1

# Inordinate dependance on logic

Sun 24 Aug, 2003 10:04 pm
Bait:

Is inordinate dependance on logic indicative of a flaw inherent to logic or is it simply illogical?

I'll argue either side.
• Topic Stats
• Top Replies
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,206 • Replies: 71
No top replies

dlowan

1
Sun 24 Aug, 2003 10:35 pm
If it is defined as inordinate dependence then it is, by definition, illogical.

One could therefore argue that the flaw is inherent to the over dependent one - not to the logical process itself.

(ok - I bit - call me courageous, minister)
0 Replies

Craven de Kere

1
Sun 24 Aug, 2003 10:49 pm
Kudos, I'd argue your position logially while using rhetoric for the opposite argument.

In other words we are on the same page even if I wouldn't mind playing on the other.
0 Replies

CodeBorg

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 12:31 am
Inordinate is as inordinate does.

Personally, I would prefer cold, steel ordinance.
0 Replies

cavfancier

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 12:51 am
I have to go with the bunny on this one. An 'inordinate dependence on logic' is by definition an illogical statement, and points to the dependent individual, not the process. Logic, as a concept/approach is clear, but somewhat flawed as a lifestyle without the balance of intuition, unless of course, you like being lonely.
0 Replies

dlowan

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 02:42 am
It is logical to be balanced in one's relationship with logic!
0 Replies

Craven de Kere

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 02:58 am
You catch on fast! He he, youse so makin' the arguments I'd use. I oughta play devil's advocate.
0 Replies

dlowan

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 03:10 am
yep - you ought - it would suit you - c'mon - ain't like you to wuss out! Argufy!!!!
0 Replies

CodeBorg

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 03:27 am
Is it not true that one's balance cannot be found,
until one has explored the extent to which unbalance may acheived to either side?

I say investigate the flaw and embrace it fully,
for truth lies only in the magnitude of our mistakes.

Logic is empirical! We cannot know until we experience all that is wrong.
0 Replies

dlowan

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 03:39 am
Hmmmm - damn fine try - but thou hast dressed a Dionysian body in borrowed Apollonian raiment!

By all means, explore imbalance, but explore it not in the name of logic.

And I do not believe logic IS empirical - logical and empirical possibility are not the same thing!
0 Replies

Craven de Kere

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 03:56 am
Deb's way cool. Laters I'll mount a rhetotical arg argainst it. But you already found the key. If it can be beaten it wasn't very logical. tee hee
0 Replies

dlowan

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 04:09 am
Damn. I be no fun at all.....waaaaaaah.
0 Replies

BoGoWo

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 08:05 am
'ordinance' is the last resort, in dealing with 'logic'.

if you can't prove them wrong, blow the f____s out of the water!

"point"

therefore you are being 'in'ordinate if you depend soley on logic!
0 Replies

dlowan

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 08:30 am
In ordinately in-ordinanced?
0 Replies

CodeBorg

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 09:19 am
But you cannot know how right you are
until other options have been proven wrong!
0 Replies

Frank Apisa

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 09:26 am
My first reaction to the question was the same as dLowan and Cav had.

If you are asking about inordinate dependance on anything -- it seems illogical by definition.

Is that what you were looking for -- or did you have something else in mind?

Can you reword it so that it is not a definitional walk-over?
0 Replies

Craven de Kere

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 09:42 am
Ok, sure. Does logic have flaws?
0 Replies

cavfancier

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 09:45 am
Vulcans don't think so, but they only get nookie every 7 years.
0 Replies

Craven de Kere

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 09:53 am
If humans are illogical then it's logical to emote on their level (assuming you like humans).
0 Replies

cavfancier

1
Mon 25 Aug, 2003 09:53 am
Personally, I think the major flaw of logic is that it cannot explain the unexplainable, so therefore is a weak tool on it's own.
0 Replies

### Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King

1. Forums
2. » Inordinate dependance on logic