Can one reject logic with appealing to it? In my opinion, no, it is illogical, and, because we are bound by logic, the illogical is infeasible. Logic is, as TheDemonInside so eloquently put it in PT, 'a cage'.
Does anyone disagree? (Or more to the point, CAN anyone disagree?)
If we are talking mathematics and 1 plus 1 equals 2, then okay. That's logical and we won't dispute it.
If we are talking behavioural drivers - for instance: why I hate brainstorming meetings and you love them, why I leave my thesis to the last minute and you have finished it with three weeks ahead of the deadline why I'm always early and you aren't, then my logic is different from yours.
I happen to know why I don't like to brainstorm, why my work is last minute and why I am always early, but I bet some people, who are my opposite, don't understand and think me (or parts of me) illogical.
Is there any way that one might say that logic is more fallible than the illogical, for example; 'cats are dogs' is illogical. What I am basically asking is if there is a basis for irrationalism that does not appeal to logic/reason/rationality?
Logic is, in the definition that I am using it, reason, rationality or thought. They are synonymatic. (And a group that form one of those horrible circular definition chains in dictionaries...)
2.How do humans, not necessarily academic humans but normal everyday humans use logic if at all?
In of itself logic is only useful in that it only discusses a topic in of itself. A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. This tells us nothing else about the world except for exactly what the topic is discussing. Nothing universal can be derived from a logical statement.
PS-I will not continue a discussion or debate if I am beraded by elitists. I do not wish to waste the time to battle wits with the blind.
we're gonna take it to the people hey let's drink from the cup share some luck go ahead and laugh cause it don't cost much ~Dispatch-Two Coins
Posts: 3788 | Location: California then Vermont | Registered: 09-13-01
Ladon; I hope you do not consider my frustration as elitism, it is merely caused by the fact that I assumed that 'logic' is self-evident to a mind on its own as a process. I'd like to be informed if I am incorrect, and I apologise if my reactions were unsavoured.
One experiences, (ignoring, for now, where we get these), thoughts and sensations which, as collections, form constructs that one calls ideas and opinions. Ideas and opinions, working in collections, form perception, appearence and intuition. This process is logic, reason or rationality.
This is the process of logic. It appears to me to be an analytic truth (true by nature of the words used in stating it) that logic, at least as I have defined it, is indisputable.
From this process we build up beliefs. (Is this refutable?)
So what I am asking is: Does anyone know a way of disputing logic that does not appeal to it? Or, can we transcend logic as I have defined it above?
I think that I've expressed this more properly now... Does anyone have any fatal objects?
The whole notion that one can dispute logic without appealing to it is absurd. One can of course do this, but his dispute would be illogical, which is really quite silly. It's a rhetorical question in some respects. The only way around it is to claim that logic is ambiguous, and depends upon the person and their perspective as Asa has said. Two people have opposing logic. One says red is green, whilst the other says red is blue. One can say that red is blue. The other can refute this with their own logic, stating that red is green. They are refuting the first person's logic, whilst not appealing to it.
This all depends on whether you say logic is a constant fix, or logic various based upon perspective.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
quote: Ideas and opinions, working in collections, form perception, appearence and intuition. This process is logic, reason or rationality.
Now, I'm not so sure about that. It may be close to reason, but logic?
quote: One experiences, (ignoring, for now, where we get these), thoughts and sensations which, as collections, form constructs that one calls ideas and opinions.
Less unsure about that. Succinctly, thoughts and sensations = ideas and opinions. Does sensation impinge on opinion?
So,
quote: logic, at least as I have defined it, is indisputable.
I think you are assuming a bit too much. However, if I address your interpretation of logic: your ideas and opinions may very well be different to mine even if we have similar 'experiences, thoughts and sensations'. As a result we will end up with a different 'perception, appearance and intuition'. For example: Think back to a family gathering. Ask any of your relatives how a particular scene was played out - who said what and to whom. You will not get agreement on who said what and to whom - especially if you ask what was meant when whatever was said.
Now, accepting that the same event can give two and more people a differnet experience, thought or sensation, logically it follows that the same event will give two or more people different opinions.
Now it's back to the Rugby World Cup. Get Curious!
It is philosohically mad for you to try and examine my logic using this definition, as you have no solid proof that it exists, only evidential suggestion.
The problem with your argument that one person's logic differs from another is that, although we may accept other minds, we have no certainty that they exist.
This is why, in the above post, you will notice that I have used the pronoun 'one', and not 'we' or 'I'.
If one person says that 'red is blue', then to them, 'blue is red'. We would never know that they are refering to something different, because even if they are, essentially it is the same colour.
No, there is no proof that when I look at a dog I am not seeing your 'cat'. But there is consistent evidence. No, there is no proof that when I look at a cat I am not seeing your 'dog'. But there is consistent evidence.
Have you ever meet a person who is all logic? They don’t get too far in life. I found that many of them lack visions and imagination along with many other good qualities. I don’t want to repeat myself here, so let me quote myself from the ‘death penalty’ thread.
quote: When you done something that haven’t been done before and look at things in perspective that haven’t been looked at before, you don’t have much back up. For example everybody knows what e=mc2 is now but before some dude came up with it, it was unthinkable. Just because you haven’t have the back up data (yet) it should mean you must stop thinking until you do find that data? We are not in some court here. The race is long and there is no time penalty. The world would be a very boring place if we all follow the same guideline, don’t you think?
Is that what you want human to do? Spend 10 years in research to see why when the shit hit the fan, it stunk up the place?
Not all debate,counseling, arts, planning has to do with logic.
quote: "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." -Albert Einstein
"It's not premarital sex. If you don't plan on getting married" From a guy who love his single status.
quote: Have you ever meet a person who is all logic? They don’t get too far in life. I found that many of them lack visions and imagination along with many other good qualities.
Vision and imagination all stem from reason/logic! Almost anything we conciously do does to some extent...
Something might not be logic at all. That is call creativity. For example, die first, the you grow old, then you retired, then your take a bunch of vacations, then you go to work, then you get married, then you start dating, you go back to school, ..... end up in your mother womb.
Some of the Matrix isn't all too logical either.
"It's not premarital sex. If you don't plan on getting married" From a guy who love his single status.
One always thinks with logic. Whether it be flawed or not, it is always logic. One's logic may be to ignore all logical instincts, this is still a form of logic. One always thinks logically.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity." -Martin Luther King, Jr.
"Vision and imagination all stem from reason/logic! Almost anything we conciously do does to some extent..."
How could you not know that? Logic and imagination/creativity are different aspects of cognitive function. In fact to a large extent Creativity does away with Logic. How can creativity stem from reason and Logic when they are diametrically anti-thesis to each other?
Your reason is "Fuzzies" in the truest sense of the word.
You cannot illogically reject logic if we use logic itself as the criterion because it would be illogical. To successfuly refute logic one has to appeal to non-logical criterion which would require us to appeal to an entirely different set rules.
"Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (the expression of one is the exclusion of another).
