By way of extension and clarification on jun's idea...

To definitively refute or prove logic based on criterion which include the rules of logic itself we would have to consider logic as a closed system in a larger system of logic in which we have domain. Now considering we are limited by our subjectivity and otherwise powerlessness in this smaller system governed by the set of logical rules we all know and love we are making judgements using the rules of logic on the rules of logic used to prove themself. This as Aristotle would say, is a circular arguement. We use the rules of logic themself to prove logic, and this is objectivelly unnacceptable.

"Can we illogically reject logic", is just another form of this same example in the guise of a double negative (illogically reject, same as logically prove).

-Alex R. (back again)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"The myriad choices of his fate
Set themselves out upon a plate
For him to choose
What had he to lose"
-Velvet Underground, The Black Angel's Death Song

Thanks Lotus! I couldn't have said it any better.

Ah, the old 'I'm gonna dismiss all circular arguments' ploy.

There are two kinds of circular arguments of course.

There are those that result in analytic truths and those that don't.

An analytic truth is when the negation of a proposition involves a contradiction, such as 'I did not type this'.

Then we have the ones that have no contradiction when their proposition is negated, such as 'God does not provide me with a "pure light of reason."'

Which kind is this, I ask both jun and lotus_net?

~Forever Fuzziesareourfriends~
http://www.freewebs.com/fuzziesareourfriends/index.htm [Updated: New format, all stylish like! Yayity!]

JOIN THE PACT: If you break grammar rules then explain what you've done and why, or be prepared to answer those questions. If you cannot do these, then do not post your writing.

quote:
________________________________________________
There are two kinds of circular arguments of course.

There are those that result in analytic truths and those that don't.

Then we have the ones that have no contradiction when their proposition is negated, such as 'God does not provide me with a "pure light of reason."'
________________________________________________

Why only two? And what is circular in the statement "God does not provide me a pure light of reason"? I don't see anything circular there.

[This message was edited on 11-28-03 at 03:51 AM.]

Whether it is a circular arguement is irrelevant. Fuzzies is talking of synthetic and analytical statements. You must decide whether the statement that "we can illogically reject logic" is a synthetic or analytical statement. That is, is its contradictory self contradictory?
I think that you will find that many circular arguements involve circular statements. That is, in order to know whether the contradictory is self contradictory, we must know whether the original statement holds true, and vice versa.

"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

I see we are going to bring Kant into this one, so I might be stretching a little out of my league, but I will do my best.

Here you are proposing using a system of logical deduction seperating all into synthetical and analytical truth. Although Kant himself says that the truths presupposed in this system must be de facto analytical judgements. (I believe this is found in prolegemena)

I can understand how the self-contradictory statement, 'I did not type this' is analytical, but are you saying that 'God does not provide me with a "pure light of reason.' is synthetical, another brand of analytical or neither?

It seems to me pretty clear that the statement "Can we illogically reject logic", falls into the category of analytical judgement. It is plainly self-contradictory as should all statements based in purely logical ideas.

-Alex R.

I have one question. If you are doing something illogically aren't you all ready rejecting logic in the process?

"POOP" (People order our patties)-Spongebob-

"let there be light"-God-

"one can make a very large difference."-Michael McCormack-

But what processes have led you to opt to be 'illogical'?

~Forever Fuzziesareourfriends~
http://www.freewebs.com/fuzziesareourfriends/index.htm
JOIN THE PACT: If you break grammar rules then explain what
you've done and why, or be prepared to answer those questions.
If you cannot do these, then do not post your writing.

The chicken came first.

LOL

There is a disparity here in what is meant by logic. Formal logic is not "your thought process leading you to believe X", which clearly differs between individuals. A logically correct statement is one that is deductively sound -- that is, all of its inferences are valid and its axioms are true. Hence it is independent of an individual's thoughts, even if you necessarily only interact with the world through your perceptions.

Now, there are some outer systems of logic that you can reject, but the fundamentals of logic cannot be consistently (which is a logical term itself) be rejected as you automatically appeal to logic itself whenever you make a meaningful (another logical term) statement. Circularity does not imply invalidity. Indeed, the statements which are apodictically true are called "tautologies", which by definition are vacuous, circular and necessarily true, such as "A=A". The incompleteness of logic was in fact proved in the early 20th century by Godel.

The statement "I typed this" or "I did not type this" is actually quite far from analytical. There is nothing in the definitions of the terms to make it necessarily true, nevermind the quite troublesome business of defining what "I" is. An analytic truth is simply one that is true by definition such as "all bachelors are male".

Finally, the egg came before the chicken by quite a few million years.

logic can be easily rejected by a logical mind, provided that the logical mind is able to use a logic seperate from that which most people would use. for example, most "standard" logic would tell us that 2+2=4. However, a logical mind, if using a newer and seperate logic, may come to an equally logical, yet totally different answer. For example, the logic used may come to the conclusion that 2+2=22, because, when one literally adds a 2 in front of another 2, they will see the answer as 22. it is an unusual way of thinking, but still as logical as any other.

quote:

logic can be easily rejected by a logical mind, provided that the logical mind is able to use a logic seperate from that which most people would use.

Yes but it shouldn't be that subjective.

quote:

a logical mind, if using a newer and seperate logic, may come to an equally logical, yet totally different answer. For example, the logic used may come to the conclusion that 2+2=22, because, when one literally adds a 2 in front of another 2, they will see the answer as 22. it is an unusual way of thinking, but still as logical as any other.

You are still base it some some sort of logical thinking. You didn't illogically reject logic. It's not like 2+2 = a cheeseburger.

true, I used a logical basis of thinking, but, had I not explained my reasoning, and simply said 2+2=22, many people would claim that as an illogical and incorrect statement

Sure you can reject logic, don't you know the more insane you are the less logic you have?

Heard of catch-22? http://www.answers.com/topic/catch-22
Heard of logical genius doing some insane thing and/or insane?

No one is a genius in logic, you either have it or you don't. A man with fine amounts of logic is no better off than a man with no logic, but the only differents is the man with logic takes notice of his mistakes and the man without logic does not.

I have logic. I keep mine in an old potato sack. Other good places to keep your logic: in a box, on your nightstand, tucked safely away behind your bible, tucked safely away behind your shrine of Dawkins...

Alright, I'm done with my nonsense. Insanity has little to do with logic or intelligence. Someone can be bat**** crazy and a genius mathematician. In fact, the opposite is more often true. Look at Tesla, that mother****** was craaazy, but, he was also responsible for a significant portion of our advances in electricity, communication, magnetism, and electronics. Also, Tesla coils (How awesome is that?). A lot of the great men of history we so often laud had plenty of screws loose.

Also, being able to recognize mistakes seems like a significant advantage, not that recognition of failure has all that much to do with logic anyway. I think you are thinking of wisdom.

Without logic there is no wisdom.

Yes, but that still doesn't make wisdom logic. Born of, but not.

What? Born of, but not? I am sorry, but without logic you do not have a slight of wisdom. wisdom is understanding. Logic is knowing why or common knowledge; therefore, without logic you cannot know why you did what you did and means you have no wisdom to reason with it.