Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Ket]

As I have said in another entry, X = -X is true in quantum physics. There is no room for absolutes in human understanding of reality.

[RJG]

As I have said in another entry, X = -X is true in quantum physics.

"X=-X" (neg X) is not the same as "X=~X" (not X). And even if it were the same, Logic always trumps Science.

[Ket]

As I have said in another entry, X = -X is true in quantum physics.

"X=-X" (neg X) is not the same as "X=~X" (not X). And even if it were the same, Logic always trumps Science.

Of course they are different. I admire your categorical confidence in logic. I have tried to show a truth that, I believe, philosophers need to understand: logic cannot fully capture reality. However, I have come to the conclusion, RJG, that we must just agree to disagree.

[Pattern-chaser]

You are referring here to logical 'arguments' (which can be valid/invalid and sound/unsound), and not to logic itself per se.

Ah, OK. Please could you explain the logic you refer to when you write "logic itself"? There are many meanings that "logic" can carry, and I'm not sure which one you intend.

Yes, I am referring to the entire field of logic. Its usage is not just limited to making syllogistic arguments.

Isn't it? In philosophy, it seems that it *is*, in general, "limited to making syllogistic arguments", and the like.

You refer to the "entire field of logic", but what is that? There is formal logic, which (AIUI) is only a formalisation and extension of the argumentational logic we have already mentioned. There is Boolean logic, that I learned, used and applied (for nearly 40 years) in the design and programming of electronic hardware and firmware. There are multi-valued logics that move beyond binary to ternary, and maybe farther too. And then there is informal logic:

Informal logic uses non-formal criteria and standards to analyse and assess the correctness of arguments. Its main focus is on everyday discourse. Its development was prompted by difficulties in applying the insights of formal logic to natural language arguments. In this regard, it considers problems that formal logic on its own is unable to address. Both provide criteria for assessing the correctness of arguments and distinguishing them from fallacies.

Is this what you're getting at?



The distinction between logic and reason is more of a grey area than a clear delineation. Consequently, what some people call "logic", I call "reason". But our meanings and intentions are the same, we just assign a different label. Is that the case here, with us?

Logic is our innate (a priori), and our ONLY, means of coherency; of "making sense"

And if we fully subscribe and adhere to it, it can be brutal on our indoctrinated beliefs. But, without logic, we can't get to, or know Truth (true knowledge)!

Sadly, many of us so-called "truth-seekers" are happy with our indoctrinated "feel-good" beliefs, and have no need to refute them with logic.

I find that many people who claim to use a 'logical' approach to things often don't follow through. In the past, in other topics, I have referred to the different treatment given to accepting an idea/concept/proposition/etc and to rejecting it; different standards are applied, in practice. And yet 'logic' would seem to advise that they should both be treated the same. They *are* the same, inasmuch as the same logic should be used in both cases, the only difference is in the conclusion reached (acceptance or rejection). I see this, perhaps wrongly, as a lack of commitment to logic...?

N.B. The above paragraph is a general observation, and is not intended as a direct response to your quoted words.

[Pattern-chaser]

I agree we humans are emotional creatures. The "why" we are emotional is not as important as to the undeniable fact that we are in fact emotional creatures. Emotions are the biasing forces that drive all our actions. So, if one of our emotions is the very strong desire to know real truths, then logic 'is' "the be-all and end-all". It is the only game in town we have to finding real truths.

Also we must recognize, that to have any chance of finding real truth, one's emotional desire to know "real truth" must be greater than one's emotional desire to find "feel-good" truths. Logic is the means, the only means, by which to find real truths. Emotions can't give us truths, they can only drive our actions.

I wonder if we should recognise the existence, and the worth, of both "real truth", and "feel-good" truths too? I think both have their place, and as long as we acknowledge their differences, both have value, IMO. Is that a worthwhile course, do you think?

[Pattern-chaser]

As I have said in another entry, X = -X is true in quantum physics.

"X=-X" (neg X) is not the same as "X=~X" (not X). And even if it were the same, Logic always trumps Science.

I have tried to show a truth that, I believe, philosophers need to understand: logic cannot fully capture reality.

I think that when we say something like "Logic always trumps Science", it is worth remembering that the point of logic, and science too, is to help us understand the Primary Reference, which is Reality — Life, the Universe, and Everything. The Universe is the master, the reference, by which all else is judged. Reality over-rules Logic, and Science too, if/when such over-ruling should become necessary. I kind-of think that this is what Ket is saying?

[RJG]

Isn't it? In philosophy, it seems that it [logic] *is*, in general, "limited to making syllogistic arguments", and the like.

Yes, I think you are correct. In general (for the bulk of philosophical discussions), the use of logic is confined to creating/forming syllogistic arguments.

Consequently, what some people call "logic", I call "reason". But our meanings and intentions are the same, we just assign a different label. Is that the case here, with us?

I think this is close. You equate logic to "reason", whereas I equate logic to "making sense" (aka "rationality"). From my view, to know if our words (statements and arguments) actually "make sense" (i.e., are rational/logical), then we must pass the "soundness" check via logical syllogisms, and not commit logical fallacies, and not violate logical impossibilities.

I wonder if we should recognize the existence, and the worth, of both "real truth", and "feel-good" truths too? I think both have their place, and as long as we acknowledge their differences, both have value, IMO. Is that a worthwhile course, do you think?

To your point, I think they have value in the sense that they both accomplish the same thing. They provide us humans with satisfaction. In other words, in our lives, we all seek after happiness, and satisfaction of our desires. The path we take, and how we get there is relative to each of us. Some may choose specific religious beliefs to achieve their "feel-goodness". Whereas in my case, my desire to know "real truths" (even if they are ugly and undesirable) still satisfies my desire to know them. So in this sense, we all seek and are after "feel-goodness". And there is nothing wrong with that. Life is short, so we need to find how best to live in a state of peace and happiness (or "feel-goodness") as much as possible.

I think that when we say something like "Logic always trumps Science", it is worth remembering that the point of logic, and science too, is to help us understand the Primary Reference, which is Reality — Life, the Universe, and Everything.

Agreed. But my reason for saying "Logic trumps Science" is to help recognize the fact that these (Logic and Science) are NOT on equal footing, when it comes to ascertaining the truths of reality. Logic (objective truths) is closer to the ultimate truths of reality than Science (subjective truths), which in turn, is closer than Religion (faith truths), as per the "Hierarchy of Truths" (or the "Tiers of Epistemology").


*************
Truth Hierarchy aka Tiers of Epistemology:

1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
3. Subjective truth – experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
4. Religious truth -- via blind faiths

An Absolute Truth (#1) is the highest level of ‘certainty’ (real-ness); it is the singular premise/conclusion statement (that Descartes was searching for) that does not require supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness. It is not 'derived'. It is the beginning, the ‘seed’, upon which to build and grow all ‘true’ knowledge.

Objective Truths (#2) are the next highest level of ‘certainties’; these are “logically derived” via deduction. These truths are known and qualified as “logical truths”.

Subjective Truths (#3), and Religious Truths (#4) are not trustworthy to yield ‘true’ (real; certain) knowledge. Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, or from blind faiths, can never be certain, or known as truthful.

[RJG]

However, I have come to the conclusion, RJG, that we must just agree to disagree.

Ket, I can agree to disagree. And thanks for the good civil/respectful discussions.

In retrospect, I think our main "disconnect" was in our different views of the word "logic". I view "logic" and "making sense" as one-in-the-same, whereas you seemingly view "logic" and "making sense" as two different things.

Take care good friend, ...until the next discussion!

[Pattern-chaser]

I think we are mostly in agreement, but it has been a fun exchange; thank you.

Consequently, what some people call "logic", I call "reason". But our meanings and intentions are the same, we just assign a different label. Is that the case here, with us?

I think this is close. You equate logic to "reason", whereas I equate logic to "making sense" (aka "rationality"). From my view, to know if our words (statements and arguments) actually "make sense" (i.e., are rational/logical), then we must pass the "soundness" check via logical syllogisms, and not commit logical fallacies, and not violate logical impossibilities.

I didn't express myself as clearly as I thought I had. I meant to refer to the dividing line between logic and reason, which I place a little closer to logic than many people do. But the difference is not significant; it doesn't really matter if we call a borderline thingie "Logic" or "Reason" — it's still the same thing we're referring to. I thought this was the difference between us.

But I was mistaken, as you have described. The word "logic" is widely used as you describe, but I don't like it. To me, it somewhat dilutes (and thereby demeans? ) logic. But that's just me. Your usage corresponds to the general consensus, I think, while mine does not. Here is the finest and most well-known example of your preference, I think.

Illogical, Captain.

In recent times, I have been thinking about logic and reason, spurred on by discussions like this one. And in my even-more-than-usually-idle musings, I have wondered if we really need a separate word for logic (my meaning, not yours ), or if it is simply part of the foundation of Reason? An essential part, to be sure, but does that justify it having its own label? I wonder if the 'proper place' for logic is as a fundamental component of reason? If (in an imaginary world! ) we adopted this usage, it would free the label "logic" for exclusive use in the way that you, and the majority of folk, prefer? [Just musing; this is no Big Deal, but I would be interested in your opinion, if you care to express one? ]



This was said to Ket, but...

Take care good friend, ...until the next discussion!

And to you too!

[Belindi]

The only thing we can know with absolute truthful certainty is "experiences exist". This is the undeniable starting point of all truth/knowledge (that Descartes was searching for, but never found).

From this starting point, we use deductive logic to derive objective logical truths. Nothing can be more true or certainin to us in all of reality. We can also use deductive logic via "logical impossibilities" to weed out the false truths that presently reside in our already contaminated pool of knowledge.

This is an ontological problem--what exists.
Yes, for something to be happening, Descartes thought that there had to be something to pre-exist the happening, that's to say it was happening to a mind;the very thing he had set out to verify . Whereas what was happening in that room with the stove was , what always happens is, a necessarily function of brain-mind .Brain-mind is a happening with two aspects, the subjective and also the objective,

[Ket]

The only thing we can know with absolute truthful certainty is "experiences exist". This is the undeniable starting point of all truth/knowledge (that Descartes was searching for, but never found).

From this starting point, we use deductive logic to derive objective logical truths. Nothing can be more true or certainin to us in all of reality. We can also use deductive logic via "logical impossibilities" to weed out the false truths that presently reside in our already contaminated pool of knowledge.

This is an ontological problem--what exists.
Yes, for something to be happening, Descartes thought that there had to be something to pre-exist the happening, that's to say it was happening to a mind;the very thing he had set out to verify . Whereas what was happening in that room with the stove was , what always happens is, a necessarily function of brain-mind .Brain-mind is a happening with two aspects, the subjective and also the objective,

May I suggest you read up on nondual philosophy or Tao philosophy. There are so many ways to conceive of humans being fooled into thinking what our brains seem to make so obvious that we accept that perception as absolute reality. I cannot prove that I exist. I cannot disprove that I am the figment of some god's imagination. Nothing can be known for certain.

[Lagayscienza]

So, Ket, if "nothing can be known for certain", then you believe that we are left with radical indeterminacy.

If it were true that nothing can be known for certain, then I would have no choice but to accept and come to terms with indeterminacy even though there does seem to be some sort order to the universe that we seem able to perceive.

[Ket]

So, Ket, if "nothing can be known for certain", then you believe that we are left with radical indeterminacy.

If it were true that nothing can be known for certain, then I would have no choice but to accept and come to terms with indeterminacy even though there does seem to be some sort order to the universe that we seem able to perceive.

Quite so. But indeterminacy is not a bad thing. Certainty devolves into dogma and blocks the imagination from the freedom to discover.

I maintain that any statement of certainty can be disproved through imagination.

[Lagayscienza]

Yes, I agree that there is nothing intrinsically bad about indeterminacy. However a lot of people seem to hanker after certainty and to hang onto it when they think they've found it. As you say, this can lead to dogmatism..
The more I read philosophy the less certain I become of anything. I find that somewhat discomforting.

[Lagayscienza]

The only thing we can know with absolute truthful certainty is "experiences exist". This is the undeniable starting point of all truth/knowledge (that Descartes was searching for, but never found).

From this starting point, we use deductive logic to derive objective logical truths. Nothing can be more true or certainin to us in all of reality. We can also use deductive logic via "logical impossibilities" to weed out the false truths that presently reside in our already contaminated pool of knowledge.

This is an ontological problem--what exists.
Yes, for something to be happening, Descartes thought that there had to be something to pre-exist the happening, that's to say it was happening to a mind;the very thing he had set out to verify . Whereas what was happening in that room with the stove was , what always happens is, a necessarily function of brain-mind .Brain-mind is a happening with two aspects, the subjective and also the objective,

May I suggest you read up on nondual philosophy or Tao philosophy. There are so many ways to conceive of humans being fooled into thinking what our brains seem to make so obvious that we accept that perception as absolute reality. I cannot prove that I exist. I cannot disprove that I am the figment of some god's imagination. Nothing can be known for certain.

That's interesting, Ket. Lately, I've been trying to expand my mind and look beyond what I can see from my rigid, fortified, materialist holdout - I'm trying to see things from a different POV. It has not been easy. I have long practiced a form of meditation without knowing much about eastern philosophy. And I have always dismissed Idealism out of hand as just some silly Continental nonsense. But, materialism has become increasingly unsatisfying and I've come to realise that I need to understand idealism in order to progress. Therefore, I've needed to leave the Anglo-American Analytic philosophers alone for a while. So, I've been reading Descartes, Kant and Husserl. (Thanks to Hereandnow)

Most recently, I've been doing an online course looking into what is called "Analytic Idealism" and I get the feeling it's a bit like what you have been talking about - the inability (perhaps the impossibility) of our seeing the universe as it is in itself. I think I understand that idea now. And I agree that "we are fooled into thinking that what our brains seem to make so obvious" is real when, in fact, it is not reality at all but merely a serviceable representation of it - good enough to enable us to survive in the world we find ourselves in but not the real thing.

I've only done the first hour of a seven hour course. I'm really looking forward to the next six hours. Maybe I'll go from being a hard nosed materialist and end up as some sort of ghostly, nondual mystic, lol.

HAPPY CHRISTMAS to ALL.