Logic

reply to post by Neo_Serf

Theres a blue while simultaneously green dragon the lives in the center of the sun and also on the dark side of the moon, at the same time. This dragon is omnipotent and omnipresent, it is both alive and dead and it shoots bubblegum out of its mouth. Im organizing a cult, er group to worship this invisible dragon. Since ive communicated this to you via logically agreed upon symbols, does this make my statement logical as a whole?

Your statement contains many contradictions, So.... no it's not logical.

If I gain a following, does it follow that since I said pretty words in a recognizable fashion, and people were able to decipher them, does their joining my cult then become rational, if we had meet ups and organized events and the like?

It depends on each individuals motivation for doing that.

In short, of *friggin course* our mode of communication must rely on objectively defined symbols. This is true a priori. It is implied and accepted to be true via our very 'debate'. THIS IS NOT WHAT WERE TALKING ABOUT.

How are you going to have this cult, without logic?

You NEED communication in order to do this, and without logic, it is impossible.

Game, Set, Match.

The topic is the validity and rationality of concepts and their relationship to success and resource acquisition

No it's not.

That Bush speaks in the english language does not make the content of *what he says* logical or valid.

And you know that every word that has ever come out of his mouth was false then?

You know for a fact that he has never had a single rational thought?

Really?

Are you actually stating this?

That i tell you in Arabic that 2+2=5, while communicable, does not validate my equation.

You seem to think so, thought....

The words people use to insult others are usually the words that have hurt them most.

Sometimes, yes... in this instance.. no... not really.

Again with this fictional entity you give attributes to called society.

Society (Noun): The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community

Explain which part of that is fictional?

I suppose youre qualified to speak for this 'society', and all of its component members?

And who ever stated that I was speaking for society?

What about a society of thieves?

What about them?

So any planned action = rational and rational must = good?

You are still not grasping the realities of the situation.

Rational doesn't necessarily and automatically mean good....

And good for who?

What is good for one, may not be good for another...

Iraq 2 was planned many years in advance, very rationally.

Yes, it was.

It also enriched certain segments of 'society' in unimaginable ways, providing benefit to not only the actors themselves, but intergenerationally to their offspring.

Yes, it did.

If rationality = benefit and benefit = good

No, both of those statements are not only COMPLETELY VAUGE, but also incorrect.

Rationality means CORRECT, as in REALITY.

I suppose the slaughter of over a million innocents is perfectly logical and rational, and thus morally justifiable, in your view, since war profiteers, who make up a part of 'society', have made an absolute killing from the war?

Why do you keep stating that Logic is Genocide?

Do you want to keep people from thinking rationally, and thus, are trying to make them think that Logic is the Holocaust?

is that what you are saying?

That logic = The Holocaust?

and yes I know GWB2 signed the orders in english, and commands were executed via language and symbols, but is their *content* logical?

And what does this have to do with anything?

Class dismissed. And as usual, the prof doesnt know what the sh*t hes talking about heheheh~

You may think you are a professor, but I assure you, you are not.

Just dropping through and noticed youre conspicuously absent from the thread and have no rebuttal.

I'm about to drop the hammer, and dispense some indiscriminate justice.

and you have also accepted defeat implicitly by fleeing from the field

Dude, You lost like a month ago when you forgot the rules of the game, and started trying to dunk the hockey puck.

Originally posted by ButtUglyToad
Considering it requires logic to question, to question logic then is illogical.

Ribbit

yes questions are answers reasons that are not abolutely verified to become objective facts, so kept to free domain in suspenses means

but then no, to question logic then logic had become objective reality, where freedom as being u question can b real too, actually it should since logics are objective then the question must b immediately an answer, there where u learn to choose freedom to facts

the point is to see how logics are to objectivity that is why it becomes one answer, which makes freedom real truth

we have positive truth and freedom truth

positive truth reasons is objectivity through absolute logics

freedom truth reasons is absolute superiority, there is no absolute unless there is above it, while it is absolute so the only possible above is freedom

reply to post by DB340


It is only logically correct if in say an equation every step preceding the answer can be proved to be undeniably correct. If not your so called logical answer will be wrong. Being's in another solar system may be more advanced than us and may presume to certain question's that they have the logical answer but if(as on Earth) your knowledge of various thing's Universal is more limited than presumed then i logically conclude your answer will be wrong.

Is it beautiful to beautify the beauty of beauty? Is it emotional to emote the emotion of emotion? Is it tasty to taste the taste of tasty food? Is it smelly to smell the smell of smelly, expired food? Is it seeing to see the sight of sight?
The above questions are redundant, and vague, at best. They require more precision and clarity to become intelligeble questions.
Likewise, "is it logical to question the logic of logic?" That question needs to be clarified.

Questioning the the meaning of logic in a way that implies it does not exist is not a logical way of questioning its the meaning, or the meaning of anything. To question logically one must question with openness to various answers, while not framing the question with bias to direct the answerer to a particular answer.

Philosophy is the logical study of meaning; as such it is a science of the meaning of things including the meaning of logic, and the meaning of logical studies. All the sciences are logical studies of specific types of natural things. To question the "logic of logic" is to, in a roughly spoken way, question the meaning of logic, or even its existence. One needs to recognize the entailments and implications of questioning the existence of logic. If logic does not exist, then the universe is not knowable. Not only would logical methods have no relevance to reality, and thus science would have no epistemological foundations... there would be no such thing as logical relevance, truth, or reality, or laws of nature. In fact, this universe would not exist, because it is one of law and order, not complete chaos.

Is logic only a social construct that was introduced to human intelligence by the likes of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle? No. Logic has proven its existence from the beginning of life itself, and proved its existence to humans each time their application of logic helped them to adapt to their environment, with inventing tools, for example. Logic doesn't need to be socially recognized by Socrates or anyone else, in any culture or time, in order to exist, similarly as its existence doesn't depend on whether a particular alien conceived it.

The existence of logic is proven every time a logical reasoning process leads to a practical result. It is proven every time an invention achieves a rationally planned purpose. For example, logic is proven every time the red light stops you from getting hit by a car, and the green light helps you to know when to move accross the street. Without logic, not only would the street lights have no logical structure with functional purpose, it would be technically impossible to invent them, and the materials for their invention would not exist.

Logic is the perceptive organ of the intellect that helps it to view the truth; one's logical view of the the truth, however, is only as logical as one's studious "pencil is sharp." The more powerful one's logic, the more accurate one's sketch of reality. How can you know that? Because logic contains its own pragmatic logical proof. When tested out in the real world, the consequences of claimed logical propositions prove how logical each and logically sufficient the whole of the proposition are.

Consider the basics of hypothetical testing. For example: "My arm is too short to get that apple from the tall tree...Fortunately, I found a long stick on the ground...Using this stick will probably help me to compensate for having height that is inadequate for achieving this objective with only my arm. I hit the apple with the stick. It did help to compensate for my lack of height, and with the stick I was able to reach for and knock down the apple. Bites."

Early humans may not have known that logic existed, eventhough they applied it to survive, and we do not all agree on the most accurate and comprehensive definition of logic, and we may have some logically flawed, or incomplete definitions. In practice, one may not have a sure way of knowing the quality of one's logic, or even not know the logic one is doing, or one's investigative methods may not be perfectly scientific or not logically adequate for yielding consistently correct results. Our lack of omniscience in our practice of logic, however, doesn't prove that the ideal of logic itself doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Lucidia
Logic is the perceptive organ of the intellect that helps it to view the truth;

yes this is the issue and the point, noone seem to get what truth mean, how truth is beyond the concept of reasons and wills

what is true is what is all so there is no question position possible while all the points are living through

the problem is the parallel existence to truth from knowing truth as advantage got from by staying still out

truth will never convince anyone, that is why everyone seem to create other truth to refer to a body of justifications to his wills and means

that is how logics became that absurd strerile abstraction use which is never free from being constantly invented regarding things to prove, things u need to justify existing before urself out of it, things that never involve u while pretexting its character of always which enpower ur alibi of existing from knowing to use what is always

now for the answer to the principal question here, i would say that what is true is not logical

and therefore it is true

we can see how freedom doesnt suit everyone, when one is only his freedom

we can see how positive freedom out of nothing realization didnt lead to superiority, while free absolute realization is exclusively absolute superiority sense always

that is how truth is not one, when logics are always one

from my guess of this point, it is the epsilon in absolute freedom substantially and in quantities as the reason of truth

if the depth of possible move is free and the end of reality moves is free then a match could b always superiority truth freedom, but what match there is of so much freedom in depth and facts so nothing objectively that could b known or perceived, so cant b of wills nor means

what is of freedom cant b fact either, it is beyond facts and certainty concepts

that is why truth is the concept of absolute values that very few are interested about

people prefer morality for objective use which is opposite to truth values

to me, the main problem is what anyone reject another freedom, u would reject that u cant know me, bc everyone mean to use the truth and not the truth, so freedom is to abolish in everyone head means

one is only freedom, it is all one match that it alone is continuous while it can reach to realize it but then by becoming it more living free

You are presently obsessed with your own logic:
youtu.be...

To this people that claim that irrationality and illogic are better equipped than rationality and logic for viewing truth and identifying knowledge...
(1) Randomly stringing together words doesn't necessarily result in an intelligible proposition - It is more likely to result in an unclear (vague, ambiguous...), and thus unintelligible proposition. When you know that giving a sentence grammatical structure will at least help it to be intelligible... it is irrational to opt for randomly stringing together words anyway.
(2) Randomly stringing together words may accidentaly result in an intelligible proposition. If you get a lucky combination of the words randomly stringed together, you may accidentaly make an intelligible proposition.
(3) An intelligible proposition is not necessarily a logical proposition - although readable, it may contain illogic.
(4) A logical proposition is not necessarily a fully philosophical proposition, or scientific proposition; it could just be an observation.
(5) An illogical proposition is an invalid observation, pseudo-philosophical or pseudo-scientific proposition - Philosophy is the logical study of meaning, not the illogical study of meaning. If you believe that illogic would be better equipped for finding truthful propositional content about the meaning of things, you are proposing that Irrational, Pseudo-philosophy is most capable for recognizing the truth of things such as logic, knowledge, truth, reality, mind, justice...The ideal is the positive, that which contains the meanig (e.g. Logic), not the negative, that which doesn't contain the meaning under consideration (e.g. Illogic). If you are trying to reverse the Ideal of Logic, you are ultimately proposing that extreme ignorance is the easiest way to full knowledge than lesser knowledge!!
(6) Likewise, the sciences are logical studies of natural things. If you are proposing that illogic is best equipped to study natural things, then you are saying that pseudo-science is most capable of recognizing the truth of things such as cognition, social situations, physical and biological structures, the cosmos...

Now here I will return to my mention about randomly stringing together words to say this: basing science on illogical study rather than logical study is as useless as randomly stringing together words in an attempt to make a philosophical proposition.
Experimentally studying the irrational and illogical, because you believe it will lead you to make a more truthful discovery...say, you opt to test the power of irrationality and illogic in your interactions with your environment, and you think it will enlighten your adaptation to the world...
I feel obligated to provide a word of caution: If you move accross the street when the light is red, you are likely going to get hit by a car!

Edit: Let me add what should be obvious to everyone, but clearly is not - BEING BLIND TO LOGIC IS NOT AN ADAPTIVE TRAIT!

reply to post by absolutely


.....

...

..
...


.....

......

..

reply to post by Lucidia

To this people that claim that irrationality and illogic are better equipped than rationality and logic for viewing truth and identifying knowledge...
(1) Randomly stringing together words doesn't necessarily result in an intelligible proposition.

You are now my favourite!