5
   

Why are paradoxes considered profound?

 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 10:45 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Is that what they mean by "bloody memories"?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 10:57 am
@JLNobody,
..can´t tell, I forgot I guess...is that an older version of Sunday bloody Sunday ? Laughing
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 11:42 am
@JLNobody,
Quote:
But I do NOT think that reasonable behavior is simply "following" the rules of logic (i.e., cookie-cutter thinking) as much as it is action that INCLUDES not violating the axioms of logic.


To be honest, I have not really ever learned much of what is the axioms of logic. If logic is a method of problem solving, it should relate primarily to the problem, not to principles of problem solving.
Then, solving a problem becomes a matter of understanding the problem; understanding it's different component may be a process of reductionism, but understanding why it is a problem in the context of what is required in a solution, seems to me to be more holistically oriented.
I would not shy away from a solution that violates the axioms of logic if that solution worked, and I would consider any definition or axiom of logic that allows for such a thing an invalid definition or axiom, as they would serve as restrictions on one's capacity for problem solving. I'd say the only rules that matter are the restrictions provided by the subject that is the essence of the problem.
Historically, if we think about how axioms are postulated then later abandoned when progress shows them to be restricting to progress, I think axioms are just as likely to cause problems as to solve them. That doesn't mean they are useless, because they help identify problems. It's like a swimmer's diving board. It is useful to get him off to a swift start, but once he is in the water he can't really use it for anything.
I am trying to think of aspects of logic that relate to culture, but I am unsuccessful beyond thinking that the choosing of which subjects we apply logic to, how we define and outline problems, depends in part on cultural conditioning. Is the process of solving a problem once the problem is identified related to culture?
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 01:37 pm
@Cyracuz,
Good, you've broken out of the box.
I agree that axioms (i.e., logical assumptions) are relevant when they are consistent with the problem addressed. If the problem is beyond their "character" they are irrelevant and must be ignored. Most obviously, of course, is the question (e.g. koan) addressed in the context of zen study where assumptions underlying the koan are well beyond those of "everyday" thought.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 04:11 pm
@JLNobody,
Quote:
I agree that axioms (i.e., logical assumptions) are relevant when they are consistent with the problem addressed.


Do you mean when something is logical is logical then ? So I suppose your critic of logic is not a matter of fact but a matter of models...
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 04:14 pm
we used to have a paradox at our local clinic, but one retired, so now we have one doc and a nurse practitioner
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 04:24 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
I really don't think paradoxes are considered profound except on a superficial level.

That is, I've gone the whole Keanu Reeves "whoa" about a "circle thought" (the way I used to describe some of them as a kid) when high as a teenager but I think that nearly anyone thinking on a deeper level realizes how pedestrian a paradox can be.

Your passage even seems to hint at this, saying that the paradoxes give the mere illusion of profundity.

Just because you can't see the bottom doesn't mean it's deep. Maybe it's just murky. Paradoxes can cloud the waters. This is the "why" to your question.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 04:34 pm
@Robert Gentel,
The way you talk about it makes it a matter of taste in words...murky or deep in here means pretty much the same...either way when we don't get something is way better to give it relevance....
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 04:56 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

I think a definition of "logic" is a bit tricky.
Initially, it might seem that it is no more than a process of "correct reasoning". But to determine what is correct reasoning, we have to trust our motives, and we need to have a clear idea of our objective.
In most situations logic is applied on multiple levels simultaneously, both with choosing which aspects of a subject should be considered and with the actual consideration of those subjects. Therefore, there is bound to be a degree of intuition and subjective preference to the process of logical thinking.

Or, to say it in another way, how you approach a problem can decide how logic will be applied. Even deciding how to approach is often a matter of logic. But to apply logic we need to make choices, which also can be a matter of logic. But in most real life situations a purely logical approach isn't necessarily the best or logical choice.

Considering this, I am inclined to say that logic is a process of evaluating and acting on the information you have, making the choices that will ensure an outcome that is as close to your initial objective as you can manage. I would say that it is not a purely intellectual process. Not unless the subject logic is applied to is purely intellectual.


Good going. And JL.
I think the point that it is not entirely an intellectual process is important. I was sitting with a third year the other day who studied philosophy of mind with regards to animal rationality; she pointed out that animals appear to have a rationality of what to do but not what to think. I should have asked her what texts she'd looked at.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 05:09 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
I don´t know about your friend but I used to believe animals do what they think they want to do...
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 06:16 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:
The way you talk about it makes it a matter of taste in words...murky or deep in here means pretty much the same...


Then I think you missed the point. Murky is not equal to deep in the analogy.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 06:27 pm
@Robert Gentel,
...it produces the same effect which is lack of insight on the solution...how come you think its not relevant Robert ?
The practical and meaningful use of "profound" relate us with distance, with difficulty, hard access...murky turns us blind...as I see it it is just as distant as profound...
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 06:35 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
To the superficial individuals it is indistinguishable, that is part and parcel of the point of the analogy. Just because "murky" (merely confusing to the interlocutor who, in turn, may just be imminently confusable) and "deep" (profound of thought) look the same to an individual does not mean it is so.

I was just pointing out that the reason some (but not all) people find paradoxes to be profound (i.e. "deep") is because they find them confusing (i.e. "murky") but they are not one and the same and there is a spectrum of ability to discern the difference that people find themselves on different sides of. The superficial among us may find what is merely "murky" to be "deep".

That is the (eminently pedestrian) point of the analogy, which I believe I've just explained to death.
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 06:37 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

I don´t know about your friend but I used to believe animals do what they think they want to do...


Sorry, I should have made that more explicit. It arose through the context of talking about rationality in relation to language. In this sense, the reason what to do, but they do not reason what to think, if we define 'thinking' in this sense as an intellectual process expressed through language.
Cyracuz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 06:42 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
it produces the same effect which is lack of insight on the solution


At the risk of offending your high opinion of yourself, I feel it is appropriate to make you aware of the expression "deep insights", which basically means a profound understanding that goes beyond a mere surface acquaintance of an issue.

The way I read Robert's comment, he's saying that in the same way murky water can give the impression of a deep pool by obscuring the bottom, while clear water lets your gaze see right to the depths, a clearly formulated statement can communicate deep insights, while obscure statements merely give the impression of depth. I think it is a very apt metaphor.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 06:47 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I suppose what you intend to mean in there is that you are not a superficial individual, and thus that what may seam profound to others to you is just murky...and that much I assure you I did already got from your first post...whether or not "profound" and "murky" serve a different purpose in the context, is more a matter of taste and opinion then a matter of fact...but you are welcome to bring your reasonable definition of profound to clarify the murky business at hand.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 06:51 pm
@Cyracuz,
...oh you really believe I am not acquainted with the expression "deep insights" and what it is suppose to mean ? I guess I was expecting to much of you if you instead got to think that I was trying to "unmystify " a pseudo analogy...
...you shoot like a nouveau riche...go easy on the trigger cowboy ! Wink
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 06:57 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
My comment meant to say nothing about my own superficiality but now that you've mentioned it I'd like to give you my most earnest assurances that I am, in fact, a most incredibly profound individual.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 06:58 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
...yes I believe animals are not capable of abstract though if that is what you meant...settled ! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2011 06:59 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I believe you are...good that we can agree after all ! Wink
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
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/29/2021 at 05:15:47