Reply
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.
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)
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.
Inordinate is as inordinate does.
Personally, I would prefer cold, steel ordinance.
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.
It is logical to be balanced in one's relationship with logic!
You catch on fast! He he, youse so makin' the arguments I'd use. I oughta play devil's advocate.
yep - you ought - it would suit you - c'mon - ain't like you to wuss out! Argufy!!!!
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.
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!
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
Damn. I be no fun at all.....waaaaaaah.
'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!
In ordinately in-ordinanced?
But you cannot know how right you are
until other options have been proven wrong!
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?
Ok, sure. Does logic have flaws?
Vulcans don't think so, but they only get nookie every 7 years.
If humans are illogical then it's logical to emote on their level (assuming you like humans).
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.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace