Logic

Things can appear to be logical but in fact not, but this does not affect the true nature of logic. Goodness is always good, but evil things can be mistaken to be good, and vice versa. But this doesn't change the inherent nature of the thing. You can think a rock is a bush, but it doesn't change the inherent nature of the rock. The delusion rests on the false perception.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

But my point was that some emotional force or another underlies every human action. Therefore the whole idea of being a human being who is motivated entirely by logic is impossible. Logic is a tool, not a power source.

You are incorrect that emotion underlies every human action. While emotion may be present in humans most if not all of the time, there are people whose actions are determined by logic at least some of the time. Im one of them. In fact, I had to consciously learn to use emotion as a decision maker, for certain types of decisions, and I am still uncomfortable with it. (I want to apply logic)

In most humans, the emotional portion of the brain is more powerful than the logical portion of the brain, but this certainly is not universal. In fact, most humans who learn the form of logic use it to serve their emotions. (Rationalizing rather than reasoning.) Studies on voting behavior confirmed this. But there are some people in whom the rational portion of the mind is by nature or accident stronger and more dominant than the emotional portion, and many humans who are dominant emotionally could learn, through practice, to strengthen the rational functions of their mind.

Interestingly enough, those who have damage to the emotional portion of the mind find some decisions impossible to make. ( taken from the book "How we decide") because there is no logically superior choice and the determinant boils down to "what do you want/like" and such individuals become paralyzed at that juncture.

I dont fall into that category. My emotional functions work just fine, in fact, I would say I am quite emotional. But, in my intellectual hierarchy, my emotions are simply subordinate to the rational portion of my brain. (most of the time, I have had anger or fear override that in some cases) Most of my actions are driven by logic, and reason, and not emotion. Which can be problematic in some areas.

In terms of logic, the statement that I quoted here is logical, in form, but you did not prove your premise or support it, and it simply isnt true. Which makes your conclusion, that the idea that people can be motivated by logic is impossible, also untrue. Correlation is not cause, and the fact that emotion is a background constant in most healthy humans does not mean that it is the motivating force behind all human action. In fact, logically driven action is often in direct conflict with emotional "want." (You may want to take someones piece of cake, but the rational portion of your mind reminds you of consequences, propriety, etc.)

The term "Logic" comes from the Greek word "Logos," which means "word."

The rules of logic were created by Aristotle, who based them on the rules of Greek grammar.

Logic is a human activity, like writing a haiku or playing a game of chess. And since it is a human activity, it has no objective existence apart from human thinking. The myth of the Enlightenment is that there is a single, supreme logic that trumps all other styles of cogitation, because it is inherently more "true," and therefore "higher" than other methods of arriving at a conclusion.

There are different "logics;" George Boole decided that the rules of Greek grammar were too hard to understand in English, and so he created a revised form, which we call "Boolean Logic," which differs from the logic of Plato's dialogues.

To expect that an alien race would use the same logic we do is about as "logical" as assuming they would speak French, or Pharsi or Eskimo.

reply to post by dr_strangecraft


Good point. And I have seen at least one argument from a physicist that our logic is insufficient to describe some of what we are seeing in physics.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
(You may want to take someones piece of cake, but the rational portion of your mind reminds you of consequences, propriety, etc.)

And why do you care about "consequences, propriety, etc."?

(And what does "care" imply?)

reply to post by NewlyAwakened


Is cost benefit analysis emotional? Or rational?

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

What would you experience internally if you decided to steal the cake? Anxiety, perhaps?

Ask yourself what your logical thinking is trying to protect you from (or to achieve), and you will discover the emotional complex powering your use of reason.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Is cost benefit analysis emotional? Or rational?

Strictly speaking, rational.

But who's conducting this analysis, and why? Further, what makes something a cost and another thing a benefit?

reply to post by DB340


Not logic to asume that there is 1 correct anser, logic is just the obvious ansers by using your reason. This is just my logical answer

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

What would you experience internally if you decided to steal the cake? Anxiety, perhaps?

I think you are trying to prove somehow that all people act from emotion. But they dont. Famously, sociopaths do not feel anxiety when deciding to kill someone or take some cake. Its just not universal, is my argument. Im not arguing its not common. I would not feel anxiety if I decided to steal some cake, personally. Its unlikely I would steal the cake, because my "want" (emotional drive) for the cake would only be of notice to me if I were hungry and unable to feed myself any other way. And in those circumstances, taking the cake would be the logical thing to do, and I would. I might not want to be caught and punished for preserving my life, but I would not feel an internal conflict over the act of taking the cake in those circumstances. Unless perhaps my taking the cake meant someone more valuable than me to the greater good would die of hunger instead. In that case, logic would dictate that I starve, and let them have the cake.

You are tacking your argument onto someone elses. The person I was originally arguing with made the claim that emotion is the driver of all human action, and it isnt. Logic DOES drive human action, even if emotions are running in the background. You seem to be making a slightly different claim, and seem to be implying that I am arguing that you can shut off all emotion and logic can operate without the background noise of emotion. Im not making that claim. Im saying that many humans can, and do, act logically against their emotional impulses.

This is most obvious in the case of fear. People can, and do, act against their fear, even intense fear, because logic dictates it in some situation. You could argue that the the decision to save your own life is an emotional one as well, and its simply a matter of one emotion overriding another in some cases, but not all instances when people act logically against their own fears involves someones life. Sometimes they just do it because they have calculated that that is the wiser course of action, logically. And sometimes it costs them their life, rather than preserves it.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
But who's conducting this analysis, and why? Further, what makes something a cost and another thing a benefit?

You, your brain, is conducting the analysis, whatever "you" are, and this is up for debate. And what makes something a cost or a benefit is a good question. You want it to be "emotion" for your argument, but Im not sure that is really appropriate. At least, not without defining emotion a little more tightly. If you are calling "intuition" or "instinct" emotion, that would skew the argument one way. If you are using "emotion" in the more common way, it would skew the argument differently. There are separate words for those concepts because the majority of people draw lines between them, and do not consider them equivalent, although they may be related. Other ways, besides, "instinct," "intuition," or "emotion" people decide what is a cost and a benefit include, "education" or "programming" or "indoctrination."

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I think we're in a semantic disagreement here.

What you consider "emotion" appears to be more narrow than what I consider "emotion". By the term, I mean all, say, "irrational factors", or perhaps "values" is a better word, and yes, they underlie our actions. You appear to be referring only to emotional forces employed (or perhaps employing themselves?) in the decision-making process, a process which in any case is set in motion by some value or another (which may be identical with the emotional impulse in the case of completely unthinking decisions).

The point of my original post in this thread is that reasoning skills are just that, skills, or tools. But a hammer does not swing itself. Decisions are indeed frequently made by employing reason (and these decisions are typically more productive than those made without), but the reasoning still has some values behind it, and the decision-making process is really all about coming up with a way to achieve those values.

The sociopath might not feel anxiety, but he still eats when hungry, drinks when thirsty, sleeps when tired, screws when horny. Reason comes into play when he sets out to achieve these goals. But the values are what drive the use of reason. That his use of reason is his supreme decision-making tool and is uninterrupted by emotional (in the more narrow sense) factors such as cross-currents coming from conscience, is a separate fact, one which I am not disagreeing with in the slightest. Like I said, something gets Spock out of bed in the morning, and "it was the logical thing to do" leaves questions unanswered.

Your previous posts gave me the impression that you were saying reason by itself, with no value underlying its use, can be a motivating factor, and this is what I was disagreeing with. But I don't think we disagree here, as you yourself just implied such irrational motivating factors in phrases such as "my 'want' (emotional drive) for the cake would only be of notice to me if I were hungry and unable to feed myself any other way" (implying that one value can supersede another and take the wheel depending on circumstances, which is absolutely true) and "someone more valuable than me to the greater good" (implying that you value some "greater good" which you then serve with your reasoning processes).

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
The person I was originally arguing with made the claim that emotion is the driver of all human action

I'm pretty sure that was me.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

I think we're in a semantic disagreement here.

What you consider "emotion" appears to be more narrow than what I consider "emotion". By the term, I mean all, say, "irrational factors", or perhaps "values" is a better word, and yes, they underlie our actions. You appear to be referring only to emotional forces employed (or perhaps employing themselves?) in the decision-making process, a process which in any case is set in motion by some value or another (which may be identical with the emotional impulse in the case of completely unthinking decisions).

I agree, it is a semantic disagreement we are having, which is why I suggested we would have to define emotions before we could have a meaningful argument.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
The point of my original post in this thread is that reasoning skills are just that, skills, or tools. But a hammer does not swing itself. Decisions are indeed frequently made by employing reason (and these decisions are typically more productive than those made without), but the reasoning still has some values behind it, and the decision-making process is really all about coming up with a way to achieve those values.

Well, if we want to get technical about who or what is swinging the hammer, we enter into a land with no clear answer. Some studies using fMRI indicate that action occurs before thought, bringing into question the whole concept of free will.

In short, in factual terms, we really dont know, at this juncture, what is the ultimate source of human action at all. No one does. But depending how you define "emotion" you can certainly make a good argument that it is not the only driver of conscious human action as we perceive it.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
The sociopath might not feel anxiety, but he still eats when hungry, drinks when thirsty, sleeps when tired, screws when horny. Reason comes into play when he sets out to achieve these goals. But the values are what drive the use of reason.

You have to be careful substituting "values" for "emotion" or "instinct" or "intuition" too. They arent equivalent terms. We dont say animals, for instance, have "values" (though they might, but we dont commonly attribute values to them) and so its not really good argumentation to say the things we consider "instinctual" are value driven.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
Like I said, something gets Spock out of bed in the morning, and "it was the logical thing to do" leaves questions unanswered.

It does. And it overlooks the wake/sleep circadian rhythm, a physical need to pee, hunger, or other "bodily" instinctual reasons to get out of bed to say that emotions or values were the cause of getting out of bed. It IS the logical thing to do to get out of bed if you are hungry and no food is present in your bed.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

Your previous posts gave me the impression that you were saying reason by itself, with no value underlying its use, can be a motivating factor, and this is what I was disagreeing with. But I don't think we disagree here, as you yourself just implied such irrational motivating factors in phrases such as "my 'want' (emotional drive) for the cake would only be of notice to me if I were hungry and unable to feed myself any other way" (implying that one value can supersede another and take the wheel depending on circumstances, which is absolutely true) and "someone more valuable than me to the greater good" (implying that you value some "greater good" which you then serve with your reasoning processes).

Right. My argument began as a rebuttal to a statement that emotion drives all human action. And it just doesnt. It may play a huge role in MOST human action. But all and most are not logically equivalent terms. Its an unfounded generalization. I dont pretend that there is not "irrational" (instinctive, intuitive, emotional) background noise, only that you CAN and people DO override those with logic and act according to the dictates of logic.

A robot, for example, could be programmed with the dictate that "the survival of a number of robots sufficient to reproduce and continue the line of robots is a greater good than the survival of you, one robot." And it could act accordingly, sacrificing itself for the greater good. We would not say emotion was the driver of that decision, but simple programming of priorities. Nature has wired that into people, and animals to some degree, and we dont say nature did that because the programmer was imposing emotion upon its creations. You would need to invoke an anthropomorphized God to make that an emotional imposition. So, there can be a logical selection for a greater good without emotion being a driver.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
The person I was originally arguing with made the claim that emotion is the driver of all human action

I'm pretty sure that was me.

Lol. Maybe so. I dont recall at this point. But if so, I disagree with that, for the reasons stated above, and yes, for semantic reasons as well, as well as scientific ones, (that science seems to indicate that NO conscious brain activity precedes human actions, in which case logic obviously isnt driving human behavior, but then, neither are emotions or values. )

en.wikipedia.org...

Libet's experiments suggest to some[6] that unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation. If unconscious brain processes have already taken steps to initiate an action before consciousness is aware of any desire to perform it, the causal role of consciousness in volition is all but eliminated, according to this interpretation. For instance, Susan Blackmore's interpretation is "that conscious experience takes some time to build up and is much too slow to be responsible for making things happen."[7] Libet finds that conscious volition is exercised in the form of 'the power of veto' (sometimes called "free won't"[8][9]); the idea that conscious acquiescence is required to allow the unconscious buildup of the readiness potential to be actualized as a movement. While consciousness plays no part in the instigation of volitional acts, Libet suggested that it may still have a part to play in suppressing or withholding certain acts instigated by the unconscious. Libet noted that everyone has experienced the withholding from performing an unconscious urge. Since the subjective experience of the conscious will to act preceded the action by only 200 milliseconds, this leaves consciousness only 100-150 milliseconds to veto an action (this is because the final 50 milliseconds prior to an act are occupied by the activation of the spinal motor neurones by the primary motor cortex, and the margin of error indicated by tests utilizing the oscillator must also be considered).

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I can't agree with all of this, but so much is open to interpretation, and my main point of logical reasoning as a skill and not a motivating force seems to be drowned out by the semantics regarding different types of things which are the motivating force, that I'm not sure it's worth debating. But I do want to make a couple comments:

It's hard to draw the line, subjectively, between where "emotion" ends and "programming" begins, or where either of these ends and "value" begins. To me, the very dissonance we feel when we have a dilemma involving violating our values is a good indication of the emotional substructure of value systems. Programmed responses exhibit something similar, although on the other hand, when they are uninhibited their resemblance to completely unconscious functions (such as heartbeat) does not escape me either. I don't know.

That being said, humans are not robots, and the human brain is most definitely not a digital device.

And of course we can't forget "instinct", of which I'm half-inclined to regard feelings as a subjective manifestation (so long as we allow instincts to be mutated over time by external and internal influences during life).

I'm familiar with Libet's experiments, and while consciousness is definitely a squirrelly subject (as anybody who's debated with me on these boards in the past month or so would attest!), I really don't buy that these experiments prove anything. It's hard for me to explain why, but what I would suggest doing is, very carefully, in a full-on real-time constructed fantasy, examine yourself as a subject in the experiment, going through the whole thing. Simultaneously keep in mind the results, when the investigator is seeing output. If you do all this, you might agree with me that the experimental results are hugely open to interpretation, even more so than its very detractors from the Wiki article claim. Then again, you might not.

The only thing I need to caution here is I am not saying that just because it seems one way to us, we must accept the naive view. I am in fact saying to deeply think about the entire methodology, and the data, and then draw your own conclusions, and see if they perhaps differ from Libet's.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
It IS the logical thing to do to get out of bed if you are hungry and no food is present in your bed.

Presuming that a value exists that provides the goal which makes this course of action logical (whether that value is the simple relief of the sensation of hunger, or a more sublimated value like the will to survive).

But I do believe I just touché'd myself here! The existence of a sublimated value implies that enough knowledge and intellectual ability exists to recognize the link between, in this case, eating and survival. But then again, survival must still be valued, and what is the emotional repercussion of violating the value of survival? The fear of death! (But who fears death except the human, and why does the human fear death? But I will end my consciousness dump here.)

But it seems the intellect is still a tool here, just that its use is so ubiquitous in the human being that it infects everything. Not only is it employed in the service of a motivating force in order to decide on an action, but inputs are filtered through it and processed by it to produce emotional responses which are vastly mutated from the base instict (for example, from primal reactive fear to fear of a "concept" like death). These mutated emotions then provide further motivation, leading through the use of intellect and intuition to further action, whose inputs then come back triggering even more brand-new emotional responses, which provide yet more motivation, and... we grow up?

The human mind never ceases to fascinate.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

I can't agree with all of this, but so much is open to interpretation, and my main point of logical reasoning as a skill and not a motivating force seems to be drowned out by the semantics regarding different types of things which are the motivating force, that I'm not sure it's worth debating. But I do want to make a couple comments:

Well, the thread IS about logic, and while non philosophers (and non lawyers, who also need crisp wording) complain about "semantics" anyone who studies logic knows that it is crucial that people be using the same word to cover the same meaning. Its not a trivial point in logic. Its foundational. In fact, its pretty important in general conversation too, but people often just assume they are being clear, and that meaning is shared, or even stretch meaning deliberately to continue to appear to be making good argument when in fact they arent. Not a jab at you, I think you just used the word emotional the way you think of it, not to deliberately deceive.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
It's hard to draw the line, subjectively, between where "emotion" ends and "programming" begins, or where either of these ends and "value" begins.

Well, then I would say if you cant draw those lines, its really hard to make a meaningful blanket statement that "emotion" is the driver of all human action. If you cant define what "emotion" is, how can you make that claim? There are separate words for the concepts, literally, because they are not precisely the same thing. Especially not the words "values" and "emotions" when you are using the word "emotion" as broadly as you seem to be. Again, animals are not commonly thought to have "values" but they do have instincts and emotions. (Although some scientists and lay people alike would argue against even applying "emotion" to them.)

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
To me, the very dissonance we feel when we have a dilemma involving violating our values is a good indication of the emotional substructure of value systems. Programmed responses exhibit something similar, although on the other hand, when they are uninhibited their resemblance to completely unconscious functions (such as heartbeat) does not escape me either. I don't know.

Im guessing then that you dont have a personal experience of having an emotionless, calculated decision against the backdrop of emotions? Including conflicting ones? I do. Many of them. I sense the emotions, including dissonance at times, but the logical process itself is free of that. And, I can act accordingly. In other words, Im certain you CAN use logic (at least apparently, disregarding the argument about free wills existence at all) as the driver of your behavior because I have. And I know Im not alone in that.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
Then again, you might not. (The only thing I need to caution is I am not saying that just because it seems one way to us, we must accept the naive view--I am in fact saying to deeply think about the entire methodology.)

Well the more recent tests using fMRI would seem much less open to interpretation, wouldnt you say? A part of a brain lights up when it does.

www.wired.com...

"Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done," said study co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist. Haynes updated a classic experiment by the late Benjamin Libet, who showed that a brain region involved in coordinating motor activity fired a fraction of a second before test subjects chose to push a button. Later studies supported Libet's theory that subconscious activity preceded and determined conscious choice -- but none found such a vast gap between a decision and the experience of making it as Haynes' study has. In the seven seconds before Haynes' test subjects chose to push a button, activity shifted in their frontopolar cortex, a brain region associated with high-level planning. Soon afterwards, activity moved to the parietal cortex, a region of sensory integration. Haynes' team monitored these shifting neural patterns using a functional MRI machine.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

But I do believe I just touché'd myself here! The existence of a sublimated value implies that enough knowledge and intellectual ability exists to recognize the link between, in this case, eating and survival. But then again, survival must still be valued, and what is the emotional repercussion of violating the value of survival? The fear of death! (But who fears death except the human, and why does the human fear death? But I will end my consciousness dump here.)

Only if you refuse to draw or recognize the line between "values" and "instincts" can you say that the desire to preserve your life is a value. And again, most people do not attribute "values" to slugs, but even the lowliest creature in terms of higher brain function will try to preserve its own life.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
But it seems the intellect is still a tool here, just that its use is so ubiquitous in the human being that it infects everything. Not only is it employed in the service of a motivating force in order to decide on an action, but inputs are filtered through it and processed by it to produce emotional responses which are vastly mutated from the base instict.

And here are are drawing a line again between instinct and emotion. Argumentatively, you have to pick a position, are they the same? Or not? Or it becomes impossible to argue meaningfully against you when the words shift their boundaries. I think there SHOULD be some distinction between them, but for good argument, we would have to draw that line consciously, so we were both using the words the same way.

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened
The human mind never ceases to fascinate.

This I can agree with unconditionally. It is a fascinating topic, and things are far from settled on how it all works and what is the prime mover. But thats fine with me. It provides tons of good debate and discussion.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
Well the more recent tests using fMRI would seem much less open to interpretation, wouldnt you say? A part of a brain lights up when it does.

www.wired.com...

"Your decisions are strongly prepared by brain activity. By the time consciousness kicks in, most of the work has already been done," said study co-author John-Dylan Haynes, a Max Planck Institute neuroscientist. Haynes updated a classic experiment by the late Benjamin Libet, who showed that a brain region involved in coordinating motor activity fired a fraction of a second before test subjects chose to push a button. Later studies supported Libet's theory that subconscious activity preceded and determined conscious choice -- but none found such a vast gap between a decision and the experience of making it as Haynes' study has. In the seven seconds before Haynes' test subjects chose to push a button, activity shifted in their frontopolar cortex, a brain region associated with high-level planning. Soon afterwards, activity moved to the parietal cortex, a region of sensory integration. Haynes' team monitored these shifting neural patterns using a functional MRI machine.

That is interesting. This is less open to certain interpretations based on the extremely short time span of milliseconds of Libet's experiment, but not the sort of interpretation I have in mind.

If I come up with a way to put my interpretation into words, I'll start a thread on it and see where that goes.

In any case, I'd love to be hooked up to that machine and see if I can't produce the "failed predictions" which the article does mention.

reply to post by NewlyAwakened


I know, I would love to have an fMRI done too, to answer several questions I have about my own thinking. A lot of the stuff coming out of modern neurology is pretty great for philosophy, I think. It helps settle some points that until now were just a free for all of argument.

Logic is a philosophical subject. There are many different approaches to it. You can have two-valued (binary) logic, 3-valued logic, multivalued logic and infinite-valued logic.

It can be used to solve problems, make decisions, or make sense of something that doesn't really make sense.

But I think where it gets the most pummeling and misuse is in the war of ideas. Someone can be accused of being "illogical" or having a story that defies logic as a way to get others to doubt their sincerity or the validity of their data.

There are certain things about life that basically exist outside the world of logic. We can make sense of some of these things, but there is no real logic to them unless we define a logical system for them to be part of. We can identify sensible reasons why the sky is blue or gravity exists, but they aren't particularly logical.

Yet, knowing gravity exists, things that float or rise with no apparent counter-gravity force being applied would be "illogical." And you would doubt the sincerity of someone who insisted they knew a place on earth where the clear daytime sky was red. But that is a far cry from saying that these events could not or did not happen.

So logic is not always the proper measuring stick to use when evaluating a datum. Because your assumptions could be wrong! Logic is good for developing mathematics or systems of thought or control that are consistent. But it does not state, and has no right to state, that inconsistencies are impossible.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I know, I would love to have an fMRI done too, to answer several questions I have about my own thinking. A lot of the stuff coming out of modern neurology is pretty great for philosophy, I think. It helps settle some points that until now were just a free for all of argument.

For sure. One of my mottos is "Right knowledge accounts for all observable facts" (this includes subjective experience; it's a personal motto), something I frequently have to remind myself when I get too proud of my pet theories and then get agitated when somebody presents potentially conflicting data.

I sometimes have to consciously tell the agitation to "shove it", as it were, in order to dive into the novel ideas or data.

reply to post by NewlyAwakened


It is the hard part sometimes, of being a philosopher. You do have to love "truth" more than your own beliefs, or ego if you want to do it well.

Myself I dont get too disappointed if something I believed is proven wrong. Or maybe its more the excitement of the new revelation overwhelms any disappointment I might have. Its a grand intellectual adventure, and unlike a great series of books, or movies, etc., its never "done."

I take it as a matter of course that most of what I know will someday be proven to be at least an insufficient explanation if not proven entirely false. Knowing that up front, you just dont get too attached to pet theories.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
It is the hard part sometimes, of being a philosopher. You do have to love "truth" more than your own beliefs, or ego if you want to do it well.

Myself I dont get too disappointed if something I believed is proven wrong. Or maybe its more the excitement of the new revelation overwhelms any disappointment I might have. Its a grand intellectual adventure, and unlike a great series of books, or movies, etc., its never "done."

I take it as a matter of course that most of what I know will someday be proven to be at least an insufficient explanation if not proven entirely false. Knowing that up front, you just dont get too attached to pet theories.

Hear, hear. But you're talking to a guy who once upon a time could easily have been diagnosed with "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" (but ask me another time what I think of modern psychiatric labels!). The fear of being proven wrong you might say is a lovely gift from the demon of vanity, but lately (and with some, er, "assistance") I have been getting the better of it, the bastard!

(Incidentally when I talk like this I am not totally sure I'm using metaphors.)

Having aged quite significantly after that interesting and devoutly enlightening deviation from the general theme reading session, I would like to alter cap a few degrees to drift back en route if you'd be so awfully kind?

My original question was "Is it logical to question the logic of logic?". A few personally conclusive thoughts on the matter...

Beginning with general discussion about logic and what it means logically, the notion of 'emotional logic' was introduced. This was a new idea for me but one with which I found a connection; it supported my initial premise that logic is manmade and thus not a universal factual constant of 'absolute correctness/truth'. Neither science, nature nor mathematics works upon emotion so perhaps we could say they are logical in nature? I also came to see that logic for us is not logic of the universe so my saying that science, nature and mathematics are based upon logic implies that I am not speakng of 'our' logic, rather, a universal logic beyond human comprehension.

I wonder what kind of logic it could be?

The introdution that logic is merely a word-form of Greek grammar was unexpcted and informative. There being many 'logics', also.

I hereby propose that, in answer to my own question of logic's logic, it is indeed impossible to answer this question due to the sheer instability of the concept of logic and its inability to present itself to us in one form.

Therefore, it might be worthwhile never thinking in terms of logic for you are only fooling yourself.