Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Sisyphus17]

Hmm.. That is an interesting perspective. As for my OP, I'm starting to regret my choice of words...
I basically agree with what you have said above. The information is absorbed in a relative manner and all sides can associate said information to their predetermined beliefs.
This doesn't address the key point of the feed, which is that formal logic, not empirical evidence but the way we obtain said empirical evidence, is generally flawed. It's not even so much that it is flawed as it is that it is... limited and static.

Is this what the discussion is about then- On the deficiencies of formal logic, and hence of human reasoning? I did not read the entire discussion, but my two cents would be that though formal logic may not provide us with full proof certainty on our findings, it is all we have- the best and most reliable tool aiding us through evolution. As faulty as it may be deemed to be in matters of a metaphysical and mystical nature..

[Marabod]

Making oneself a hypocrite only shows that a person is on the limit of their development levels, and fails to accommodate the reality.

Telling women that if they find themselves in a position of being raped they might aswell find some pleasure in it because you happen to read some unbalanced web sites that say russian women find pleasure in rape is worst than being a hypocrite, its YOU condoning rape. If you can`t see that, then don`t expect to gain my interest in anything else you have to say on these forums.

Look, to be honest I am absolutely not interested with your emotional perceptions - and really find it a waste of my time to further read your posts.

[Eveready]

Marabod I haven`t seen that my pointing out your rappant sexism and that rape upon women is something to joke about as described as emotionalism for some time the last guy that called it just emotionalism is doing time for rape.. Nice try at a strawman adhominem but alas you just dig yourself deeper in.

[ChaoticMindSays]

Look, to be honest I am absolutely not interested with your emotional perceptions - and really find it a waste of my time to further read your posts.

Please either get on topic or get the hell off this feed.

If you can`t see that, then don`t expect to gain my interest in anything else you have to say on these forums

He really doesn't have anything interesting to say anyway....
He just blabs about 'emotional perceptions' and rambles, nearly incoherently, about how he is the model of logical thought.
Arguing with him isn't going to solve anything, it's just going to create a bunch of off topic messages and eventually get this feed locked. Don't encourage him.

Is this what the discussion is about then- On the deficiencies of formal logic, and hence of human reasoning? I did not read the entire discussion, but my two cents would be that though formal logic may not provide us with full proof certainty on our findings, it is all we have- the best and most reliable tool aiding us through evolution. As faulty as it may be deemed to be in matters of a metaphysical and mystical nature..

The question is... Whether formal logic is the apex of human reasoning or not. I admit that it is 'the best tool we have' right now, but I deny that that means it is the best tool that is out there.
It's important to note the difference between formal logic and regular logic in this discussion. The problem that I see with formal logic is that it is far to static, it's own strict rules prevent it from growing and, therefor, adapting alongside new ideas and planes of thought.

Do you see logic as something that encapsulates all other systems of deriving knowledge? Or a system that coincides with other said systems?

[Persecrates]

First, yes Logic is external to human beings. It would and exists without our understanding it (If you don't like the word 'discover'). Every creature with a brain has both emotional and logical thought process. But logic is only a word to describe binary input and output (plus indetermination), the exact process that governs ALL living organisms (at least the ones with a brain).

You, who can envisage the possibility of alien beings' existence, should agree.
They still would have to go through the same process/'logic', because they would need to have a central nervous system with data input and output. Some may be at a different level, who knows??

So,

1- Yes, Logic exits outside of Mankind, therefore we can agree that it can be discovered/understood. Formal logic is simply this reality used as a method.
Like if you want to fly, the first step is to build planes with wings, because it's a 'natural' proven effective METHOD to do so.
Maybe after this step we'll find others but we don't know (here stop the analogy, then).

2- Then, why ask a question we are CERTAIN to have no answer for, NOW:

The question is... Whether formal logic is the apex of human reasoning or not.

And, why, even more difficult to understand it for me, try to answer it??

I admit that it is 'the best tool we have' right now, but I deny that that means it is the best tool that is out there.

Again, that's where desire (for some reason, and as you stated, you hate Kant and formal logic, so you desire there is some 'other way') and fear (you see logic as a box. Are you claustrophobic? That's a joke, of course, but do you see what I mean?) and you create a belief to answer this desire and/or fear: The belief that there is indeed another 'method out there'. No matter that we have no evidence for it; that we cannot have even an idea of what it could be; or that it could even exist another one...

Now, if you desire to waste your time on this kind of foolish quest, you're free to do so... But, remember that ALL the examples you cited can be proven/validated logically and empirically... If they are true/sound.

So, there's not even a need for a new 'knowledge gathering/accessing method' yet.

Again, you're blaming Logic, the method instead of the people using (pretending to use) it!

The problem that I see with formal logic is that it is far to static, it's own strict rules prevent it from growing and, therefor, adapting alongside new ideas and planes of thought.

ALL systems are dynamic... (They can seem relatively static) There is no such thing as a 'static system'... Which, anyway, Logic, as I stated previously in other posts, is not and never has been. It has already been improved and some subset of Logic have been created.

Do you see logic as something that encapsulates all other systems of deriving knowledge? Or a system that coincides with other said systems?

ALL the cognitive methods are based on Logic. Whether you realize it or not. Intuition is another word for uncounscious perception and interpretation of data.

[ChaoticMindSays]

Persecrates,

You are missing the point... You make assumptions with no ground to stand upon and seem to not even be absorbing what it is that I am writing.

Again, that's where desire (for some reason, and as you stated, you hate Kant and formal logic, so you desire there is some 'other way') and fear (you see logic as a box. Are you claustrophobic? That's a joke, of course, but do you see what I mean?) and you create a belief to answer this desire and/or fear: The belief that there is indeed another 'method out there'. No matter that we have no evidence for it; that we cannot have even an idea of what it could be; or that it could even exist another one...

I really wish you would stop with this whole 'desire' and 'belief' argument. To be completely blunt, you don't know what your talking about. I don't 'desire' there to be some other way... The reason I hate Kant is because previous to beginning the the critique of pure reason I had already realized that there were other available systems of thought, besides formal logic. So, of course, as I worked my way through the first couple chapters of the book I realized that the only thing Kant was trying to accomplish with the book was to crystallize the idea of formal logic being an ultimate.
Another case of synchronicity for me... I had come to the nearly the exact opposite conclusions as Kant previous to reading his book. I already knew his argument and could predict where he was going with his ideas as he presented them.

Again, you're blaming Logic, the method instead of the people using (pretending to use) it!

I said,

I never claimed that science isn't right or that logic doesn't have it's place in understanding reality

Logic and the empirical method are, of course, important but they are not the almighty concepts that they are so very often portrayed to be

As I have already stated, I am not attempting to discredit logic itself, just the current idea that mainstream science holds as logic,

I am obviously blaming the people, the people just happen to be using logic. Instead of attacking the people I am trying to disarm them of their sword.(formal logic)

[Persecrates]

The reason I hate Kant is because previous to beginning the the critique of pure reason I had already realized that there were other available systems of thought, besides formal logic.

Who's making claims? You.

Just cite one of these 'other available systems of thought' and PROVE that it is at least as effective as Logic.
If you can prove that the method don't use logic, it would already be a tremendous achievement.
I'm quite confident NO ONE is able to do so.
I challenge anyone to try to prove that it exists another system outside of logic and that this system is at least equivalently effective to it in the cognitive (accession to knowledge) process.

Meleagar already tried and failed.

If someone succeeds at least I would have learnt a life changing fact. And I'll say thank you to have opened my eyes. I don't try to be right. I want to motivate you and people to see if we can learn something new.

I am obviously blaming the people, the people just happen to be using logic. Instead of attacking the people I am trying to disarm them of their sword.(formal logic)

When will you understand that I try to explain to you that THEY DON'T!
They misuse it at best, or pretend to use it or even practice Sophism on purpose!
Will you get that?
So, logic (even formal/classical) is NOT to blame but incompetent, fools, pretentious or crooks/liars are!

[ChaoticMindSays]

*I am obviously blaming the people, the people just happen to be using something they call logic. Instead of attacking the people I am trying to disarm them of their sword.(formal logic)*

There. Is that better?

Just cite one of these 'other available systems of thought' and PROVE that it is at least as effective as Logic.
If you can prove that the method don't use logic, it would already be a tremendous achievement.
I'm quite confident NO ONE is able to do so.
I challenge anyone to try to prove that it exists another system outside of logic and that this system is at least equivalently effective to it in the cognitive (accession to knowledge) process.

As I said earlier.. I don't claim to have another system to work for or replace what you call logic. What I am referring to as logic and what you are referring to as logic are two different things, btw. Which has been a major mis-understanding in our conversation.

Kant, in my opinion, is not pushing actual logic. He twisted the idea of reason and made it into something that... Doesn't work as well as it should.

[Sisyphus17]

The question is... Whether formal logic is the apex of human reasoning or not. I admit that it is 'the best tool we have' right now, but I deny that that means it is the best tool that is out there.
It's important to note the difference between formal logic and regular logic in this discussion. The problem that I see with formal logic is that it is far to static, it's own strict rules prevent it from growing and, therefor, adapting alongside new ideas and planes of thought.

Do you see logic as something that encapsulates all other systems of deriving knowledge? Or a system that coincides with other said systems?

I don't think we would ever be able to know whether formal logic is the apex of human reasoning or if there might possibly be another tool which might possibly be better or even come close to replacing it. I'm not saying there couldn't be, but I find it pretty hard to imagine the nature of this method.

Do you see logic as something that encapsulates all other systems of deriving knowledge? Or a system that coincides with other said systems?

Leaning towards the latter. I would say that logic is only one of the systems, one meant to ensure as accurately derived conclusions as possible. And like all other tools, is suitable only for certain purposes, under particular domains. To blindly apply logic in areas it is unsuited for (e.g. one could argue- values, ethics and religion) would probably produce incorrect conclusions. Even if the conclusions were accurate, there is no guarantee of its acceptance because, like I've said subjective experience and emotion play a much stronger influence in such areas.

[wanabe]

All I claim is that there is very likely a system of building knowledge superior to logic that may, or may not, as of yet lay beyond our comprehension.

Superiority is an illusion. There is another way among many, it is called direct perception.

[ChaoticMindSays]

wanabe,

There is another way among many, it is called direct perception.

I know there are other ways that we can comprehend. What I am proposing though is that there may be something that is, as of yet, 'beyond our comprehension.'

Superiority is a useful illusion. Meaning that it does actually exist, but only from a living things perspective. Just like time... I think it is meaningless to say that 'time doesn't exist' because in all actuality it does exist, if only as a perception that we use to help organize the physical world.

[Persecrates]

All I claim is that there is very likely a system of building knowledge superior to logic that may, or may not, as of yet lay beyond our comprehension.

Superiority is an illusion. There is another way among many, it is called direct perception.

Could you define succinctly this concept for us please?
Is it close to the one of intuition.
Can you argue how is it of different nature than Logic?

[Eveready]

Is love logical? the act of falling in love? oftentimes people say "they don`t know why they love fall in love with their partner, they just do" Oftentimes animals save a species outside of their own species, and even raise ferral children, is that logical? did that act progress their own species? there is a lot happens in life that defy`s logic. Spontaneity is that logical? Sudden Impulse is that logical?

[Persecrates]

Is love logical?

Before to be able to characterize a concept as (il)logical, we must make sure that this concept refers to an actual phenomenon: That this phenomenon exists and that we are capable of identifying its nature.
So, please, define love.

the act of falling in love?

Does it hurt?

oftentimes people say "they don`t know why they love fall in love with their partner, they just do"

I'm not big on trusting people. So, what makes you think that I believe what anyone has to say?

Second, how the fact that people are stupid enough to 'love' someone without knowing why is relevant in trying to identify/hypothesize the exsitence of a different cognitive process than Logic?

Third, it's not because they believe they don't know why they 'love' someone, that they actually don't.
There are (psychological causes, i.e.) reasons to be drawn toward someone in particular rather than in someone else. They are mostly unconscious but they exist.
The fact that they don't even bother to try to know/identify them only show their, again, stupidity.

Also, people don't love someone, they love the image they have of/put on someone. Who can pretend to know (perfectly) his/her partner??
They can say they know enough... Till they realize it's not quite true anymore (some months/years later).

What does it have to do with the cognitive process and method know as Logic?

Oftentimes animals save a species outside of their own species, and even raise ferral children, is that logical?

Why shouldn't it be?
If the other animals or the fact to save them don't threaten their own survival, we can consider it logical for them to help/raise them.

But you (implicitely) use a too broad definition of Logic... Or one not broad enough actually.

Logic is simply a mechanism and a method (both) relying on causation/causality.
As soon as you can identify a cause and/or reason for a phenomenon, Logic applies. It's a logical phenomenon.

That's what Logic IS. Nothing more.

did that act progress their own species?

Why? Do you assume that to help a animal from a different species is inherently illogical?
Again, if the animal have a reason to do so, its behavior is logical.
It may appear strange or unusual, but it's in no way 'illogical'.

there is a lot happens in life that defy`s logic.

Nope. Nothing does. I'm still waiting for a valid example. Better yet, an hypothesis/argumentation. You wouldn't want to make the fallacy of hasty generalization or the one of appeal to ignorance.
It's not because you cannot understand what is the reason for an event or a choice to happen, to be made, that there is no reason for it.
And it's not because you believe to have found an exemple of a behavior not induced by a logical decision, that you can generalize this example into an hypothesis.

Spontaneity is that logical?

Define please. I wouldn't want to apply to it a definition you would happen to disagree on.

Sudden Impulse is that logical?

Ok, this I can try. The fact that you take a decision (i.e. a choice based on data and the situation/environment you're in) counsciously or not and so quickly that you believe no decision was made, doesn't mean that there is no reason/cause for this 'sudden impulse.
It only proves you don't give enough credit for your brain capacity to analyze, determinate possible outcomes to a situation and take action(s). Our brain is the most powerful 'machine' existing on earth, remember that.

Give me example and I will find at least 3 possible reasons/caises to explain LOGICALLY this reaction you call 'sudden impulse'.

All this is about your (and countless other people) (mis)interpretation of phenomena/events/behaviors. That's all.

[ChaoticMindSays]

Everyone should watch this, it is a documentary relevant to the discussion and extremely interesting besides.

http://current.com/1d6uk4c