray if we do not have all of the facts, or if we do not have a valid end point, or if we are not dealing with time and causal reality. There may be other ways to abuse logic, but these are the ones that I am aware of.

I think it was Heidegger, who called logic a "school room tool" that is used by instructors to prove or disprove theories. Maybe I have learned why he thought so.

Gee

[Tegularius]

It works in all the ways an argument makes sense even if totally detrimental and wrong. There are many who are quite sophisticated in proclaiming and defending their ideas in spite of having no merit or worse, having insidious intent. That's how crowds are made to conform. Unfortunately, that which flows often floods.

[stevie]

I have been thinking about this for a while, since reading the topic, 'Is Atheism Logical?' I have been reading, ' The Art of Logic: How to Make Sense in a World that Doesn't' by Eugenia Cheng(2019). The author argues that,
' Logic and abstraction are like shining a light at things. As we get more abstract, it like raising the light off the ground.'

However, logic is central to philosophy and the author argues that,
' Logical connectives are the way that logical statements are connected to form bigger, more complex statements. It is a general principle in mathematics that a good way to understand something complex is to break it down into simple constitutive parts. Then you have to understand simple building blocks together with the ways of sticking them together. '

I am asking about the importance of logic in philosophy and its limitations.

If Pyrrho-skepticism counts as "philosophy" then it is an example of a philosophy that rejects logic as used by what it calls "dogmatic" philosophies because any dogmatic reasoning will necessarily entail infinite regress, reciprocal reasoning, dead-lock of ungrounded hypothesis or end up in relative argumentation which undermines dogma. Therefore the limitation of logical reasoning is that it cannot establish absolute truth aka "dogma". But Pyrrho-skepticism itself uses logical reasoning in a polemic way to expose the absurdity of any philosophical dogma through inferring absurd or contradictory consequences.
Having said that most known philosophies certainly rely on logical reasoning to some degree.

In terms of "How does logic work?" I'd prefer a 'coherence model' for the explanation of the persuasiveness of logic: A logical reasoning appears to be persuasive if - and only if - it fits into the body of already established beliefs and assumptions. "the body of already established beliefs and assumptions" may also be called "conceptual framing" and is the basis for any kind of apprehension and affirmative thought formation preceding verbal expression.

[Pattern-chaser]

In terms of "How does logic work?" I'd prefer a 'coherence model' for the explanation of the persuasiveness of logic: A logical reasoning appears to be persuasive if - and only if - it fits into the body of already established beliefs and assumptions. "the body of already established beliefs and assumptions" may also be called "conceptual framing" and is the basis for any kind of apprehension and affirmative thought formation preceding verbal expression.

At first I thought you were linking logic to orthodoxy, which seems to me to be an unnecessary constraint on logic and its definition. A little more thought persuaded me that you're linking it to context, which makes a lot more sense (to me). This fits with the everyday use of "the logic of X" to mean either

the reasoning that leads to X, or
the reasoning that follows from X.

This relates X, and the logic associated with it, to the context within which X exists. This may be a somewhat woolly use of the term "logic", but it fits with what you have suggested. Relating logic and context makes a lot of sense when seen in this way. So the detailed logic that applies to X depends on X itself, and on X's context. For Y, the logic will differ, maybe a lot, maybe very little. Like much of the universe, it depends on context. I like this perspective on logic.

Logic is the framework upon which we can test out theories of behavior in a moral dimension.

Relating logic to morality is more difficult for me. I can't quite see the connection. I am tempted to observe that morality, and theories of (human) behaviour, are not bounded by logic, but further consideration reveals that I can't really justify that assertion. Even though I believe it to be so. I would be interested to know how logic relates to morality, if indeed it does.

Logic is the science of non-contradiction.

This does seem to constrain "logic" unnecessarily, in two ways. It limits logic to non-contradiction, but I think it also applies to other, similar, axioms. It also places logic firmly within the context of science or analytic philosophy, when perhaps it also has useful work to do in wider contexts than this?



Interesting thread.

[Steve3007]

Relating logic to morality is more difficult for me. I can't quite see the connection. I am tempted to observe that morality, and theories of (human) behaviour, are not bounded by logic, but further consideration reveals that I can't really justify that assertion. Even though I believe it to be so. I would be interested to know how logic relates to morality, if indeed it does.

I'd say logic relates to morality and theories of human behaviour in the same way that it also relates to anything else which involves working stuff out and proposing things. Theories of human behaviour, like theories of anything else, presumably involve statements and propositions ("If A and B then C" etc). Same with morality.

[Steve3007]

"Logic" seems to be another example of one of the many words that immediately conjure up an image in most people's minds, which then has a big effect on how they view the meaning of that word. "Metaphysics" is another one that's been discussed a lot recently. That one seems to conjure up a vaguely defined image of uncertainty, mysticism and emotions, to set against the vague image of science as representing certainty, rationality and empiricism. "Logic" seems to conjure up, essentially, Mr Spock. People rarely seem to immediately think of it as simply a set of rules that allow language to say useful things.

[Pattern-chaser]

"Logic" seems to conjure up, essentially, Mr Spock.

Yes, as someone who grew up watching Leonard Nimoy's portrayal of Mr Spock, I am no less affected by this as anyone. I liked his successor, Mr Data, more, but that owes much to the progression of SF on the small and big screens since the original ST came out. The odd thing is, in the case of Mr Spock, that the character does not so much portray a logical being, but the lacks and shortcomings of a solely logical being.

Logic, in the sense of Mr Spock, is portrayed as lacking imagination/creativity, emotion and humanity. And perhaps this is a valid way to consider logic? Humans are often illogical in their thoughts and actions, as portrayed by Mr Nimoy's fellow actors - and the thoroughly-unpleasant Shatner - very well, even thought the 60s scripts lead to some rather cardboard characters.

People rarely seem to immediately think of it as simply a set of rules that allow language to say useful things.

In those terms, I would say that logic is simply a set of rules (?) that help us decide whether language is being used to clearly and correctly express useful arguments?

[Steve3007]

Yes, as someone who grew up watching Leonard Nimoy's portrayal of Mr Spock, I am no less affected by this as anyone. I liked his successor, Mr Data, more, but that owes much to the progression of SF on the small and big screens since the original ST came out.

Yes, the Data character developed the idea a bit. But I guess, in 20th Century popular culture, Mr Spock (often confused with the real life Dr Spock) is the original archetype of what it supposedly means to "be logical", with Bones as the opposite - the symbol of emotion and humanity.

The odd thing is, in the case of Mr Spock, that the character does not so much portray a logical being, but the lacks and shortcomings of a solely logical being.

Well, I think he portrays the shortcomings of a person without empathy and emotion. That would only be a logical being if we buy the premise that logical = lacking empathy and emotion.

Logic, in the sense of Mr Spock, is portrayed as lacking imagination/creativity, emotion and humanity. And perhaps this is a valid way to consider logic?

Sure, it's valid in the sense that we're free to define words in any way we choose. We don't have to think of logic as a set of rules governing the coherent use of language. We can think of it as a synonym for "emotionless" or as anything else we choose, I guess. There's nothing invalid in idiosyncratic uses of words, or in deciding to change their meanings. It happens all the time.

Humans are often illogical in their thoughts and actions, as portrayed by Mr Nimoy's fellow actors - and the thoroughly-unpleasant Shatner - very well, even though the 60s scripts lead to some rather cardboard characters.

Shatner's not so bad is he? I loved his version of Pulp's "Common People" (with Joe Jackson).