It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Logic

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 



but simply hasnt been schooled in the sweet science of reason.


If he wasn't before, He has been now.

Schooled, that is.





posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 



but simply hasnt been schooled in the sweet science of reason.


If he wasn't before, He has been now.

Schooled, that is.



lol you never know, some undecided soul might read yer post and think 'to heck with objectivism, those guys are jerks, im staying in the comfy realm of subjectivism where although i'll never be right, at least I can claim to never be wrong!'

Were trying to spread the truth, arent we? not club people over the head with it~



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 



lol you never know, some undecided soul might read yer post and think 'to heck with objectivism,


Yeah... some people don't care about reality, or that it *IS*, DESPITE what they might believe.

And some people will starve when they try to convince themselves that they can derive sustenance from the air.


those guys are jerks, im staying in the comfy realm of subjectivism where although i'll never be right, at least I can claim to never be wrong!'


So Be It.

Reality will be out final arbiter, not empty platitudes.


Were trying to spread the truth, arent we? not club people over the head with it~


The truth is....

I'm not here to be nice.

I'm here to deny ignorance.


edit on 7-8-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: spelling



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


I hear ya but you certainly must acknowledge that the majority of humans who have ever lived have done so with hardly a shred of rationality, and to conform to irrationality has indeed been the dominant survival strategy throughout our short history. Heck even the parasites in Atlas Shrugged lived quite nicely for many a generation prior to their eventual collapse.

Irrational religion has survived and thrived for thousands of years, and still goes strong today, despite its pure madness. I think you might be underestimating the power of our opponent, and to laugh in the face of millennia of human experience I think might put you at a disadvantage in regards to actually taking down this goliath.

So laugh all you want, but you must realize that our team has been getting its ass kicked since Socrates and before, and to dismiss the lesson in that and smugly declare your superiority in the face of the overwhelming route weve been historically subjected to is a little, dare i say, irrational, imo.



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 



I hear ya but you certainly must acknowledge that the majority of humans who have ever lived have done so with hardly a shred of rationality, and to conform to irrationality has indeed been the dominant survival strategy throughout our short history.


Irrationality is not a survival strategy, it is a LACK of a survival strategy.


Irrational religion has survived and thrived for thousands of years, and still goes strong today, despite its pure madness. I think you might be underestimating the power of our opponent, and to laugh in the face of millennia of human experience I think might put you at a disadvantage in regards to actually taking down this goliath.


Aqueduct, Irrigation, Agriculture, Fire, The Wheel.

Rationality has been around longer than you might think, and is responsible for most if not all of humanities survival and prospering.

Irrationality no more helps humans survive than does syphilis.


So laugh all you want, but you must realize that our team has been getting its ass kicked since Socrates and before,


I don't see how..... Logic is responsible for humanity having Ever achieved so much.

The fact that humanity spreads upon the face of the Earth as the dominant species is owed almost ENTIRELY to rationality, and Logic.

That's Rationality Winning, by the way.


and to dismiss the lesson in that and smugly declare your superiority in the face of the overwhelming route weve been historically subjected to is a little, dare i say, irrational, imo.


And to presume that I am claiming *MYSELF* superior is quite puerile... when in this thread have I espoused anything except Logic, and Rationality?

As if I am somehow the human personification of these qualities?

Honestly?

Look, I'm not telling you that Logic is superior to stupidity because I really, Really believe that it is true.

I am telling you this because *IT IS THE TRUTH* and every endeavour that has aided humanities rise from the mud centuries ago is owed to Logic.

It's a *FACT*


And frankly, I don't care if I come off as sounding "Pompous" or as a "Know-It-All" or whatever.....

Even if I die at the hands of the emotionally hurt simpletons who my harshness roused to anger.... I'll Still be RIGHT.

Logic will still be Humanities *ONLY* defence against predators.

And without it, the stupids will all *DIE*


Can you say Mass Famine? Starvation? Disease? Pestilence?

"The Masque of the Red Death?"

"I do not suffer Fools gladly"
-Oscar Wilde
edit on 7-8-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
Logically the earth is flat. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Are these statements true?



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   


Irrationality is not a survival strategy, it is a LACK of a survival strategy.


Is GWB 2, in your estimation, a rational human being? Or Tony Blair? How about Fidel Castro, whos lifespan has exceeded the standard that you and I hope to achieve and would feel blessed (not by god of course...) to surpass? What about the Kings of old? Were they, in your opinion, irrational humans? What about the house of Saud (or whatever), who a huge % of living Saudis can attribute their linage to? Were all these people irrational, or rational, in your judgement?

By your own definition, being a mass murdering psychopath is a legit survival strategy. Thus, again by your definition, aggressive violence is indeed a legit and fully logical survival strategy. If these insane killers are successful, which they are, then they must indeed be logical, and thus murder and mayhem must also be a logical and a viable survival strategy.

Is it true, in your eyes, that I can kill and kill again, if killing is part of my survival strategy? Can my murderous rampage be said to be logical, if it furthers my ends?



Aqueduct, Irrigation, Agriculture, Fire, The Wheel. Rationality has been around longer than you might think, and is responsible for most if not all of humanities survival and prospering. Irrationality no more helps humans survive than does syphilis.


Rationality has existed as long as there were minds who were able to perceive reality and form concepts that conform to said reality. But to say irrational concepts have not helped certain humans survive is to say that the church has never helped a priest survive and thrive, and we know this is false because the church has existed as a foundation of our irrational experience for thousands of years.

What about the Pharaohs, who dominated ancient cultures for millennia? What about the christian clergy, whos irrational thought systems still rule us to a large degree even today? Can you confidently say that these groups were not helped to survive via their irrational belief systems? Or were they rational in adopting irrational concepts and imposing them on others?

What about today? Do the recipients of stolen funds not gain an objective survival bonus in accepting their ill gotten gains? Doesnt the tenured university prof not gain enormous perks and advantages by conforming to our irrational system? Do not the parasitic politicians and blood sucking lobbiests not put their offspring through college, thereby cementing their dominant and irrational position in society via their irrational and evil relationship with the state, which we both agree is irrational? How could you tell them they are wrong to do so, if survival and propagation is your ultimate standard? (which im assuming at this point that it is.)



I don't see how..... Logic is responsible for humanity having Ever achieved so much.


Socrates drank the hemlock, Aristotle fled, Rand went mad and cultish and was ignored, despire penning what is perhaps one of the most profound novels of all time, and the Austrians have been totally inert in the face of an exponentially expanding state. The case for freedom has been validated and proven for over a hundred years, AND STILL we face the most powerful, most robust, most far reaching and the most potentially destructive state that has ever existed. Weve been right for thousands of years, and yet we arent even on the radar in terms of accepted though for the vast majority of humanity, who we both agree are largely irrational.

If someone is keeping score somewhere, team rational (while of course being the source of every human advancement) is getting its collective ass kicked! Team madness declares our hard fought success to be its own, and all the while it blames us for its inevitable failures. (like the unprecedented prosperity we enjoy being attributed to the state, while of course such an explosion of wealth can only be achieved via freedom...and when the rot of violence overwhelms the flowering bud of freedom, it will be freedom itself that will be blamed for the destruction caused by state violence...)

Thus it will be, as it always has been, that rationality and freedom will be the scapegoat for the inevitable collapse caused by the irrational state.

Sounds like a no win situation for us rationalists. A metaphorical checkmate for the irrationalists.

That the pyramids were erected by slaves does not prove the rationality of the Pharaohs. Unless, of course, the Pharaohs were perusing a rational strategy of subjugation.

Is slavery a rational survival strategy?




The fact that humanity spreads upon the face of the Earth as the dominant species is owed almost ENTIRELY to rationality, and Logic. That's Rationality Winning, by the way.


If dominance is your objective methodology of judging success then you cannot logically oppose the slavemaster or the monarch. Both dominate others, control resources and propagate intergenerationally. Are these examples operating via logic and rationality, in your estimation?



And to presume that I am claiming *MYSELF* superior is quite puerile... when in this thread have I espoused anything except Logic, and Rationality? As if I am somehow the human personification of these qualities? Honestly?


Of course not, but are you claiming perfect mastery over these tools?

Are you perfectly rational?



Look, I'm not telling you that Logic is superior to stupidity because I really, Really believe that it is true. I am telling you this because *IT IS THE TRUTH* and every endeavour that has aided humanities rise from the mud centuries ago is owed to Logic. It's a *FACT*


Of course it is. Wheel = fact. Heliocentric solar model = fact. E = MC2 = fact. 2+2=4 = fact.

But if everything that aides humanity must be rational, *how do you explain the propagation and dominance of irrationality in the world today??*



And frankly, I don't care if I come off as sounding "Pompous" or as a "Know-It-All" or whatever.....


Dude I know exactly what youre saying, and I share your contempt for the bewilderment and aggression you and I face on a daily basis...buuuut...



Even if I die at the hands of the emotionally hurt simpletons who my harshness roused to anger.... I'll Still be RIGHT.


...If you and I are so RIGHT, and these emotionally hurt simpletons are so WRONG...why do they RUN THE WORLD?

If you are forced to die for rationality, doesnt that at least suggest to you the strength and power of irrationality in our world?



Logic will still be Humanities *ONLY* defence against predators.


Are these predators themselves rational? If not, why are they so powerful?



And without it, the stupids will all *DIE*


And yet historically the exact opposite has been proven to be true - it has been, almost universally, the truth tellers who *DIE*.



Can you say Mass Famine? Starvation? Disease? Pestilence?


Mao and Stalin ate quite comfortably, thank you very much.



"I do not suffer Fools gladly" -Oscar Wilde


And yet you still suffer.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
Logically the earth is flat. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Are these statements true?


Of course they are, but they are only true relative to ones vantage point.

EDIT: oops of course the earth isnt flat, but in the absence of certain information that ancients did not have access to, it was perfectly reasonable to assume the earth was indeed flat.
edit on 20-8-2011 by Neo_Serf because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


Are you standing on the moon?
No, so in your experience the earth is flat. To measure something it has to be measured from where you are. We can not be anywhere but here and now. Experience is everything.
You may have experienced a book or tv programme that made you believe that the world is a sphere, yet in your experience the earth is flat.
So logically, is the earth flat or spherical?



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


Are you standing on the moon?
No, so in your experience the earth is flat. To measure something it has to be measured from where you are. We can not be anywhere but here and now. Experience is everything.
You may have experienced a book or tv programme that made you believe that the world is a sphere, yet in your experience the earth is flat.
So logically, is the earth flat or spherical?


Logic implies reason and evidence. Evidence trumps reason 100% of the time. Every available evidence proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the earth is round. Just because my sensual experience of the flatness of earth leads me to reason that the earth is indeed flat, this does not trump all the accumulated evidence that must override the illusion of the flatness of the earth.

Logic simply demands an adherence to physical reality. While a rainbow may indeed appear to the eye to have a definite start and finish point on the earth, we know via reason and empiricism that this is not the case. That our visual information is subject to error does not invalidate all information gained via our eyes. A rainbow can appear to be attached to the earth at the same time that written formula, evidence and literature can be absorbed through the eyes to prove the contrary to be true.

A man can walk in the desert towards a mirage that appears to be an oasis. Barring his knowing the nature of light refraction and such, he is perfectly reasonable in staggering towards what appears to him to be water. The real, logical and empirical test of his theory is if he is actually able to drink from what he perceives to be water.

If he dies of thirst, his theory fails. Thus logic is only valid to the extent that it adheres and describes physical reality.

So in short, to answer, logically the earth is indeed round because all of the accumulated evidence proves that this is the case.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


Very nice explanation thank you.
I was looking at the word 'logically ' as when people say common sense. In our experience say.
The knowledge we have of the world is second hand.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


Very nice explanation thank you.
I was looking at the word 'logically ' as when people say common sense. In our experience say.
The knowledge we have of the world is second hand.


Rand divided the world into first handers and second handers. FIrst handers ask 'what is true' while second handers ask 'what do others believe to be true?'

I think this is very true.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


Is that Ayn Rand?
I watched an interveiw that she did, she does have very interesting ideas.
I am is the great first hander.
Start and end here and you can't go wrong.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


Are we really going there?

Really?


Is GWB 2, in your estimation, a rational human being? Or Tony Blair? How about Fidel Castro, whos lifespan has exceeded the standard that you and I hope to achieve and would feel blessed (not by god of course...) to surpass?


What does any of this have to do with Logic being Illogical?

A human being is only as rational as his choices make him, and that depends upon the motivation, which may also be considered logical or illogical, with the addition of a purpose that can be judged as such.

Applying the Term "Logical" to a human being is necessarily a judgement on their actions, and motivations.

Is GWB 2 a logical human being? Sometimes, sure... not all the time though, maybe not even half the time.

But he does have his logical moments, I'm sure.

And what does anyone's lifespan have to do with logic?

No, go ahead, explain that one. I dare you.


What about the Kings of old? Were they, in your opinion, irrational humans? What about the house of Saud (or whatever), who a huge % of living Saudis can attribute their linage to? Were all these people irrational, or rational, in your judgement?


As I said before, the Rationality of a human being is an extention of their actions, and motivations for such actions.

I'm sure every human being has actions and motivations that are a mix of rational and irrational.

Your question actually has no bearing on the topic at all.


By your own definition, being a mass murdering psychopath is a legit survival strategy


And when did I say, or even imply that?

How exactly did you derive THAT from anything that I put here in my posts?

No, seriously, I want you to explain your reasoning on this one.


Thus, again by your definition, aggressive violence is indeed a legit and fully logical survival strategy


You are making assertions that have no bearing on the context of this thread, and frankly, it's quite embarrassing, as you are clearly employing a Strawman argument.

STOP IT.


If these insane killers are successful, which they are, then they must indeed be logical, and thus murder and mayhem must also be a logical and a viable survival strategy.


Successful at *WHAT?*

Successful at murdering people?

Sure... Murder is a logical strategy for murdering people.... (which is a stupid statement)

Successful for staying out of prison?

No, not so much.....

And if you value your freedom, than it would be *ILLOGICAL* to engage in activity such as mass murder....

You are just Strawmanning all the way, aren't you?

I'm gonna call you the Scarecrow from now on.


Is it true, in your eyes, that I can kill and kill again, if killing is part of my survival strategy? Can my murderous rampage be said to be logical, if it furthers my ends?


"You can while away the hours, conversing with the flowers...."


Rationality has existed as long as there were minds who were able to perceive reality and form concepts that conform to said reality. But to say irrational concepts have not helped certain humans survive is to say that the church has never helped a priest survive and thrive, and we know this is false because the church has existed as a foundation of our irrational experience for thousands of years.


Did I ever state otherwise?

Oh, you realize that religion is precipitated through a concept known as communication, right?

Like, that certain noises and symbols have certain meanings... right?

Like... the foundation of all logic?

............................ Ya Know?


"...Consulting with the Raiiiiin!"


What about the Pharaohs, who dominated ancient cultures for millennia? What about the christian clergy, whos irrational thought systems still rule us to a large degree even today? Can you confidently say that these groups were not helped to survive via their irrational belief systems? Or were they rational in adopting irrational concepts and imposing them on others?


Go back and find out the EXACT place where I stated anything remotley like what you are attributing to me...

Go on.... I'll wait.


What about today? Do the recipients of stolen funds not gain an objective survival bonus in accepting their ill gotten gains?


Tell me this..... When they thought of stealing something.... were they planning on not having the thing that they were stealing after they stole it?

Or were they stealing it because they realized that in stealing something, that they would have it with minimal effort expended to gain it?

".....And your head you'd be scratching while your thoughts were busy hatching if you only had a brain!"


Doesnt the tenured university prof not gain enormous perks and advantages by conforming to our irrational system?


And I suppose that you believe that he conforms to an irrational system, because he saw a funny shape in the clouds.....

As opposed to making a rational decision to gain more resources by Doing X, Y, or Z.

"You'd unravel every riddle, for any individual, in trouble or in pain......"


Do not the parasitic politicians and blood sucking lobbiests not put their offspring through college, thereby cementing their dominant and irrational position in society via their irrational and evil relationship with the state, which we both agree is irrational?


And they put them through school because they want them to be street urchins... is this what you are saying?


"With the thoughts you'd be thinkin you'd be anouther Lincoln if you only had a brain!"


How could you tell them they are wrong to do so, if survival and propagation is your ultimate standard? (which im assuming at this point that it is.)


That concept is far too complex for your cerebral cortex to handle, i'm afraid...

Just console yourself with the thoughts that they try to amass power because a leprechaun told them to do it.

You know, as opposed to amassing power because they want power, and are doing what logically GETS power.


Socrates drank the hemlock, Aristotle fled, Rand went mad and cultish and was ignored, despire penning what is perhaps one of the most profound novels of all time, and the Austrians have been totally inert in the face of an exponentially expanding state. The case for freedom has been validated and proven for over a hundred years, AND STILL we face the most powerful, most robust, most far reaching and the most potentially destructive state that has ever existed. Weve been right for thousands of years, and yet we arent even on the radar in terms of accepted though for the vast majority of humanity, who we both agree are largely irrational.


You really think they are irrational?

Honestly?

I don't see how you could be this naive.

Moral? No, of course not... I don't think they have a single moral bone in their entire body.

But we are not talking about morality, we are talking about logic, and rationality.

And what they are doing, WHILE REPREHENSIBLE, is being accomplished in the most rational manner.


You seem to be suffering from the misconception that Logic and morality are synonymous, and I assure you, this is not the case.

If you want to kill someone, that is neither logical or illogical... it is just immoral.

If you want to kill someone with a NERF football... that is QUITE illogical.

But if you want to kill someone with a Semi-automatic Rifle, yeah... that's logical.


Your confusion is quite.... Apparent.


If someone is keeping score somewhere, team rational (while of course being the source of every human advancement) is getting its collective ass kicked!


Now you have gone completely off the deep end.... Honestly.

There is not Team Rational, there is no Team Irrational.

Except maybe you on the Team Irrational side, that is...


Team madness declares our hard fought success to be its own, and all the while it blames us for its inevitable failures.


Yeah, it's quite a brilliant strategy for total controll over the masses, isn't it?

Carried out with Rational Precision?

Totally....

Why, if one were so inclined, one could say that their immoral pursuit of power was carried out with the utmost logical strategy.

"You could think of things you'd never thought before... and then you'd sit, and think some more..."


Thus it will be, as it always has been, that rationality and freedom will be the scapegoat for the inevitable collapse caused by the irrational state.


So, here is the question... Do you think they are Doing all of this on purpose, or do you think they are doing all of this at random, with no clear goal in mind, and no clear strategy on how to achieve their ends?

"You would not be just a nuthin, your head all full of stuffin, your heart all full of pain..."


Sounds like a no win situation for us rationalists. A metaphorical checkmate for the irrationalists.


I'm going to have to deny *YOU* aren't I?

"You would dance and be merry, life would be a ding-a-derry if you only had a brain."


Is slavery a rational survival strategy?


You aren't really any good at this, are you?


If dominance is your objective methodology of judging success then you cannot logically oppose the slavemaster or the monarch.


If HIS dominance is my objective methodology for determining MY success, then no, I cannot rationally oppose him...

But HIS success is not MY success, and since HIS objective is MY subjugation, and MY objective is MY FREEDOM, then logically I MUST oppose him.

You honestly have no conception of what you are talking about, and I'm getting a little tired of your strawmen arguments, and Red herrings....

They are quite childish.


Both dominate others, control resources and propagate intergenerationally. Are these examples operating via logic and rationality, in your estimation?


Since their motive *IS* to dominate others, then they are operating LOGICALLY and RATIONALLY to achieve those goals.

Since MY goal is CONTRARY TO THEIRS, then it is RATIONAL to oppose them.


Of course not, but are you claiming perfect mastery over these tools?

Are you perfectly rational?


Moreso than you, obviously.


But if everything that aides humanity must be rational



And when did I say this?



*how do you explain the propagation and dominance of irrationality in the world today??*


Simple, those who are in current control have achieved this power over the rest of us through logical strategies that ARE WORKING, and since they don't want any competition, or any masses rising up in opposition, they get people like you to pretend that Logic is Illogical, so that the people cannot think straight, and get confused with the most trivial details of logic.


...If you and I are so RIGHT, and these emotionally hurt simpletons are so WRONG...why do they RUN THE WORLD?


THEY DON'T

The irrational morons that *APPEAR* to run the world are convenient puppets.


If you are forced to die for rationality, doesnt that at least suggest to you the strength and power of irrationality in our world?


And the fact that the irrational puppets are being supported by the Richest people on the planet doesn't connect any neurons in your brain to any others, does it?

Like.... that the Rational people who make all the money, and lack morals, maybe want a smokescreen of stupid morons between them and the masses?

To confuse us?

To obfuscate reality?

Puppets who are too dumb to know what is really going on, and will obey orders?

Honestly dude... this whole exchange is getting sadder by the sentence.


Are these predators themselves rational? If not, why are they so powerful?


It really depends upon which predators, don't it?

Bears aren't rational, are they?

Because they aren't sentient.

Humans, on the other hand are dangerous BECAUSE OF THEIR RATIONALITY.


And yet historically the exact opposite has been proven to be true - it has been, almost universally, the truth tellers who *DIE*.


Dude, if you don't know how to grow food... which is a logical act... you will die if civilization collapses.


Mao and Stalin ate quite comfortably, thank you very much.


And I suppose you think that they are incapable of Logic?


And yet you still suffer.


Really?

I'm actually having a blast, Mr Scarecrow!




posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
OH, and by the Way.... Mr. Scarecrow...

Suffer has more than one meaning...

And Oscar Wilde was using the word "Suffer" to mean "Tolerate"

In that He does not *TOLERATE* fools.

And Nor Do *I*



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DB340
 


logic has little to do with fact itself, but more with analyzing and structuring arguments. assuming a logical answer is correct all the time is like assuming a working hypothesis is correct merely because it is the conclusion you reached.

logic is the means through which arguments are reasoned. it is infallible in theory, but it's conclusions aren't always correct.

a logical argument can be given at a murder trial, one that the evidence supports, but the person can be innocent.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
What's prevalent here is the rational ,logical and structured thinking.
The illogical ,irrational chaotic thinking is but the other side of the same coin ,the way I see it.

Two different ways of thinking in a polarization of the same thing.

What if everything is valid or true in some way ,is nothing then illogical?



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   


Are we really going there?


Perhaps I am foolish in my query. Enlighten me.



What does any of this have to do with Logic being Illogical?


Earlier *i believe* you made the standard objectivist argument that basically states that all that aids life is the good and all that hinders it is the bad. This argument follows that only logic can further life and thus logic is the good. Please correct me if Ive put words into your text.



No, go ahead, explain that one. I dare you.


I realize a certain amount of bravado is par for the course in Objectivism, but I assure you there is no need for dares or challenges. Were after the same thing.




As I said before, the Rationality of a human being is an extention of their actions, and motivations for such actions.


So by your definition, rationality is whatever one being defines it as such? (based on their own actions and motivations) Perhaps I was hasty in catagorizing you as an objectivist....



Your question actually has no bearing on the topic at all.


Well sorry for wasting your time with my silly questions, then.



And when did I say, or even imply that?


Well, and my appologies for being simple, but it seems you have defined 'rationality' as "Rationality of a human being is an extention of their actions, and motivations for such actions."

If the above is true, then being a mass murderer is perfectly valid and rational because it is an 'extention of their actions and is a motivation for such actions.' (killing lots of people for material gain.)

Rational, no?



No, seriously, I want you to explain your reasoning on this one.


I hope the above is satisfactory.


Thus, again by your definition, aggressive violence is indeed a legit and fully logical survival strategy





You are making assertions that have no bearing on the context of this thread, and frankly, it's quite embarrassing, as you are clearly employing a Strawman argument. STOP IT.


If I have done so, I have every reason to be embarrassed, and I will STOP.




Successful at *WHAT?*

Successful at murdering people?


Yes.



... Murder is a logical strategy for murdering people.... (which is a stupid statement)


No, murder is a tactic used to achieve a strategy of dominance. Sorry for being so stupid.



Successful for staying out of prison?


GWB 2 has initiated the murder of over a million people and he has a library named after him...



And if you value your freedom, than it would be *ILLOGICAL* to engage in activity such as mass murder....


And if I dont value freedom? Would the opposite be true and logical?



You are just Strawmanning all the way, aren't you?


Hmm perhaps, but name calling isnt exactly convincing to me.




Did I ever state otherwise?

Oh, you realize that religion is precipitated through a concept known as communication, right?

Like, that certain noises and symbols have certain meanings... right?


No way, are you serious? Amazing! So to you all concepts that are precipitated via communication are by definition logical?

Phew, that makes thinking so much easier! No longer do I have to seperate true from false concepts, as they all arrive in my ear via logic!

Thanks for clearing that up. Truly my stupidity knows no bounds!


"...Consulting with the Raiiiiin!"



Go back and find out the EXACT place where I stated anything remotley like what you are attributing to me...


Naw Im tired and youre a bit of an ass so I wont pretend to be rigerous in this. But if memory serves I seem to recall you attributing all that advances humanity into one category and calling that logical. Im simply pointing out that 'humanity' is not a valid concept as is encompasses a wide variety of humans who have competing and contradictary interests.

Thus murder and mayhem might indeed be a valid and logical strategy to some segments of humanity.

If you dont believe this, I appologize for my sloppiness.



Tell me this..... When they thought of stealing something.... were they planning on not having the thing that they were stealing after they stole it?


We would have to assume there planned on that, axiomatically.



Or were they stealing it because they realized that in stealing something, that they would have it with minimal effort expended to gain it?


Im confused by the 'or' in the above. Obviously they planned on having that which they realized they could aquire with minimal effort. Perhaps Im just dumb...




".....And your head you'd be scratching while your thoughts were busy hatching if you only had a brain!"


If im so stupid, why are you wasting time debating with me? You spend much time beating on 12 year olds?



And I suppose that you believe that he conforms to an irrational system, because he saw a funny shape in the clouds.....


Now its my turn to call you a little slow. Of course he conforms to an irrational system based on his rational decision to do so. My question to you, again, is if his decision is rational? If so, can we fault him for doing so?



As opposed to making a rational decision to gain more resources by Doing X, Y, or Z.


'More resources'? More than months out of a year off, immunity to being fired, 10 hour workweeks, ect ect?

Seems pretty rational to me. Not in my most wildest, Galts Gultch dreams could I ever hope to attain an unfireable position with near unlimited retirement security.



And they put them through school because they want them to be street urchins... is this what you are saying?


Honeslty I dont even know what Im saying after running circles with you. Usually a good sign to opt out.



"With the thoughts you'd be thinkin you'd be anouther Lincoln if you only had a brain!"


When ever you are frustrated as to why no one takes you seriously, refer to the above insult.



That concept is far too complex for your cerebral cortex to handle, i'm afraid...


Again, if im just plain dumb, youre even dumber for trying to humiliate me. This would be akin to running a race (and prolly coming in like 7th) and then berating the wheelchair guy in the stands for not running.

Your approach is unpleasant.



Just console yourself with the thoughts that they try to amass power because a leprechaun told them to do it.


Is god any different?



You know, as opposed to amassing power because they want power, and are doing what logically GETS power.


So indeed it *IS* logical to use illogical concepts in the persuit of power. THANKS. Thats all i was asking.



You really think they are irrational?


Im asking you.



Honestly?


For real?



I don't see how you could be this naive.


Right. Forgot I was stupid for a second.



Moral? No, of course not... I don't think they have a single moral bone in their entire body.


So morality is *illogical* then.



But we are not talking about morality, we are talking about logic, and rationality.


I realize youre like 17 and just finished Atlas Shrugged, so I suggest you re-read because youre missing the point. Morality = rationality.



And what they are doing, WHILE REPREHENSIBLE, is being accomplished in the most rational manner.


Right so were back to mass murder being a logical and thus viable option.



You seem to be suffering from the misconception that Logic and morality are synonymous, and I assure you, this is not the case.


I could prove to you sylogistically that this is indeed the case, but why would I?



But if you want to kill someone with a Semi-automatic Rifle, yeah... that's logical.


Hmmm so anyone can kill anyone at any time for any reason? Of course they can! But as soon as you say anyone *should* do you, you run smack dab into the logical wall of universal morality. I suggest you brush up a little on you is/ought dichotomy.

Noob.



Your confusion is quite.... Apparent.


your immaturity is quite...obvious.



Now you have gone completely off the deep end.... Honestly.


Oh so *now* youre being honest.



There is not Team Rational, there is no Team Irrational.


K so everyone is either irrational or rational.



Yeah, it's quite a brilliant strategy for total controll over the masses, isn't it?


Fine so just be out with it and declare mega-murder to be a viable logical strategy. Since youre being honest now...



Carried out with Rational Precision?


It seems to be that to you, everything that dominates and controls can be defined as rational.

It also seems that youre attempt at bullying me is failing your criteria for rationality, as you neither dominate or control myself, or anyone else I would assume. OMG IRRATIONAL.



Why, if one were so inclined, one could say that their immoral pursuit of power was carried out with the utmost logical strategy.


Fine so just be out with it. Killing people is all good if it logically serves your ends. Join the ranks of the worst humans in history. Youve earned it champ~



"You could think of things you'd never thought before... and then you'd sit, and think some more..."


Omg just shuut uuup seriously. I no longer think youre 17, more like 14. Enjoy your youth, youll look back on this post with shame, I assure you.



So, here is the question... Do you think they are Doing all of this on purpose, or do you think they are doing all of this at random, with no clear goal in mind, and no clear strategy on how to achieve their ends?


Fiiiine so every action with a clear strategy and goal in mind is defined as rational and thus good. Hitler was an awesome guy, by this standard. Stalin, even better.

Listen to yourself.

Id go on, but since the goal of philosophy is happiness, and not bang-your-head against the wall frustration, I will not.

Way to completely alienate a potential ally with uncalled for personal attacks.

Way to display your complete lack of self knowledge (the first prerequisite of philosophy) for all to see.

Way to be a total douche towards someone who has shown you nothing but respect, which turns out to be totally undeserved.

Enjoy arguing with your own demons, kid.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   


logic has little to do with fact itself, but more with analyzing and structuring arguments.


If these structured arguments have nothing to do with fact, then what the hell are they analyzing? Faires?



assuming a logical answer is correct all the time is like assuming a working hypothesis is correct merely because it is the conclusion you reached.


Logic is the methodology and not the conclusion. BTW you just used a logical argument in the above refutation of logic.



logic is the means through which arguments are reasoned. it is infallible in theory, but it's conclusions aren't always correct.


*of course all conclusions are not correct.* But the method by which we disprove invalid conclusions is, you guessed it, *logic*.

You cant use reason to disprove reason, in the same way you cannot use math to disprove that 2+2=4.



a logical argument can be given at a murder trial, one that the evidence supports, but the person can be innocent.


And by what means would we determine that that person is innocent? By what means would we invalidate a false conclusion?

Logic. AKA reason.



posted on Aug, 27 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


Apparently, when you have dig yourself into a ditch, your strategy is to continue digging....


Well then.... in the immortal words of H.H.H. *SO BE IT*


Perhaps I am foolish in my query. Enlighten me.


I'm about to.


Earlier *i believe* you made the standard objectivist argument that basically states that all that aids life is the good and all that hinders it is the bad. This argument follows that only logic can further life and thus logic is the good. Please correct me if Ive put words into your text.


Certainly.....


ErtaiNaGia SAID:


Rationality has been around longer than you might think, and is responsible for most if not all of humanities survival and prospering.



I don't see how..... Logic is responsible for humanity having Ever achieved so much.

The fact that humanity spreads upon the face of the Earth as the dominant species is owed almost ENTIRELY to rationality, and Logic.



Look, I'm not telling you that Logic is superior to stupidity because I really, Really believe that it is true.

I am telling you this because *IT IS THE TRUTH* and every endeavour that has aided humanities rise from the mud centuries ago is owed to Logic.

It's a *FACT*


My statements are that humanity OWES most all of it's success as the dominant species to Logic.

One could say that before humanity achieve sentience, that there was no logic to aid humanity, and this would be true... But it didn't make us the Dominant species, did it?


I realize a certain amount of bravado is par for the course in Objectivism, but I assure you there is no need for dares or challenges. Were after the same thing.


No, apparently we are not... you are after "Victory" and I am trying to educate you on what logic IS and ISN'T



ErtaiNaGia
As I said before, the Rationality of a human being is an extention of their actions, and motivations for such actions.


So by your definition, rationality is whatever one being defines it as such? (based on their own actions and motivations) Perhaps I was hasty in catagorizing you as an objectivist....


I'd say that you are a bit hasty in everything that you do, including arguments.... you obviously have no clear grasp of what logic and rationality are, and instead of admitting your lack of knowledge, you are just throwing a sort of "pseudo-intellectual" tantrum.

Rationality is NOT whatever we define it as.... Because it already has a definition.

One can only judge another's Rational by their actions, because we can't read minds.

One cannot "Irrationally Sit in a chair" it's just stupid.... Rationality is something that we can only ever objectively perceive by someone else's actions


Well sorry for wasting your time with my silly questions, then.


Then why do you keep responding?

You are wasing MORE of my time!!!



Well, and my appologies for being simple, but it seems you have defined 'rationality' as "Rationality of a human being is an extention of their actions, and motivations for such actions."


*I* didn't define Rationality..... For [snip] sakes....


Rationality:

1. The state of having good sense and sound judgment
2. the quality of being consistent with or based on logic
3. consistent with or based on or using reason


Okay.... now tell me HOW you can judge George Bush as being Rational, or Irrational, if you do not perceive him actually DOING anything...

Go ahead... answer the question.


If the above is true, then being a mass murderer is perfectly valid and rational because it is an 'extention of their actions and is a motivation for such actions.' (killing lots of people for material gain.)

Rational, no?


Rational for the individuals motivations, perhaps.... Rational for the society? Or their Victims? No, not in the slightest....

Furthermore, Since any dominance or resource gain that one might achieve is based upon the foundation of cooperative society, These tactics are viewed in that light as illogical, and irrational.

You are looking at rational all wrong... it is not some "Inherent Trait" that people posses, like having internal organs... it is not a noun.

It is an adjective in this sense, and is a description of something... not a thing itself.


I hope the above is satisfactory.


You are trying to say that "Logic" "Says" that murder is good.... it's childish.



... Murder is a logical strategy for murdering people.... (which is a stupid statement)


No, murder is a tactic used to achieve a strategy of dominance. Sorry for being so stupid.


First off, Murder is not a "Tactic"

Secondly.... seriously, what are you smoking?



Successful for staying out of prison?


GWB 2 has initiated the murder of over a million people and he has a library named after him...


And the American Economy is basically breaking down because of his "Irrational" decisions.



And if you value your freedom, than it would be *ILLOGICAL* to engage in activity such as mass murder....


And if I dont value freedom? Would the opposite be true and logical?


Hey, if you want to go to jail... just go there, ask them to lock you up... you don't need to kill people.



You are just Strawmanning all the way, aren't you?


Hmm perhaps, but name calling isnt exactly convincing to me.


*Sigh*


A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.


Name calling he says....




Did I ever state otherwise?

Oh, you realize that religion is precipitated through a concept known as communication, right?

Like, that certain noises and symbols have certain meanings... right?


No way, are you serious? Amazing! So to you all concepts that are precipitated via communication are by definition logical?


And that was just the stupidest thing that I think I have ever heard someone say...

Honestly, you are just strawmanning all over the place.....

No, just because someone communicates someone, doesn't mean that WHAT they communicate is Logical, it MEANS that they are using LOGICAL and RATIONAL means to communicate their Irrational Drivel, much as you are now.

Your position is that Irrationality is bennificial, and you gave Organized Religion as an exmaple...

I Refuted your claim, by trying to explain to you that the *ORGANIZED* part of "Organized Religion* *IS* rational.... and, I might add, what is the ONLY PART of religion that is responsible for any GOOD that Organized Religion has done.

Hence, Communication, and Organization, which you are calling "Irrational" because it is Religious people doing the organizing, and you are still completely oblivious to the fact that WHAT they are doing is still a rational ACT.

This is why you are Mr. Scarecrow.... because your only argumentative strategy is a complete misrepresentation of my position, so that you can "Pretend" that my argument is as ridiculous as those that you "Pretend" that I am making.

So, if you are Quite done twisting my words to suit your own childish sense of superiority.... Perhapse we can continue?


Truly my stupidity knows no bounds!


Yeah... I have no comment for that one.




Go back and find out the EXACT place where I stated anything remotley like what you are attributing to me...


Naw.......


I DIDN'T THINK SO!




But to say irrational concepts have not helped certain humans survive is to say that the church has never helped a priest survive and thrive....

....What about today? Do the recipients of stolen funds not gain an objective survival bonus in accepting their ill gotten gains?


Or were they stealing it because they realized that in stealing something, that they would have it with minimal effort expended to gain it?


Im confused by the 'or' in the above. Obviously they planned on having that which they realized they could aquire with minimal effort. Perhaps Im just dumb...


You see what happened there?

You state that irrational concepts helped aid humanity..... you cite Thieves as an example.

I state that they steal out of rational goals... Rational to themselves, perhaps not rational in the mindset of society.

So when you retort with "Obviously they planned...." you are IMPLYING RATIONALITY.

You have flipped 180 degrees in the course of *2* posts....











Yeah, I'm done with you.


edit on 27-8-2011 by ErtaiNaGia because: coding; error correction



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join