Some People Don't Care About Logic

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I think everyone realizes the limits of language, as it is also happens to be the limits of our understanding.

Here I think you are seriously mistaken or perhaps I have misinterpreted. Were most to realize the limits of language and seek to overcome those limits in our dialog, I suspect a great majority of our issues would be immediately solved. By understanding the true basis of our thoughts through defining the meaning behind our language, we could come to an honest agreement or disagreement and act honorably even in disagreement due to our true understanding of the opponents position.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
We need logic to scale the web of language and to keep sure footing and to remain clear of contradiction.

Absolutely. I think it's the first step towards becoming a more mature society. I feel that language is the first barrier and if we can ever subdue the emotional response that certain language causes, we will truly begin to communicate.

reply to post by hezro


It is words that divide us.
This is wholeness yet words seem to split the wholeness into parts and now we have parts, we can conflict.
We can now have good and bad, angels and demons and right and wrong. This is the drama of life (the story) that so many live in.
Conflicted and divided.

Originally posted by hezro
Here I think you are seriously mistaken or perhaps I have misinterpreted. Were most to realize the limits of language and seek to overcome those limits in our dialog, I suspect a great majority of our issues would be immediately solved. By understanding the true basis of our thoughts through defining the meaning behind our language, we could come to an honest agreement or disagreement and act honorably even in disagreement due to our true understanding of the opponents position.

What I meant by understanding was the understanding of the goings-on of the world and life around us—of ourselves, nature, being, God etc.—what we call human knowledge. Language is the limits of the mind (in terms of being able to express or understand it). I have difficulty when experiencing something to not confuse that thing, that experience, with whatever consequent word and meaning we've endowed it. The language or map gets confused with the territory. I've noticed that where we hit misunderstanding, and are left to face our ignorance, we invent words and ideas and theories to stand in honour of that misunderstanding.

All mathematics, science, religion, all the axioms through which we derive understanding are done so within the realm of language, and therefor forever insufficient, much like our synthetic (mis)understanding and interpretations of the world. In my opinion at least—which isn't worth a damn.

I love logic, I consider myself a very logical person, but I don't mind people holding illogical beliefs as long as they know and admit that they are illogical.

I'll tell you this, most likely you hold at least one, probably more, illogical belief.

Humans are not meant to be creatures of pure logic, we wouldn't have emotions if that were so. Emotions by themselves are illogical, your "anger" or "frustration" at people not caring about logic is illogical.

Logic is a good tool, it should always be applied in some situations and never applied in others. And just because something is logical, doesn't mean it is right.

Man is NOT a "logical" being.

We are driven by emotions, we have concepts like love, likes, beliefs and MOST things we deal with in daily live are entirely and totally subjective. Therefore, you cannot expect logic from beings which are entirely unlogical

reply to post by flexy123


Speak for yourself. Emotion tends to invite pain, whereas logic provides a problem and a solution. Input versus output, none of the complications that come with emotional strife. You can predict logic, but emotion is a raging wind. Utterly unreliable.

You can tell which one I like more.

Are we talking inductive, deductive or both?

I liked learning about the biconditional statements, the converse, inverse and contrapositive and applying those to computer programming. A lot of people had trouble with them and they're the foundation of logic.

reply to post by NinjaKitteh


I don't know what you just said, but I disagree. Because of reasons. ....yeah.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by flexy123

 

Speak for yourself. Emotion tends to invite pain, whereas logic provides a problem and a solution. Input versus output, none of the complications that come with emotional strife. You can predict logic, but emotion is a raging wind. Utterly unreliable.

You can tell which one I like more.

edit on 12-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

It doesn't matter which one you like more, you are human, you have emotions.

The fact that you seemed a bit irritated by this topic in just proves that. And it's not true that you can't predict emotion, some emotion is very predictable. And not all logic is predictable, logic is more of a hindsight.

If you deny that you are controlled at some level by your emotions, you are being illogical, and the reason you are being illogical is because of emotion/ego.

Originally posted by NinjaKitteh
Are we talking inductive, deductive or both?

I liked learning about the biconditional statements, the converse, inverse and contrapositive and applying those to computer programming. A lot of people had trouble with them and they're the foundation of logic.

Most people don't understand deductive logic, when you try to explain inductive logic they just think you are crazy and don't know what you are talking about. When you apply inductive logic, they think you are a magician and you just performed a "trick".

It's funny actually.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Inductive and deductive are the two types of logic. The other words are the way deductive logic are presented. The if-then statements are conditional statements and changing the hypothesis and conclusion around for the converse and negating them for the inverse and contrapositive. It's the foundation of logic.
If it rains today then you need an umbrella
The converse is if you need an umbrella, then it will rain today
The inverse is if it doesn't rain today then you don't need an umbrella
The contrapositive is if you don't need an umbrella then it didn't rain today.
The biconditional is you need an umbrella if and only if it rains today.
You check for the truth value and determine if a biconditional exists in order to determine what the next step will be when you are writing programs and use a goto statement to redirect based on the truth value in basic.

reply to post by xedocodex


Yeah, I like to explain it with rocks floating. You pick up a rock and throw it in the water and it sinks. You do it again and again and it always sinks so you make a conjecture that all rocks sink. It only takes one counterexample to disprove your conjecture, that is, a rock that doesn't sink such as pumice.

reply to post by NinjaKitteh


Yeah...you should teach classes. I get it just fine, but I have a long list of names sitting next to me, representing the members of the website that probably don't get it.

Yeah, a lot of people have trouble with it.

reply to post by TheJourney


Why do you even care?

Some people just have faith, some people trust their gut feelings, some people don't need 'proof' because we have been trained to NEED proof before accepting something.

Sometimes intuition out weighs logical thinking.

The problem with true logic is that it is based upon our own individual 5 senses on how we perceive reality. Anything that cannot be rationalised by the 5 senses becomes 'belief', a matter of subjective conjectures.

Many will agree with another's logic if their statements are based upon the 5 senses such as everyday life or maths/science,etc, repeatable results based data. .

Anything else becomes a matter of dispute, because not all perceptions of 'beliefs' are the same, and will need convincing reasons to share similarities.

Thus, logic alone will not suffice in a discussion. It goes in tandem with reason to convince or at least allow the other to consider.

Even logic and reason can fail sometimes, because either a person is too stupid, without cerebral matter to analyse information, or just plain wilful belligerance to remain in blissful ignorances.

But logic alone will definately fail if discussions are based upon 'beliefs' or far away situations that the 5 senses cannot comprehend.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


I agree with that. Our logic is based upon our experiences, but out experiences are clearly sorely limited. There are entire worlds of experience that we cannot perceive, so it can follow that there are entire worlds of logic with which we are not familiar. And yet, for the sake of sanity, we disregard those realms and lay a blanket philosophy of whatever religion you deem suitable, in order to say, "Well, we had a look and drew up an outline, so that'll do for starters."

The thing is, we don't know enough to draw an outline, but without that outline, we have an incomplete schematic which strikes fear into the heart of a species that spends too much time serving the self and not enough time serving others. Understandably, this results in a sense of panic when it comes time to cash in the chips, because we suddenly realize that there's so much we could have done, and we didn't do any of it because we were desperate to live for ourselves before we could die. And that's when we realize the real meaning of life. It's not what we do for ourselves, it's what we do for others. When we're gone, others will carry on the memory, and it's the ways in which you sacrificed yourself for their betterment that they will remember most. It will be the examples of how you didn't put yourself first.

When you are weak, ignorant, and finite, there's a lot of reasons to put yourself first. That's what logic dictates. You need food, you need clothes, you need warmth, you need shelter. You come first, then the people you need, then the people you like, so on and so forth. Logic is cruel because it serves the one person you cannot live without: yourself. Anyone else is second priority or less.

And that's where balance comes into play. I dread the day logic becomes the primary method of decision-making, because that will be the day we stop caring for the sake of caring at all.

Well, logic isn't really based on the 5 senses...empiricism is based on the 5 senses...all X's are Y's...this is an X...therefore, this is a Y...isn't based on perception...if it is true that all X's are Y'S, and it is true that 'this' is an X...'this' MUST be a Y...logically...not because I'm perceiving it a certain way...this is the difference between 'rationalism' and 'empiricism', the two major schools of philosophy...people seem to get those two confused, or think they are the same thing...modern day science is mostly based on empiricism...

Originally posted by Kluute
reply to post by TheJourney

 

Why do you even care?

Some people just have faith, some people trust their gut feelings, some people don't need 'proof' because we have been trained to NEED proof before accepting something.

Sometimes intuition out weighs logical thinking.

Well, the situation that led me to making this thread...was that I read my parents a paper I had written for school, about (something) legalization...in response, my dad said, "Well if you think it's ok to legalize (something), then it must be ok to murder." I explained that the two were completely different, since one is based on aggression and the other choice...he said "Murder and (something) use are the same."

I wouldn't say that's based on some spiritual intuition...

Originally posted by TheJourney
Well, logic isn't really based on the 5 senses...empiricism is based on the 5 senses...all X's are Y's...this is an X...therefore, this is a Y...isn't based on perception...if it is true that all X's are Y'S, and it is true that 'this' is an X...'this' MUST be a Y...logically...not because I'm perceiving it a certain way...this is the difference between 'rationalism' and 'empiricism', the two major schools of philosophy...people seem to get those two confused, or think they are the same thing...modern day science is mostly based on empiricism...

edit on 14-12-2012 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)

Thank you for posting that. I was just considering responding and trying to decide how to do so as I read further down the thread.
The 5 senses are empirical based on the individual, logic is the rational process following a set of rules and procedures that are universal and is not dependent on the senses at all other than a means by which to collect data.