Philosophy Discussion Forums

@Tegularius
When you speak of ways in which 'an argument seems to make sense even if it is totally detrimental and wrong', I am wondering if greater understanding of the principles of logic can enable a better deconstruction of arguments. It may be that this would enable more careful and thorough understanding and basis for philosophical argument and be a way of demystifying 'bad' arguments.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 12:33 pm 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?

Opinions are the foundations of logic and the source of most emotions.

Epictetus discovered what we now call cognitive bias a couple thousand years ago. His ideas were rediscovered and evolved into cognitive behavioral therapy. If you have interest, I suggest the original form, rational emotive behavior therapy. Here is a short summary:

https://www.patnauniversity.ac.in/e-con ... Y%20PG.pdf

Here is an even shorter summary:

A=activating event--something "bad" happens

B=irrational belief--preconception that it is a bad thing when A happens

C=consequence--you are sad or angry

The lesson to be learned is that the anger or sadness was not a result of the event, but of the belief. If you change or remove the belief, the result will be different. The belief is the only thing truly in your control, so ultimately you chose the sadness or anger, indirectly.

Irrational foundational beliefs are things like:

Life should be easy, the world should be fair, people should like me...

These are fairly common, but some people have foundational beliefs even further off the mark and more damaging, like:

Nobody likes me, nothing goes my way...

Back to the main point... Logic stacks on opinions. It stacks on well-founded and useful opinions, and just as easily on poorly founded and dangerous opinions. We don't control the world, others or events, but we do control our opinions (if we bother to put the effort toward forming sound opinions). There is scarcely a more important task before us, yet doing this is not often at the top of peoples' lists.

PS, I don't mean to imply that emotions are necessarily bad or that they need to be avoided, only that they are often misplaced because they result from unconsidered or poorly considered opinions. The logic that we stack on the opinions is more often than not sound. It may lead us to a contradiction, which seems to indicated that we hold incompatible opinions that can't both be true. More often, though, it only shows what would be the implications if our opinions were truth, even when they are little more than wishes or prejudices.

@chewybrian
The way in which opinions are formed is such a complex mixture of logical arguments and emotions. This is where philosophy and other aspects of ideas which are held may get so tricky. I wonder if it is possible to disentangle logical ideas and the emotions which are experienced. Personally, my own approach to philosophy is about trying to do this in order to think clearly about issues ranging from religion to philosophy. However, it may not be an easy task because it may be that our own minds blur and fuzz logic and emotion, making it a complex aspect of psychological awareness. It may involve a blending of psychology and philosophy to understand the nature of biases, as a lot may below the threshold of conscious awareness.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 6:41 pm @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.

To me it appears as if your words don't contact what I have expressed. But that's (on your side and on my side) just another instance of different individual 'conceptual framings' determining firstly concept formation (upon seeing/hearing the words of another person, "reading"), different individual 'conceptual framings' determining secondly the reactive thought formation (processing of one's own concepts which might appear as if "being" the words seen/heared, "thinking about") and different individual 'conceptual framings' determining the verbal expressions/words chosen as responses (in a conversation).
Our histories of verbal condionings may be too different to enable mutually consistent conversation about phenomena that are not publically observable (via five senses). We might always end up talking at cross purposes when it comes to such phenomena.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 7:42 pm @chewybrian
The way in which opinions are formed is such a complex mixture of logical arguments and emotions. This is where philosophy and other aspects of ideas which are held may get so tricky. I wonder if it is possible to disentangle logical ideas and the emotions which are experienced. Personally, my own approach to philosophy is about trying to do this in order to think clearly about issues ranging from religion to philosophy. However, it may not be an easy task because it may be that our own minds blur and fuzz logic and emotion, making it a complex aspect of psychological awareness. It may involve a blending of psychology and philosophy to understand the nature of biases, as a lot may below the threshold of conscious awareness.

You can easily peel off emotion within the confines of a certain project. Say we are building a dam. It is easy enough for me to see rather objectively which choice is the most cost-effective and safe and to support the choice on that basis. But, when we open up to the wider reality, things are not so easy. Should we build a dam or feed the homeless? There emotions are not easy to put aside, and desires might rule over objective facts and logic.

Stoic philosophy won't readily solve the "which dam to build" problem or the dam vs. the homeless problem. But, it will help you to resolve your own emotional problems most of the time. For a shortcut, just think first of blaming yourself rather than the outside world for your own poor state of mind. The world doesn't care about your tranquility, so you'll grow old filled with anxiety waiting for the world to change to suit you. But, you can quickly change your own opinion about the state of the world and what "should" be, and thus change your own state of mind, and often your emotional responses which it in turn brings about. Perhaps, then, in this calmer state of mind, we might also be able to see things a bit more objectively. If not, at least we can live better.

Pattern-chaser wrote: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.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 10:41 am 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.

I think we can say that logic is distinct from empathy and emotion. Empathy and emotion are often (but not always) illogical. But being logical does not mean not-being-emotional, it means being logical; being emotional does not mean not-being-logical, it means being emotional. A being can be logical and emotional too, maybe even at the same time.

Pattern-chaser wrote: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?

Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 10:41 am 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.

I didn't mean that. Logic, in general, does not include or embrace "imagination/creativity, emotion and humanity." I was wondering if describing what logic is not, is a good (or at least valid) way to describe it?

Pattern-chaser wrote: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.

Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 10:41 am Shatner's not so bad is he? I loved his version of Pulp's "Common People" (with Joe Jackson).

His Twitter account is poisonous toward autistic people, and others too. He is a nasty .

Ecurb wrote: ↑November 18th, 2021, 11:47 am Logic is the science of non-contradiction.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 8:22 am 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?

Ecurb wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 12:55 pm If we define words too broadly, they become meaningless.

Yes, and if we define words too narrowly, they become useless. In extremis, we end up with a word defined for use in one unique circumstance, and no other. There is a place - and a use - for generality.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑November 19th, 2021, 7:42 pm @chewybrian
The way in which opinions are formed is such a complex mixture of logical arguments and emotions. This is where philosophy and other aspects of ideas which are held may get so tricky. I wonder if it is possible to disentangle logical ideas and the emotions which are experienced. Personally, my own approach to philosophy is about trying to do this in order to think clearly about issues ranging from religion to philosophy. However, it may not be an easy task because it may be that our own minds blur and fuzz logic and emotion, making it a complex aspect of psychological awareness. It may involve a blending of psychology and philosophy to understand the nature of biases, as a lot may below the threshold of conscious awareness.

And I wonder if it is wise to disentangle logical ideas and the emotions which are experienced, or even to try? You started by saying that opinions are formed by logic, emotion, and maybe a load of other things too. But does it make sense to deconstruct a cake into flour, fat and sugar...?

Logic and maths too are self justifying and circular.
They are tools which help us decribe and quantify the world and they have their limits.

It would be a mistake, and many make this mistake, to think that they provide direct insights into reality, as if the world was written in maths. That is not the case. What they seem to do very well is decribe it, and in so far as these descriptions are coherent can lead to remarkable findings, which can be verified empirically.

But there is a further question. Although they are tools it is evident that they work consistently well. why shold this be so? This is the most remarkable indication that there is a reality beyond our mere perception of it and that this reality (however we might want to see it) is COHERENT. The universe is not capricious; not just ideas; it lies waiting to be discovered.

In his round about and clumsy way that is what Kant meant when he talked about "pure understanding".
But before we throw away the baby of idealism in favour of pure rationalism, we should always acknowledge that whatever we are givine innately is still based on an evolved understanding os such things as space and time, the warning that we can never fully know the thing-in-itself leaves room for finding for concieving things beyond out normal experience.

@stevie
I am sorry if you felt that my post did not make contact with what you had written. I may not have been concentrating properly because I read a number of posts in one go. But, of course, each of us comes with different meanings and it is probably the case with reading on this forum and in thinking about logic it is important to slow down. I am inclined to speed read which is not always a good idea amd it reminds me of the book by Daniel Kahneman, 'Thinking Fast and Slow', which shows two contrasting approaches to thinking and I probably need to slow down a bit more sometimes.

I appreciate the forum and when people reply to my threads and I thank you for your contributions. It is also so different engaging in discussion on a forum rather than face to face discussion because it can be less conversational in ways of listening and clarifying what each person means exactly on fairly complex topics.

@chewybrian
One interesting thing about what I have gathered from what I have read about Stoic philosophy is that it partly resembles the approach of cognitive behavioral therapy. It is too easy to blame others rather look at one's own mental state and assumptions. It is probably wise to question one's own logic and assumptions which affect personal emotional experiences in dramatic ways. It is likely to be better to try to work upon one's own mindset as a basis for understanding and relating to others in the best possible way.

@Pattern-chaser
You query whether it is 'wise' to disentangle logical ideas and the emotions experienced' and I think it is important to try to do this because that may be the value of philosophy. Being able to do this may be the starting point for some kind of wisdom.

@Sculptor1
I definitely hope that there is more to logic and understanding than mathematics. It may be that certain sequences or rules need to be incorporated which may have some basis in maths but I am sure that Kant's approach to understanding was about depth and insight going beyond the basic tools. It may be that verification may require such tools but it is likely that they are only the basic stepping stone and that their is a need for some kind of imagination and creativity to guide the process in an innovative way.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑November 20th, 2021, 1:51 pm @stevie
I am sorry if you felt that my post did not make contact with what you had written. I may not have been concentrating properly because I read a number of posts in one go. But, of course, each of us comes with different meanings and it is probably the case with reading on this forum and in thinking about logic it is important to slow down. I am inclined to speed read which is not always a good idea amd it reminds me of the book by Daniel Kahneman, 'Thinking Fast and Slow', which shows two contrasting approaches to thinking and I probably need to slow down a bit more sometimes.

I appreciate the forum and when people reply to my threads and I thank you for your contributions. It is also so different engaging in discussion on a forum rather than face to face discussion because it can be less conversational in ways of listening and clarifying what each person means exactly on fairly complex topics.

No problem at all ! From my perspective it's not about "mutual understanding" but it's about thought inspiration arising from the words of another person. And even if we might talk at cross purposes many times I do appreciate your thread opening posts as a source of inspiration for me. My notes on my thoughts are continuously expanding. Keep on opening new threads!

@Stevie
Yes, I tend to think that even when discussions have some elements of talking at cross purposes it is all about stimulating of thinking. In a year of forum discussions I feel that I have learned about my own philosophical perspective more than on university courses and in personal reading. Perhaps, it is partly about writing down one's own ideas which is an important part of the process.