Philosophy Discussion Forums

the best is just to relax and go with the flow (I always do this when an ambulance carries me away from the place of an accident, let them do whatever they want, its not under my control anymore). Its like Russian women like to say - "if you cannot resist a rapist, then relax and try to draw some pleasures".

Marabod off topic and degrading to all women. Making fun of rape and telling them to accept it is just too distastful for words. Grow a real pair.

This reply tells more about you than you may like to be publicly advertised

Eveready said,

one dimensional opinion

THERE. That is the perfect way to put it, we need a more dynamic system.
Not everything is always just plain and simple, as (some peoples) logic would have it be. Not everything functions step after step after step... There is gray area which needs a more intuitive and creative approach to be understood.

ChaoticMindSays,
I believe the poll questions are flawed...

ChaoticMindSays wrote:Logic is our creation, so therefor logic is flawed

... How did you come to that conclusion?

ChaoticMindSays wrote:What I am attempting to do is to put things back in their proper place.

...

ChaoticMindSays wrote:To function properly over a long period of time they have to be able to adapt to new discoveries. But instead we attempt to assimilate all new discoveries to them.

These two ideas at root seem quite contradictory.

I share the idea that adaptation of logic must continue. However I think we should go with what we have, and test if an idea works logically, if it does what is the trouble? The trouble is the assumption that it is always correct, in all cases.

The trouble has always been: what we don't understand we can make mean anything

The more we know, the more we realize we don't know.

Eveready wrote:

the best is just to relax and go with the flow (I always do this when an ambulance carries me away from the place of an accident, let them do whatever they want, its not under my control anymore). Its like Russian women like to say - "if you cannot resist a rapist, then relax and try to draw some pleasures".

Marabod off topic and degrading to all women. Making fun of rape and telling them to accept it is just too distastful for words. Grow a real pair.

This reply tells more about you than you may like to be publicly advertised

This is a saying, an ideogram, a proverb! It exists independently from your assessment of it, and is used mostly by the females. Google for "расслабься и получи удовольств&#108 0;е" and it would retrieve 76,000 entries...

wanabe,

These two ideas at root seem quite contradictory.

I share the idea that adaptation of logic must continue. However I think we should go with what we have, and test if an idea works logically, if it does what is the trouble? The trouble is the assumption that it is always correct, in all cases.

They are supposed to be contradictory. They are near opposites.

... How did you come to that conclusion?

Haha... With logic.

I agree, "and test if an idea works logically, if it does what is the trouble? The trouble is the assumption that it is always correct, in all cases. "

The problem is not that logic is flawed... It is that logic is misunderstood, people are flawed. The problem isn't that logic is supposed to be right 'in all cases'. It is that a vast majority of influential people believe it to be right 'in all cases'.

This is the problem I have with logic, as neat as I can lay it out.
Logic is believed to be, by said vast majority, a function, method of gaining knowledge, truth, ect., That encapsulates all other functions.
This ^ is wrong. Logic does not encapsulate all other functions, it coincides with the other functions I mentioned. It does not, and should not be considered to, supersede every other method of gaining knowledge.

People have the illusion that it is this all powerful thing, 'wired into our brains' and inseparable from everything else simply because their minds are trained to apply it to everything else. As persecrates said, it's a pair of glasses... It helps you see some things more clearly, but it hides other things completely.

What I propose, and has been proposed by others, is that it is to simple of a system. It needs a check/balance, something that levels things out and puts them back into a more... realistic perspective. Just because something is logical does not mean it is.[/img]

Google for "расслабься и получи удовольств&#108 0;е" and it would retrieve 76,000 entries...

I see, so that makes okay then your argumentum ad populam is the fallacy.

Eveready wrote:

Google for "расслабься и получи удовольств&#108 0;е" and it would retrieve 76,000 entries...

I see, so that makes okay then your argumentum ad populam is the fallacy.

When I feel urges to become hypersensitive about someone's "issues" of morality, I remind myself about St Francis of Assisi, who is known for him once bursting into tears, when one monk in the church passed the winds during his sermon... Making oneself a hypocrite only shows that a person is on the limit of their development levels, and fails to accommodate the reality.

ChaoticMindSays,

Forgive me if the tone seems short, honestly I'm just trying to make sense of this...

ChaoticMindSays wrote:They are supposed to be contradictory. They are near opposites.

I don't understand the point you are tying to make then.

ChaoticMindSays wrote: The problem is not that logic is flawed... It is that logic is misunderstood, people are flawed.

Then you say

This is the problem I have with logic, as neat as I can lay it out.
Logic is believed to be, by said vast majority, a function, method of gaining knowledge, truth, ect., That encapsulates all other functions.

So it's actually the peoples fault there are problems?

ChaoticMindSays wrote:Logic does not encapsulate all other functions, it coincides with the other functions I mentioned.

Would you please list the other functions it coincides with? Although, if you can call these other methods functions it seems that they are logical as well.

ChaoticMindSays wrote:It does not, and should not be considered to, supersede every other method of gaining knowledge.

Methods such as observation? People gain knowledge many ways, however I think the only way we interpret said knowledge(if we chose to do so) is with logic(which is a formal style of reasoning).

I think ChaoticMindSays, that there may be a miscommunication here. What you seem to have trouble with is formal logic that is confined to rules. Hence why I mentioned reasoning above. I don't think there is any escaping logic completly, it will be present in some form.

I think that good logic compensates for unknowns and randomness, it accounts for emotion(whether it's effects are seen as 'good' or 'bad') as good as any user can.

Most importantly we have agreed that people are flawed. What is it that makes us flawed? Is it the logical system we created(sort of just fell into), or is it the inability to use some other method besides logic... If there is another method, that is not logic at all, but something else; what is it?

I can agree that things don't have to make sense or be logical, but if they can be presented as such; what specifically is the problem?

ChaoticMindSays wrote:

To function properly over a long period of time they have to be able to adapt to new discoveries. But instead we attempt to assimilate all new discoveries to them.

These two ideas at root seem quite contradictory.

Hmm... By this I mean that A (logic) Supersedes B (New discoveries) And that B must always be subjected to A's influence. As I said later... Instead of the two coinciding B is subjected to A's will (assimilated under it's rules) and is therefor limited by said rules.

So it's actually the peoples fault there are problems?

Well, as I said, in my opinion, logic is a creation of humanity. SO yes it is the 'peoples' fault since logic was created and would not exist in our absence. I really don't have a problem with logic... All I am claiming is that it is not an ultimate and still has room for improvement, just as all other creations of humanity.

'Formal logic' is looked upon as a closed system, there is no room for movement. It is confined by strict rules.. Static. When something becomes static there is always a problem. Becoming static is like becoming stagnate. Dynamic systems are always far superior to static systems, if something cannot change then it cannot adapt.

Would you please list the other functions it coincides with? Although, if you can call these other methods functions it seems that they are logical as well.

Metaphysics, intuition, experience... are among a few. They may appear to be logical, but that is only because we are trained to look through 'the glasses of logic' when we percieve them. Logic was created BY metaphysics, so logically it cannot supersede metaphysics.

I think ChaoticMindSays, that there may be a miscommunication here. What you seem to have trouble with is formal logic that is confined to rules. Hence why I mentioned reasoning above. I don't think there is any escaping logic completly, it will be present in some form

.

I'm not saying that it needs to be completely eliminated, just put into a different perspective. Logic itself is a useful tool... What I disagree with are people like Kant in the Critique Of Pure Reason who see logic as this infallible thing.

ChaoticMindSays wrote:I stand by my statement that beliefs are important. Your statements don't 'prove' anything other than yourspecific definition of the word belief.

There are not only statements but explanations and argumentations.

Persecrates wrote:

IMO, there are no such things as justified (based on some sort of proof or evidence) belief

Chaotic wrote:

"IMO" Exactly. Semantics.

This 'formula' is only used to don't sound condescendant and/or pretentious. And because there is only one knowkledge I'm 100% certain of: The fact that I exist (cogito ergo sum: Descartes). Then comes what I (quite evryone in fact) call knowledge, truths then, below, are hypotheses, then arguments, then ideas.

If I didn't write 'IMO', you would have said that's just a claim (it is not simply a claim because I argue it logically), as I said 'IMO', you think I believe something... That is semantics/rhetoric...

Would you prefer I say 'the best hypothesis to this day'? It happens to be only (to the best of my knowledge) developped by me. My hypothesis, then. I argued it at length in many different topics.

Here an example. That's where it really started, in a discussion with Alun in my thread on Atheism (page 5):

Before, I have to give a new yet simple set of definitions to avoid further confusion:

- Idea: A vague interpretation of a phenomenon.
- Hypothesis : "a logically/rationally argued, interpretation of a fact/phenomenon."
- Knowledge : "Cognitively assimilated/integrated fact/information using logic, experience (empirically) and/or scientific method."
- Fact : "Something actual (whose existence has been proven/verified), past or ’present‘."

And Belief: "The acceptance (due to the unconscious and perceived 'need' to satisfy a desire/fear) of an idea/hypothesis as ‘truth’ without the need for/existence of (sufficient) proof."

I won’t get in the debate "Can we (us humans) pretend to know anything, any truth?", here. Still:

Note that acceptance is (beyond its submissive and choice factors) a quite definitive term.
When someone holds a belief it’s pretty difficult to make them doubt about it. And it’s all the more so since a belief doesn’t need reasoning, rational thinking to be formed. It simply needs an idea and a desire for it to be true. This desire can have many reasons/motivations and causes itself but it’s not the point here.
So, to be succinct, I’d say that a belief relies quasi exclusively on subjectivity. I don’t pretend that a human being can attain «complete objectivity». As complete objectivity is not attainable by a being (subject). A subject would need to reach the state of object. (As an object as no mental state by definition.). So, it’ impossible. It’s pure (formal/classical) logic, here.
BUT, we should be able to TRY to be as less subjective as we can. We have tools and methods at our disposal to do so (logic, scientific method…).
We would also, and prior to anything else, use psychoanalysis to understand the reasons/motivations and causes of our desires/fears. As we cannot know if the hypotheses we make are ‘objective’ until we know the reasons(/…) for them to be subjective (I.e. desired/believed) and thought/formulated by us.

I then, propose to limit the definition of belief (as I did). Since we are capable of formulating hypotheses («a logically/rationally argued interpretation of a fact/phenomenon.»), we should do it the most often we can. Hypotheses include facts/proof in their presentation. They are not be confused with knowledge, though. As a knowledge is the resulting information of an hypothesis proved beyond ‘any’ doubt: a fact
It’s laziness and the fear to lose our beliefs that stop us to do so… Or the childish desire to create ideas about events, concepts… when we don’t have enough data to formulate precise, intelligible, logical (therefore meaningful enough) hypotheses.
So, you see, that’s why beliefs have small epistemological or cognitive value/significance.
That’s why we try to form different categories of beliefs (as we already discussed).
To try to give them a status they shouldn’t have. The study of beliefs should strictly be the role of psychology/psychoanalysis not epistemology.
Science (as philosophy, ontology, and ’hard-sciences’ of course) should study hypotheses (that could partly include these «justified» beliefs). Not waste its time in the study of low cognitive value beliefs. (They have a low cognitive value since they are not rationally/logically based and formulated). But, as I said, they have a real psychological/psychoanalytic significance and are worth to be studied. They won’t help us to access ‘external’/exogenous knowledge, but they give us data on what we are.
«Tell me your beliefs (I‘ll try to deduce your desires fears), and I’ll tell you who you are.»

To conclude on this subject, I would like you to consider this:
Knowledge is NOT a subset of belief because an idea doesn’t have to be believed before to become (or not) a knowledge. It’s a misconception, a mistake.
We don’t need to form a belief before to attempt to understand a phenomenon or a concept. To form a belief BEFORE to have sufficient proof can induce mistakes, misunderstanding, denial and ’overlooking’ because you will tend (even unconsciously) to try to prove that your belief is the «right» one.
I think this has LESS probability to happen since we don’t have to invest emotionally in a hypothesis contrary to what we do in a belief (unless we also attach a belief to a hypothesis, of course. Which happen more often than one may think).

In fact, I implicitly state that a belief has not only a different nature than a knowledge, but they are antonymic.

So, I want to CLEARLY (re-)define the concept of belief (and many others but when the technique is understood, others can carry on) and the other ones I evoked. To have a CLEAR set of definitions which are not overlapping one another and have their own distinctive coherent meaning, nature, therefore definition.

All my process is to create/show (onto)logical differences of nature between beliefs, ideas, hypotheses, theories, facts, phenomenon, knowledge…
To redefine all terms (starting with these and (A)theism, Agnosticism because they are at the heart of our thought-process/psyche and lives/behaviors) for them to have a simple clear coherent identified ‘positive’ meaning and nature.

So, step by step, I try to reveal my cognitive/psychological/(onto)logical stance by examples and demonstrations.
My goal is even more ambitious but, again, step by step.

I also demonstrate (using formal logic based on a hypothetical made by Meleagar in Scott's thread Can knowledge stem from faith? why knowledge cannot stem from belief/faith. Faith is of an identical nature than belief but have a different object.

So, please present an argued explanation/demonstration of your stance. Not only claims.

'real'/meaningful outside of Logic.

Persecrates wrote:

No balance can be obtained between emotions/desires/fears/beliefs and logic.

Even if you don't follow along with the mainstream trend the above quotes prove that you have a limited understanding of both logic and what is meaningful outside of logic.

If you say so...

Not everything that is 'meaningful' lies within the constraints of a logical system.

Care to argue this statement? Maybe to demonstrate it?

You see logic/reason as something "wired into our brains", and I see it as something we created.

As wanabe pointed out I think you're confusing the thought process both logical (the cerebro cortex treatment of the information) and emotional/irrational (agmydala, 'reptilian brain'...), with the logical method (classical/formal logic) ised to meaningfully demonstrate propositions (premise, inference and conclusion).

Our brain receive information, and we (our brain) try to interpret them. Logic is already present as this stage as it's inherently the way our brain try to correlate/link/associate the informations we receive to make sense of them. Logic is this physical treatment/categorization... of the data for the purpose to use it.

It's a tool, and there will always be an opportunity to make a better tool.

Maybe... But it's useless to claim that we will find another way to acquire knowledge. Let's use the one we have correctly and to the full before to throw it away...
I think, that the paradigm you're looking for, this different method can come by pushing logic to the limit, if it has limit...
It's like you desire to run before to know how to walk. Yoy (rhetorical, people) barely standing up and you think by simply desiring/believing it you're gonna run... Just like that... Our species is like embryos compare to the age of the universe... Maybe one day our species (or another evolved from ours) will fly, but please, let's concentrate on walking efficiently for now...

Hmm.. consider this. The fact that you put so much faith in your belief of logic has hampered your ability to, "ALWAYS doubt, always try to find counter-arguments to yours". Because you cannot see anything outside of the argument of logic...

You coud have been a Sphist, you use the concets of faith/beliefs when you are the one having faith in the existence of 'another/higher form of cognitive method' without even proving it could exist...
Again, no beliefs here. I don't that there can't be another more effective/efficient cognitive method, I say it can only come from logic.

You say you have no beliefs, but your definition of beliefs seems to be seriously misconstrued. I don't believe anything to ever be proven, including the systems we use to prove things.

So, why don't you say ' know', instead of I believe then?

And therefor, by your definition of belief, we have to believe in those systems which we use to 'prove' our 'facts'.

Nope. We test them empirically. If thet give satisfaction we keep'em, if they don't we change, try to find better ones.
For now, logic not only give satisfaction but seem to be inherent to our brain structure. So...

Because for me logic is a tool... For you it is a master.

Reality is my master. If logic allows me to interpret it in a way than no other method (if such 'method' exist...) even come close to. Well, I'll use it as my best tool.

'Formal logic' is looked upon as a closed system, there is no room for movement. It is confined by strict rules.. Static. When something becomes static there is always a problem. Becoming static is like becoming stagnate. Dynamic systems are always far superior to static systems, if something cannot change then it cannot adapt.

Maybe formal logic but not logic itself. Logic itself is not a simple method, but an inherent consequence of our brain structure. We cannot decide to change it 'at will', like we can't change the universe (another closed system).

Metaphysics, intuition, experience... are among a few. They may appear to be logical, but that is only because we are trained to look through 'the glasses of logic' when we percieve them.

Metaphysics is the attempt to use Logic to answer question about existence. Metaphysics (philosophers) didn't create logic but discovered the rules of formal/classical logic.
Like physics attempts to discover the laws of the universe, they don't create them. like neuroscience discovered the brain and its role, it didn't create it.
Can our brain (us), supercede what is the

Our very brain, as I try to make you realize function totally logically in a binary fashion. 0/1. There is nothing else. For example, in the process of sending an order to contract muscles through electro-chemical signal, more ones than zeros is what makes us move and vice versa.

ChaoticMindSays wrote:I think that it is more logical that our empirical evidence is flawed in some way, or that there is some piece of the equation that we are missing than, say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about the existence of some type of higher power. THAT is illogical.

It's not a question of whether empirical evidence is flawed or not. It would be wrong to say that it is a case of billions of people believing in a higher power in spite of evidence to the contrary either. To many, emotions exhibit a much stronger influence than logic. The existence of empirical evidence itself provide unquestionable proof, but how we choose to interpret that evidence, and whether we accept it into our existing belief systems or not is another matter.

Persecrates,

Metaphysics is the attempt to use Logic to answer question about existence. Metaphysics (philosophers) didn't create logic but discovered the rules of formal/classical logic.

So you are claiming that there was some way to 'discover' the rules of logic before logic existed? Discovery/creation are, in some cases, pretty much the exact same thing. Would logic exist, to our knowledge, without us? No... Then was it discovered or created?

As for the rest of your post....
As I have stated multiple times, I do not have a problem with logic itself, it is an important and useful tool. But, as wanabe said, formal logic is a better term to use for what I find wrong in the logical system. I use logic, I know logic is a given in almost every persons thought processes and I don't claim to use any other system, solely, outside of logic to gather information or make decisions. I am not even claiming that Logic wouldn't be included in whatever alternative method that may or may not be out there to be discovered/created. Logic could very well be what discovers/creates it. 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.
I will attempt to explain my problem to you in your terms. The problem I have is when people turn logic into a belief system, when they look at it as infallible, static, ect. When someone turns logic into God, so to say.

As for the rest..... We have been over this again and again. I see no need in repeating the same argument endlessly.

Sisyphus17,

It's not a question of whether empirical evidence is flawed or not. It would be wrong to say that it is a case of billions of people believing in a higher power in spite of evidence to the contrary either. To many, emotions exhibit a much stronger influence than logic. The existence of empirical evidence itself provide unquestionable proof, but how we choose to interpret that evidence, and whether we accept it into our existing belief systems or not is another matter.

Could you clarify what you mean please?

ChaoticMindSays wrote: Sisyphus17,

It's not a question of whether empirical evidence is flawed or not. It would be wrong to say that it is a case of billions of people believing in a higher power in spite of evidence to the contrary either. To many, emotions exhibit a much stronger influence than logic. The existence of empirical evidence itself provide unquestionable proof, but how we choose to interpret that evidence, and whether we accept it into our existing belief systems or not is another matter.

Could you clarify what you mean please?

I meant that the use of empirical evidence is not flawed in the way that an instrument fails to measure a particular phenomena it is intended to measure. They are but objective facts yet to be given meaning through interpretation, which would then render it subjective.

In your original post, you say that it is more likely that empirical evidence is flawed than it is for billions of people throughout history to be wrong about the existence of God. The fact is, we would be able to find observable evidence for anything we wish to look for. Confirmation bias. Empirical evidence, which originates from personal observation and experience are both subjective to the perceiver. Believers interpret mystical phenomena in accordance with their existing belief in God. Atheists interpret the same phenomena through the lens of science. Whether or not empirical evidence in relation to matters yet unexplainable by science or through evidence yet uncovered is due to the existence of a higher power or not is a matter of personal perspective and interpretation, and hasn't anything to do with any flaw of empirical evidence in itself.

I meant that the use of empirical evidence is not flawed in the way that an instrument fails to measure a particular phenomena it is intended to measure. They are but objective facts yet to be given meaning through interpretation, which would then render it subjective.

In your original post, you say that it is more likely that empirical evidence is flawed than it is for billions of people throughout history to be wrong about the existence of God. The fact is, we would be able to find observable evidence for anything we wish to look for. Confirmation bias. Empirical evidence, which originates from personal observation and experience are both subjective to the perceiver. Believers interpret mystical phenomena in accordance with their existing belief in God. Atheists interpret the same phenomena through the lens of science. Whether or not empirical evidence in relation to matters yet unexplainable by science or through evidence yet uncovered is due to the existence of a higher power or not is a matter of personal perspective and interpretation, and hasn't anything to do with any flaw of empirical evidence in itself.

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.

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.