You speak as if people do not know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, or that 2+2 =4.
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:So far as I can tell, your argument in that post is just like arguing that you read the sentence that the Sun rises in the East as, "Chicken lay eggs" because you find the latter sentence more concise than the former. When the two have anything to do with each other does not concern you. And your belief that they do have anything to do with each other is the consequence of your commission of the modal fallacy. But I have already explained that.
So far as I can tell, you would rather die than examine my argument in detail.
You have no coherent argument to examine. You know no logic and you are attempting to make an argument about logic. What is there to examine?
Kenn-y the truth is what we reason from, and not reason too... I know it may seem a subtle difference, but the points we reach with reason cannot be considered as proved by logic... Logic suggests a possible new situation, a new reality, theoretical until proved...
All people are logical, and reasonable... It is not a knowledge of formal logic which makes reasonable people, but reasonable people who seek a formal logic... The problem is not logic or the want of it, but the misapplication of logic... We live most of our lives is the moral world of which the physical world is a part, and out of sloth, or misunderstanding, we wish to apply logic to the moral world... And the moral world defies logic, and is all irrational, driven by irrationallity... People are rational in the pursuit of irrational goals...
I have not accused him of not being logical. I accused him of not knowing the subject of logic, the discipline, and talking about it. The fact that I can speak a language fluently doesn't give me the right to talk about the subject of linguistics. The fact that I can swim does not mean that I know anything about the physiology of swimming. The practice and the theory are two different things. He cannot argue very well, but that is not the point. Even if he could argue like a blue streak, but if he knew nothing about the subject of logic, what he says about the subject of logic is worthless. As he has demonstrated.
I am an American mix of two peoples... One is the extremely illogical, and artistic Irish dominated by the logical and mechanically inclined German... To me the Germans are logical to a fault, and the evidence for that conclusion is that logic led to euthanasia, to the slave labor camps, and the assembly lines of death... Logic does not lead to truth, but flows out of truth, and is only as good as the truth upon which it is founded... Reason is a thing we take from Res, thing, from which we get re-s-ality... Cause and effect exist in the physical world, with ratio, measure, and proportion... If you want to talk logic talk numbers... Words are moral forms whose meaning is always left for those using them to decide, and agree upon...What you are seeing is the reason we have forms... A dictionary definintion is a form... People prefer the formal to the relational, in which they must ask: What is the meaning of the word you are using to you??? The difference is that with the formal, an understanding is enforced by definition, and in the informal a definition is agreed upon... People find the informal exhausting, confusing, and even dangerous... It is not just you Kenn... We all rely more or less on the form, and logic as you see it is a form, as your definition of truth is form... It is not like I blame you or anything... We all do it to some extent because forms are our comfort zone... Like logic as a form, which applies only to the physical world, forms only work to a point, and then we find we must relate informally, and think informally, and arrive at conclusions by insight, which is to say: informally
Fido wrote:
jeeprs wrote:
Indeed it does, and it is the perennial question of philosophy, something that everyone must grapple with for themselves.
Just between you, and me; some people seem to want to generalize the truth to the point of mediocrity...
And what does that mean? Suppose I make this generalization: all mammals have lungs. What is mediocre about it? Indeed, what would it even mean to say it is mediocre?
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:So far as I can tell, your argument in that post is just like arguing that you read the sentence that the Sun rises in the East as, "Chicken lay eggs" because you find the latter sentence more concise than the former. When the two have anything to do with each other does not concern you. And your belief that they do have anything to do with each other is the consequence of your commission of the modal fallacy. But I have already explained that.
So far as I can tell, you would rather die than examine my argument in detail.
You have no coherent argument to examine. You know no logic and you are attempting to make an argument about logic. What is there to examine?
Kenn-y the truth is what we reason from, and not reason too... I know it may seem a subtle difference, but the points we reach with reason cannot be considered as proved by logic... Logic suggests a possible new situation, a new reality, theoretical until proved...
All people are logical, and reasonable... It is not a knowledge of formal logic which makes reasonable people, but reasonable people who seek a formal logic... The problem is not logic or the want of it, but the misapplication of logic... We live most of our lives is the moral world of which the physical world is a part, and out of sloth, or misunderstanding, we wish to apply logic to the moral world... And the moral world defies logic, and is all irrational, driven by irrationallity... People are rational in the pursuit of irrational goals...
I have not accused him of not being logical. I accused him of not knowing the subject of logic, the discipline, and talking about it. The fact that I can speak a language fluently doesn't give me the right to talk about the subject of linguistics. The fact that I can swim does not mean that I know anything about the physiology of swimming. The practice and the theory are two different things. He cannot argue very well, but that is not the point. Even if he could argue like a blue streak, but if he knew nothing about the subject of logic, what he says about the subject of logic is worthless. As he has demonstrated.
I am an American mix of two peoples... One is the extremely illogical, and artistic Irish dominated by the logical and mechanically inclined German... To me the Germans are logical to a fault, and the evidence for that conclusion is that logic led to euthanasia, to the slave labor camps, and the assembly lines of death... Logic does not lead to truth, but flows out of truth, and is only as good as the truth upon which it is founded... Reason is a thing we take from Res, thing, from which we get re-s-ality... Cause and effect exist in the physical world, with ratio, measure, and proportion... If you want to talk logic talk numbers... Words are moral forms whose meaning is always left for those using them to decide, and agree upon...What you are seeing is the reason we have forms... A dictionary definintion is a form... People prefer the formal to the relational, in which they must ask: What is the meaning of the word you are using to you??? The difference is that with the formal, an understanding is enforced by definition, and in the informal a definition is agreed upon... People find the informal exhausting, confusing, and even dangerous... It is not just you Kenn... We all rely more or less on the form, and logic as you see it is a form, as your definition of truth is form... It is not like I blame you or anything... We all do it to some extent because forms are our comfort zone... Like logic as a form, which applies only to the physical world, forms only work to a point, and then we find we must relate informally, and think informally, and arrive at conclusions by insight, which is to say: informally
You did not understand anything I said in my post. I say that because your reply has nothing to do with what I wrote in my post. My point was that people who know nothing about what they are writing about should not write about it. The poster in question knows nothing at all about the subject or discipline of logic, so he should not be writing about it. I don't see how I could be any clearer, and how your reply had anything to do with this.
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:So far as I can tell, your argument in that post is just like arguing that you read the sentence that the Sun rises in the East as, "Chicken lay eggs" because you find the latter sentence more concise than the former. When the two have anything to do with each other does not concern you. And your belief that they do have anything to do with each other is the consequence of your commission of the modal fallacy. But I have already explained that.
So far as I can tell, you would rather die than examine my argument in detail.
You have no coherent argument to examine. You know no logic and you are attempting to make an argument about logic. What is there to examine?
Kenn-y the truth is what we reason from, and not reason too... I know it may seem a subtle difference, but the points we reach with reason cannot be considered as proved by logic... Logic suggests a possible new situation, a new reality, theoretical until proved...
All people are logical, and reasonable... It is not a knowledge of formal logic which makes reasonable people, but reasonable people who seek a formal logic... The problem is not logic or the want of it, but the misapplication of logic... We live most of our lives is the moral world of which the physical world is a part, and out of sloth, or misunderstanding, we wish to apply logic to the moral world... And the moral world defies logic, and is all irrational, driven by irrationallity... People are rational in the pursuit of irrational goals...
I have not accused him of not being logical. I accused him of not knowing the subject of logic, the discipline, and talking about it. The fact that I can speak a language fluently doesn't give me the right to talk about the subject of linguistics. The fact that I can swim does not mean that I know anything about the physiology of swimming. The practice and the theory are two different things. He cannot argue very well, but that is not the point. Even if he could argue like a blue streak, but if he knew nothing about the subject of logic, what he says about the subject of logic is worthless. As he has demonstrated.
I am an American mix of two peoples... One is the extremely illogical, and artistic Irish dominated by the logical and mechanically inclined German... To me the Germans are logical to a fault, and the evidence for that conclusion is that logic led to euthanasia, to the slave labor camps, and the assembly lines of death... Logic does not lead to truth, but flows out of truth, and is only as good as the truth upon which it is founded... Reason is a thing we take from Res, thing, from which we get re-s-ality... Cause and effect exist in the physical world, with ratio, measure, and proportion... If you want to talk logic talk numbers... Words are moral forms whose meaning is always left for those using them to decide, and agree upon...What you are seeing is the reason we have forms... A dictionary definintion is a form... People prefer the formal to the relational, in which they must ask: What is the meaning of the word you are using to you??? The difference is that with the formal, an understanding is enforced by definition, and in the informal a definition is agreed upon... People find the informal exhausting, confusing, and even dangerous... It is not just you Kenn... We all rely more or less on the form, and logic as you see it is a form, as your definition of truth is form... It is not like I blame you or anything... We all do it to some extent because forms are our comfort zone... Like logic as a form, which applies only to the physical world, forms only work to a point, and then we find we must relate informally, and think informally, and arrive at conclusions by insight, which is to say: informally
You did not understand anything I said in my post. I say that because your reply has nothing to do with what I wrote in my post. My point was that people who know nothing about what they are writing about should not write about it. The poster in question knows nothing at all about the subject or discipline of logic, so he should not be writing about it. I don't see how I could be any clearer, and how your reply had anything to do with this.
It is impossible for logical people to know nothing of logic..
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:So far as I can tell, your argument in that post is just like arguing that you read the sentence that the Sun rises in the East as, "Chicken lay eggs" because you find the latter sentence more concise than the former. When the two have anything to do with each other does not concern you. And your belief that they do have anything to do with each other is the consequence of your commission of the modal fallacy. But I have already explained that.
So far as I can tell, you would rather die than examine my argument in detail.
You have no coherent argument to examine. You know no logic and you are attempting to make an argument about logic. What is there to examine?
Kenn-y the truth is what we reason from, and not reason too... I know it may seem a subtle difference, but the points we reach with reason cannot be considered as proved by logic... Logic suggests a possible new situation, a new reality, theoretical until proved...
All people are logical, and reasonable... It is not a knowledge of formal logic which makes reasonable people, but reasonable people who seek a formal logic... The problem is not logic or the want of it, but the misapplication of logic... We live most of our lives is the moral world of which the physical world is a part, and out of sloth, or misunderstanding, we wish to apply logic to the moral world... And the moral world defies logic, and is all irrational, driven by irrationallity... People are rational in the pursuit of irrational goals...
I have not accused him of not being logical. I accused him of not knowing the subject of logic, the discipline, and talking about it. The fact that I can speak a language fluently doesn't give me the right to talk about the subject of linguistics. The fact that I can swim does not mean that I know anything about the physiology of swimming. The practice and the theory are two different things. He cannot argue very well, but that is not the point. Even if he could argue like a blue streak, but if he knew nothing about the subject of logic, what he says about the subject of logic is worthless. As he has demonstrated.
I am an American mix of two peoples... One is the extremely illogical, and artistic Irish dominated by the logical and mechanically inclined German... To me the Germans are logical to a fault, and the evidence for that conclusion is that logic led to euthanasia, to the slave labor camps, and the assembly lines of death... Logic does not lead to truth, but flows out of truth, and is only as good as the truth upon which it is founded... Reason is a thing we take from Res, thing, from which we get re-s-ality... Cause and effect exist in the physical world, with ratio, measure, and proportion... If you want to talk logic talk numbers... Words are moral forms whose meaning is always left for those using them to decide, and agree upon...What you are seeing is the reason we have forms... A dictionary definintion is a form... People prefer the formal to the relational, in which they must ask: What is the meaning of the word you are using to you??? The difference is that with the formal, an understanding is enforced by definition, and in the informal a definition is agreed upon... People find the informal exhausting, confusing, and even dangerous... It is not just you Kenn... We all rely more or less on the form, and logic as you see it is a form, as your definition of truth is form... It is not like I blame you or anything... We all do it to some extent because forms are our comfort zone... Like logic as a form, which applies only to the physical world, forms only work to a point, and then we find we must relate informally, and think informally, and arrive at conclusions by insight, which is to say: informally
You did not understand anything I said in my post. I say that because your reply has nothing to do with what I wrote in my post. My point was that people who know nothing about what they are writing about should not write about it. The poster in question knows nothing at all about the subject or discipline of logic, so he should not be writing about it. I don't see how I could be any clearer, and how your reply had anything to do with this.
It is impossible for logical people to know nothing of logic..
But I did not say they know nothing about logic. I said that they may no nothing about the discipline or subject of logic. Just as people who speak English fluently know English, but they may know nothing about the scientific study of language, linguistics. What is hard to understand about that?
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:So far as I can tell, your argument in that post is just like arguing that you read the sentence that the Sun rises in the East as, "Chicken lay eggs" because you find the latter sentence more concise than the former. When the two have anything to do with each other does not concern you. And your belief that they do have anything to do with each other is the consequence of your commission of the modal fallacy. But I have already explained that.
So far as I can tell, you would rather die than examine my argument in detail.
You have no coherent argument to examine. You know no logic and you are attempting to make an argument about logic. What is there to examine?
Kenn-y the truth is what we reason from, and not reason too... I know it may seem a subtle difference, but the points we reach with reason cannot be considered as proved by logic... Logic suggests a possible new situation, a new reality, theoretical until proved...
All people are logical, and reasonable... It is not a knowledge of formal logic which makes reasonable people, but reasonable people who seek a formal logic... The problem is not logic or the want of it, but the misapplication of logic... We live most of our lives is the moral world of which the physical world is a part, and out of sloth, or misunderstanding, we wish to apply logic to the moral world... And the moral world defies logic, and is all irrational, driven by irrationallity... People are rational in the pursuit of irrational goals...
I have not accused him of not being logical. I accused him of not knowing the subject of logic, the discipline, and talking about it. The fact that I can speak a language fluently doesn't give me the right to talk about the subject of linguistics. The fact that I can swim does not mean that I know anything about the physiology of swimming. The practice and the theory are two different things. He cannot argue very well, but that is not the point. Even if he could argue like a blue streak, but if he knew nothing about the subject of logic, what he says about the subject of logic is worthless. As he has demonstrated.
I am an American mix of two peoples... One is the extremely illogical, and artistic Irish dominated by the logical and mechanically inclined German... To me the Germans are logical to a fault, and the evidence for that conclusion is that logic led to euthanasia, to the slave labor camps, and the assembly lines of death... Logic does not lead to truth, but flows out of truth, and is only as good as the truth upon which it is founded... Reason is a thing we take from Res, thing, from which we get re-s-ality... Cause and effect exist in the physical world, with ratio, measure, and proportion... If you want to talk logic talk numbers... Words are moral forms whose meaning is always left for those using them to decide, and agree upon...What you are seeing is the reason we have forms... A dictionary definintion is a form... People prefer the formal to the relational, in which they must ask: What is the meaning of the word you are using to you??? The difference is that with the formal, an understanding is enforced by definition, and in the informal a definition is agreed upon... People find the informal exhausting, confusing, and even dangerous... It is not just you Kenn... We all rely more or less on the form, and logic as you see it is a form, as your definition of truth is form... It is not like I blame you or anything... We all do it to some extent because forms are our comfort zone... Like logic as a form, which applies only to the physical world, forms only work to a point, and then we find we must relate informally, and think informally, and arrive at conclusions by insight, which is to say: informally
You did not understand anything I said in my post. I say that because your reply has nothing to do with what I wrote in my post. My point was that people who know nothing about what they are writing about should not write about it. The poster in question knows nothing at all about the subject or discipline of logic, so he should not be writing about it. I don't see how I could be any clearer, and how your reply had anything to do with this.
It is impossible for logical people to know nothing of logic..
But I did not say they know nothing about logic. I said that they may no nothing about the discipline or subject of logic. Just as people who speak English fluently know English, but they may know nothing about the scientific study of language, linguistics. What is hard to understand about that?
It is a false presumption, and one you made earlier about language since to learn anything in an organized fashion one must learn the logic of it... Certainly, to learn two languages one must know something of linguistics... Trying to learn French taught me much about English that I did not know... People are forever pointing out to others what is logical and what is not, what is more logical and what is less so... One cannot even accomplish the most basic solutions to problems in math without some mastery of logic... The question is whether people who use and understand logic can frame their discussions on logic in a formal fashion... What you seem to say, is if they do not have the formal vocabulary that they do not have the informal knowledge... I have to disagree if this is the case...
Can you please clarify the following for me:
1. "Every truth must be true" is false.
2. "To be true" means "to be a truth" (although perhaps guigus would dispute that).
3. Therefore (from 1 and 2) ""Every truth must be a truth" is false.
4. Therefore "Every truth must be what it is (namely a truth)" is false.
5. Therefore "Everything must be what it is" is false.
6. Therefore "A must be A" is false.
But surely A must be A (i.e. A is necessarily A) by the law of identity? Where has my argument gone wrong?
Quote:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/lost-in-the-clouds/?hpTo some, philosophy is too esoteric to be useful. To others, it’s the basis of a good drinking party.
Two interesting opinions at the link above. My own opinion is that almost all modern Philosophy is useless, because it does not address the human condition. It is kinda like the sport of rhythmic gymnastics, to some interesting to watch for a few minutes every four years at the Olympics, otherwise it never has cause to cross our minds. The problem is not hopeless, but to solve it we need a new vision of what Philosophy is, and a whole boat load of new people to do it.
Opinions?
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/lost-in-the-clouds/?hpTo some, philosophy is too esoteric to be useful. To others, it’s the basis of a good drinking party.
Two interesting opinions at the link above. My own opinion is that almost all modern Philosophy is useless, because it does not address the human condition. It is kinda like the sport of rhythmic gymnastics, to some interesting to watch for a few minutes every four years at the Olympics, otherwise it never has cause to cross our minds. The problem is not hopeless, but to solve it we need a new vision of what Philosophy is, and a whole boat load of new people to do it.
Opinions?
What do you mean by "modern philosophy"? Technically the Modern age of Philosophy began with Descartes and ended with Kant (if I am not mistaken). Post-Modernism starts with Nietzsche.
You might be right in saying that Modern philosophy doesnt address the human condition; but I doubt it. Does not the human condition pertain to ethics? If so then the philosophers of the Modern period did indeed address the human condition (then again I am unsure as to what "human condition" is for you). Kant questioned the subject (us human beings) so one might say that Kant was tackling the "human condition".
19th century philosophy also deals with the human condition. Just read Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer and youll see very quickly that they are dealing with the human condition. Oh and Nietzsche as well. Will-to-live anyone?
Of course philosophy is esoteric! Why wouldnt it be? Would you like me to liquidate it for you, boil it down, and then give you something less thought-provoking? In fact I could. Give you an example: I have been told by some people, with no background in philosophy, that "there is onyl change". Well doesnt this seem like a boiled down version of Hegel? Heraclitus? Dewey? Of course! But theres nothing to it. In a word, it doesnt provoke thought. It's just boiled down with nothing to gain from (except for empirical observation. That there is indeed change in things can be asserted, but for the most part we never go beyond the assertion).
Does anyone have a clue how important symbolic logic has been for the 20th and 21st century? Would anyone like a computer? Because if symbolic logic never came on to the scene computers would be... well... not here. Symbolic logic is vital ladies and gents, whether its difficult or not. O Flashback: I took a logic class and about halfway through this girl told me that logic is stupid. I about pissed my pants. Good times.
Ding an Sich wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/lost-in-the-clouds/?hpTo some, philosophy is too esoteric to be useful. To others, it’s the basis of a good drinking party.
Two interesting opinions at the link above. My own opinion is that almost all modern Philosophy is useless, because it does not address the human condition. It is kinda like the sport of rhythmic gymnastics, to some interesting to watch for a few minutes every four years at the Olympics, otherwise it never has cause to cross our minds. The problem is not hopeless, but to solve it we need a new vision of what Philosophy is, and a whole boat load of new people to do it.
Opinions?
What do you mean by "modern philosophy"? Technically the Modern age of Philosophy began with Descartes and ended with Kant (if I am not mistaken). Post-Modernism starts with Nietzsche.
You might be right in saying that Modern philosophy doesnt address the human condition; but I doubt it. Does not the human condition pertain to ethics? If so then the philosophers of the Modern period did indeed address the human condition (then again I am unsure as to what "human condition" is for you). Kant questioned the subject (us human beings) so one might say that Kant was tackling the "human condition".
19th century philosophy also deals with the human condition. Just read Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer and youll see very quickly that they are dealing with the human condition. Oh and Nietzsche as well. Will-to-live anyone?
Of course philosophy is esoteric! Why wouldnt it be? Would you like me to liquidate it for you, boil it down, and then give you something less thought-provoking? In fact I could. Give you an example: I have been told by some people, with no background in philosophy, that "there is onyl change". Well doesnt this seem like a boiled down version of Hegel? Heraclitus? Dewey? Of course! But theres nothing to it. In a word, it doesnt provoke thought. It's just boiled down with nothing to gain from (except for empirical observation. That there is indeed change in things can be asserted, but for the most part we never go beyond the assertion).
Does anyone have a clue how important symbolic logic has been for the 20th and 21st century? Would anyone like a computer? Because if symbolic logic never came on to the scene computers would be... well... not here. Symbolic logic is vital ladies and gents, whether its difficult or not. O Flashback: I took a logic class and about halfway through this girl told me that logic is stupid. I about pissed my pants. Good times.
It is a mystery how some people make a virtue of ignorance. It is not just symbolic or modern logic they know nothing about (so how could they know anything about its importance, and its uses both in philosophy and outside of philosophy) but they are woefully ignorant of any kind of logic. Their interest is in painting pretty pictures on the wall and calling that "philosophy".
kennethamy wrote:
Ding an Sich wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/lost-in-the-clouds/?hpTo some, philosophy is too esoteric to be useful. To others, it’s the basis of a good drinking party.
Two interesting opinions at the link above. My own opinion is that almost all modern Philosophy is useless, because it does not address the human condition. It is kinda like the sport of rhythmic gymnastics, to some interesting to watch for a few minutes every four years at the Olympics, otherwise it never has cause to cross our minds. The problem is not hopeless, but to solve it we need a new vision of what Philosophy is, and a whole boat load of new people to do it.
Opinions?
What do you mean by "modern philosophy"? Technically the Modern age of Philosophy began with Descartes and ended with Kant (if I am not mistaken). Post-Modernism starts with Nietzsche.
You might be right in saying that Modern philosophy doesnt address the human condition; but I doubt it. Does not the human condition pertain to ethics? If so then the philosophers of the Modern period did indeed address the human condition (then again I am unsure as to what "human condition" is for you). Kant questioned the subject (us human beings) so one might say that Kant was tackling the "human condition".
19th century philosophy also deals with the human condition. Just read Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer and youll see very quickly that they are dealing with the human condition. Oh and Nietzsche as well. Will-to-live anyone?
Of course philosophy is esoteric! Why wouldnt it be? Would you like me to liquidate it for you, boil it down, and then give you something less thought-provoking? In fact I could. Give you an example: I have been told by some people, with no background in philosophy, that "there is onyl change". Well doesnt this seem like a boiled down version of Hegel? Heraclitus? Dewey? Of course! But theres nothing to it. In a word, it doesnt provoke thought. It's just boiled down with nothing to gain from (except for empirical observation. That there is indeed change in things can be asserted, but for the most part we never go beyond the assertion).
Does anyone have a clue how important symbolic logic has been for the 20th and 21st century? Would anyone like a computer? Because if symbolic logic never came on to the scene computers would be... well... not here. Symbolic logic is vital ladies and gents, whether its difficult or not. O Flashback: I took a logic class and about halfway through this girl told me that logic is stupid. I about pissed my pants. Good times.
It is a mystery how some people make a virtue of ignorance. It is not just symbolic or modern logic they know nothing about (so how could they know anything about its importance, and its uses both in philosophy and outside of philosophy) but they are woefully ignorant of any kind of logic. Their interest is in painting pretty pictures on the wall and calling that "philosophy".
Kenn... Please try to not be so thick.... The girl was right, and the guy who about pissed his pants was wrong.... In the moral world, what some might call the spiritual world, or the emphatic world; the rules of logic and propertion simply have no power... And that moral world is the one we live in, the one where logical boys do irrational things because a girl they love smiles at them; and this sort of thing multiplied by the billions makes up the life of humanity, always teetering on the edge of absolute chaos and anhilation....
We are not logical; so logic in an illogical world is a sort of detriment, or disease... Logical people, and by that I would count philosophers, are the most lonely and unhappy people because they think they have life figured out, but their figures do not make sense to anyone but themselves....
Do not think... Do not reason... Observe what is going on in life... Be a fly on the wall you talk about... See how people act, and you will see how people think... If you would master your ambition, consider Shakespear and look at how much of philosophy became the germ of his poetry... The logical argument may serve well for a logical subject, but art may; or a life well lived can provide good argument for moral perfection...
Fido wrote:
kennethamy wrote:
Ding an Sich wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:
Kenn... Please try to not be so thick.... The girl was right, and the guy who about pissed his pants was wrong.... In the moral world, what some might call the spiritual world, or the emphatic world; the rules of logic and propertion simply have no power... And that moral world is the one we live in, the one where logical boys do irrational things because a girl they love smiles at them; and this sort of thing multiplied by the billions makes up the life of humanity, always teetering on the edge of absolute chaos and anhilation....
We are not logical; so logic in an illogical world is a sort of detriment, or disease... Logical people, and by that I would count philosophers, are the most lonely and unhappy people because they think they have life figured out, but their figures do not make sense to anyone but themselves....
Do not think... Do not reason... Observe what is going on in life... Be a fly on the wall you talk about... See how people act, and you will see how people think... If you would master your ambition, consider Shakespear and look at how much of philosophy became the germ of his poetry... The logical argument may serve well for a logical subject, but art may; or a life well lived can provide good argument for moral perfection...
Quote:I would agree that people are not totally irrational... They are irrational in their drives and their dreams and in myriad other ways, and they are rational in the pursuit of their irrational desires... It is a mystake to apply logic to people... Look at our values, where we find meaning, our vices and virtues... Can you through any of them on a scale and tell their weight??? These are moral qualities of the moral world, having no substance, not sensible... Everything of logic has to do with the physical world, and that world is measured by our senses, and by the instraments which are extensions of our senses... Until such time as emotion can metered, and until such time as desires can be vivisection we will have to be content with learning what we can of the moral world by observation...Fido... WTF? First off if people are not logical, then two things would happen: 1) No one would understand another. Language pressuposes experience and logic. It is not simply words that have no meaning. 2) The whole of Math and the Sciences would be in jeopardy if Logic were suddenly to cease existing because science requires Logic (if/then and causality). Math is based, in large part, on Logic (even though Russell and Whitehead tried to base mathematics on a few axioms and failed. Oh yea and Goedel's Incompleteness theorem.) being there to support it.
Quote:Since when does morals lack Logic? Dont forget Fido that Logic simply deals with the form of the argument, never its content. What of the Kant's Categorical Imperative? Huh huh? Morality huh? Hell Kant based it off the conditional "if p then q" (p -> q). <---- Oh would you look at that.. Logic? You bet your ass it is! But it's the mere form and nothing else.
Morals have always existed apart from logic, and moral philosophy to date has been barking up the same tree since Sorates... Knowledge is virtue said He... What did that mean but that people could learn to be good... The reason it was a subject for discussion was that his society was immoral, and everyone wanted to know how to get it back... It was not possible....It is not possible to teach morals because the logic of it cannot be discovered... So, why are people moral who have not been taught to be moral??? When people learn to be moral is the moment they bond, first with parents, then with family and friends... It is our connectedness, our bond, our affection, and our identification with others that keeps us moral in regard to them...
Of Kant's imperative, I would call it garbage... Not one moral person has been made by it... It has had over a hundred years to sprout, and the world is not a bit more moral, and is less so... It is simply not a matter of logic... Logic is logical from a certain perspective, from the view of the individual... Moral is always moral from the perspective of the society, or more properly, from the view of the community... Let me say, that what is often demanded of us as moral is sacrifice, and risk... When all we know of life is our own life, where is the logic in risking it for others... People do risk life, because they conceive of themselves as good, but there is no rational for risking the only life that has meaning to save a life with no meaning, and yet it happens every day...
Quote:And who gives a flying kahoot whether or not a person does irrational things? How does this support the fact that morals has nothing to do with logic? Or for that matter logic's supposed precarious existence among a spiritual world. Tell you what: Give me a good reason why morals and logic have nothing to do with each other. Better yet give me a good reason why Logic is useless in this "moral world" we live in. If you use correct reasoning you know what you will have proven... that logic exists! Good luck!
For the sake of counter argument, the existence of irrational people doing irrational actions sprinkled with occasional rational acts does not mean a person is rational, but instead proves the opposite: People are primarily irrational...More than that, we all live in the moral world which shows no reason...
I think I have said enough to show what I mean, that when people are moral they must deny self, and that is at heart irrational, since self is all... People can sometimes be rational, but only look at them and see how procupied with their emotions, the loves and hates, their dreams and anxieties, their fears and their funs, and no one part of that behavior can be show as rational... They can love their wives and children and logically design weapons to destroy humanity... Can they make the connection??? I do not know this be reason, but in the history of philosophy we went out of the age of reason into the age of Nietzsche, and following Nietzsche, Freud... There were others, but these two are enough to show that the age of reason was finished and well finished because it never explained man to mankind... But I am not trying to prove logically that people are irrational... I just observe that others who came before us are correct.. People are irrational, even though they use reason...
Everything is a lie... Every statement is fiction, an approximation, a fabrication... All our concepts are analogy, and all our words are concepts, and the lives we try to live objectively through all of our forms can only be expressed subjectively...
Can you please clarify the following for me:
1. "Every truth must be true" is false.
2. "To be true" means "to be a truth" (although perhaps guigus would dispute that).
3. Therefore (from 1 and 2) ""Every truth must be a truth" is false.
4. Therefore "Every truth must be what it is (namely a truth)" is false.
5. Therefore "Everything must be what it is" is false.
6. Therefore "A must be A" is false.
But surely A must be A (i.e. A is necessarily A) by the law of identity? Where has my argument gone wrong?
Can you please clarify the following for me:
1. "Every truth must be true" is false.
2. "To be true" means "to be a truth" (although perhaps guigus would dispute that).
3. Therefore (from 1 and 2) ""Every truth must be a truth" is false.
4. Therefore "Every truth must be what it is (namely a truth)" is false.
5. Therefore "Everything must be what it is" is false.
6. Therefore "A must be A" is false.
But surely A must be A (i.e. A is necessarily A) by the law of identity? Where has my argument gone wrong?
Without any offense intended: I find it SO perfect that this particular round and round discussion is taking place in a thread with such a title.
