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

[stevie]

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.

This appears to be your logical reasoning which creates coherence with your "conceptual framing". It may also be seen as a "translation".

[LuckyR]

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.

Interesting thread.

We are in agreement,I only juxtaposed logic and morality because the OP is inquiring about logic and philosophy and as we both noted, there is only an inconsistent link between the two.

Just because the human mind can rationalize immoral behavior, doesn't make such behavior logical or rational.

[JackDaydream]

@LuckyR
The question of the link between logic and morality is definitely one aspect of the question of how logic works. Nietzsche suggested that Kant's basis of a priori logic was based on the need to back up his ideas about morality, although whether this is how Kant was thinking is debatable. But, the relationship between logic and morality is important because it is the sphere in which human beings go beyond speculation and contemplation to practical applications in daily life.

[JackDaydream]

@Steve3007
The whole purpose of logic is as you suggest about trying to make statements. It is the basis for sound arguments and that is why it matters. Some of it may come down from matters of language as Ayer suggested in, 'Language, Truth and Logic', but it may go beyond this, even to the question of a priori logic and a posteriori logic.

[JackDaydream]

@Gee
I found your answer very helpful for thinking about the nature of logic, especially the idea of it being a 'linear process'. This is important as an aspect of adhering to principles and rules, in order to come to a conclusion. It is this level, that logic may be the basis for most aspects of philosophy.

[JackDaydream]

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion so far, because as far as I can see it is such an important basis for all aspects of philosophy. The author who I referred to in my introduction, Eugenia Cheng, aoffers the following suggestion, which I think is important,
'Emotions and logic do not have to be enemies. Logic works in the abstract mathematical world, but life is more complicated than that. Life involves humans, and humans have emotions. Here in this beautiful and messy world of ours we should use emotions to back up logic, and logic to understand emotions' .
Does anyone have any thoughts on this and how it may come into play in thinking?

[Ecurb]

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?

If we define words too broadly, they become meaningless. I'll grant that "logic" is often used synonymously with "reason". It is derived from "logos" which refers to the cosmic reason giving order, purpose and intelligibility to the universe. In our post-religious age, "purpose" might seem a bit much to assume.

[Terrapin Station]

In a nutshell, logic is simply "what follows from what."

In other words, logic has to do with implications, inferences, deductions, etc.

"If x is the case, then y must be the case." That sort of thing (where it's required that it really is an implication that y is the case and it couldn't turn out to be that not-y is the case if x is).

Obviously this sort of reasoning is important not just to philosophy but to almost everything we do.

[JackDaydream]

@Terrapin Station
You say about the importance of logic not just 'in philosophy but to almost everything we do' and this may point to the importance of philosophy, or what may be called 'critical thinking' as a foundation for all aspects of thinking. Logic or the about to form arguments based on established pathways of reasoning and deduction may be essential to all aspects of human living. It can be asked, if logic is lost what else can be relied upon for guidance?

[Terrapin Station]

@Terrapin Station
You say about the importance of logic not just 'in philosophy but to almost everything we do' and this may point to the importance of philosophy, or what may be called 'critical thinking' as a foundation for all aspects of thinking. Logic or the about to form arguments based on established pathways of reasoning and deduction may be essential to all aspects of human living. It can be asked, if logic is lost what else can be relied upon for guidance?

Re your final question, I don't know if any answer would make sense where it doesn't just amount to logic. If you're observing or thinking about something and then trying to conclude what could or could not happen from there (given certain courses of action, etc.), then you're thinking logically, since again, it's just "what follows from what." (Whether your logic would be sound or not is another issue, but nevertheless it's thinking a la logic.) It's difficult to figure out how we could parse "guidance" so that it wouldn't involve thinking about what (could) follow from what.

[JackDaydream]

@Terrapin Station
In reading your reply, I am thinking that logic is essential but just wondering if principles are applied arbitrarily as rules it may miss out on the existential aspects of life. We need to use logic but the question may be about how logic can be used to envision all of the varying and competing aspects of life. It may be that logic has to be stretched to meet all of these while not losing the plot or the fundamental aspects of logic. Perhaps, logic requires a certain amount of fluidity, in order to.meet the complex dynamics and problems arising within life.

[Terrapin Station]

@Terrapin Station
In reading your reply, I am thinking that logic is essential but just wondering if principles are applied arbitrarily as rules it may miss out on the existential aspects of life. We need to use logic but the question may be about how logic can be used to envision all of the varying and competing aspects of life. It may be that logic has to be stretched to meet all of these while not losing the plot or the fundamental aspects of logic. Perhaps, logic requires a certain amount of fluidity, in order to.meet the complex dynamics and problems arising within life.

Just to clarify, in my comments above, I'm talking about logic in a very broad sense--a sense that would encompass every species of logic that we might devise. I'm not referring to specific principles versus other, incompatible principles, or even over an approach that tries to eschew principles per se altogether.

[JackDaydream]

@Ecurb
It may be that term logic and reason are often used interchangeably. This may even involve bad arguments and I wonder if there is false logic, in which aspects are glossed over in order to arrive at desired conclusions. Logic may be a form of verification but it may also be possible that arguments may be formulated on insufficient grounds and wobbly premises.

[JackDaydream]

@Pattern-chaser
It is questionable whether logic fits into science, analytical philosophy or a much wider scope. That is because it is an essential aspect of formulating arguments and each person may hold that the basis of what they believe to be 'true' or 'right' may be based on appeals to logic, including even legal arguments, as well as arguments within scientific disciplines.

[JackDaydream]

@stevie
I agree that a 'conventional framework' for logic would be most helpful because arguments are often made on assumptions, which are often uncertain and open to challenge. It is also based on appeals to verification through evidence, or appeals to deductive reasoning. Perhaps, the best that can be achieved is if the different aspects are broken down and the connections understood more clearly.