Logic

Is is logical to question the logic of logic?

Surely the mere fact of logic's own existence means that a logical ideology exists, but logic's own existence can be proven illogical, can it not?

When something is attributed the 'logical' adjective, we logically accept without question what is logical.

Can we thus say that the concept of logic is a factual constant; that when something is logical, it is the most logically correct answer possible for a given premise?

Isn't it illogical to assume that the concept of logic is the most correct assertion? This would lead to the premise that there is always 'one' answer, the logical response, the response of most sense which follows A through B through C, ad nauseum, sometimes resulting in a non-response or resolution.

I conclude that it is illogical to accept the concept of logic because that logically means that there can only always be one correct, logical answer. This results in free will of thought being redundant because it would be illogical to accept any other conclusion as it would logically be false.

Is it, thus, logical to question the logic of logic?

reply to post by DB340


I see what you're getting at, but boy, trying to think about it makes my head hurt!
lol.

reply to post by DB340


Certainly.

I was indeed hoping for some laughs and spinning heads. Box ticked.

But in all seriousness, 'logic' implies a factual constant which people enjoy applying willy-nilly like a gun at constant disposal. They never think about loading this gun with informed fact, thus rendering their logic, illogical.

But, perhaps logic itself is flawed as a concept, hence my thread of dicussion.

If logic is flawed, Plato is out of a job and many concepts should crumble and fall.

What could replace logic? Perhaps logic is manmade and actually does not 'exist' at all?

reply to post by DB340


logic is never flawed, it is logic. often however, the argument is flawed and thus illogical.



log·ic
   [loj-ik]
–noun
1.
the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3.
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
dictionary.reference.com...

reply to post by DB340


illogical by definition means not following logic.

reply to post by DB340


I was going to write a whole follow up but i realized we agree on almost everything in this statement. The only thing id like to add is

It is illogical to assume your logical speculation is the most possible truth.

or in other words, check and re-check your own logic.

reply to post by DB340


Is in not all about perception as to a logic or its logic?
2nd

Originally posted by CaDreamer
reply to post by DB340

 

illogical by definition means not following logic.

You are logic.

Omg wait no.. the universe itself is... fuelled by the logic of.. Michael Moore.

Sorry its just that this thread reminds me of my younger trippy ways.

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by DB340

 

Is in not all about perception as to a logic or its logic?
2nd

Well yes Perception happens before conscious thought which proceeds logical thought.

reply to post by derst1988


Ok....so glad I was using logic and not being illogical to define my reasoning with logic itself.

reply to post by DB340


So the question becomes "is it illogical to think logic is logical"?

I'm not sure, you see, because my head still hurts from reading the OP. But I don't think so.

Dictionary entry: "1...the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference".

The words which strike me are 'principles' and 'reliable'. I will make an instant conclusion which is, the use of these two words indicate a full lack of understanding of what 'logic' really is. Principles? Logic is only one principle by definition, so why the plural? Logic, by its very self, must be more than reliable, it must be a factual conclusion using accepted facts. Accepted facts - I shot myself in the foot there. Accepted means we 'agree' on a premise. Who is to say it is the ultimate fact without misunderstanding in any way? There is a difference between principles, reliable facts and logic.

I concur that it is illogical of me to argue about logic, but why is it? It is only illogical if its positive pair, logic, is a factual idea. My purpose of discussion is to see if we can prove (or not) that logic as a principle, is flawed. So, as it stands, it is indeed illogical because its positive pair, logic, is currently a positive-state concept. However, for purpose of discussion, I am obliged to break tradition and remain against logic (?) until the real concept of logic is discovered (or proveably not).

"It is illogical to assume your logical speculation is the most possible truth".

I did not say it is; I said "is it?". Does logic really, factually provide us with the most possible truth? What is beyond logic? Is logic as a concept flawed by out lack of perspective?

"So the question becomes "is it illogical to think logic is logical"?"

The question does not become this; the question always was this

I thought it was about time for some real brain-bending from all the news stories and UFO's buzzing around.

Logical answers only, please

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


The assertion does catagorize under the "Bare Assertion" falacy.

And given that we do not know all the factors in many questions and perhaps cannot in most, logic is not the best measure of factuality.

reply to post by DB340

DB

Logic helps. It's all those damn " informed facts " we screw into our logical equations that hinder us so greatly.
A and B and C, then D is nice to believe, it's just how sure are we of a A and B and C?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cf769ca85853.gif[/atsimg]

It is logical to question all logic, as logic on an individual level is based on perceived facts, which aren't always factual facts.

Logical loops are used by some to entrap people's mind into a set of hermetical beliefs.

I believe we can make our first factual observation about logic: It is used to manipulate beliefs. Thanks to the comment above regarding hermetic beliefs.

I'd like to modestly add that I made this assumption earlier up the thread when I metaphorically used a gun loaded with biased facts being used as 'logic'.

This supports the side of 'logic is flawed', such is my premise. Logic could thus be a manmade concept and, in fact, does not actually exist in itself as a universal constant, such as gravity or the speed of light. (I know they can change due to various factors; I'm merely using them as fixed, simplified examples for point of discussion. They are certainly not manmade, are they!).

Further, if logic does not exist because it can be modified to suit the speaker, according to this premise, how can anything at all be logical or illogical? It could be concluded (such a strong word), summised is better, that logic in itself is not a factual constant and the bringer of all that is absolute truth, rendering the notion of 'logic' as a completely man-made, deluded and regularly incorrect fabrication.

ok here it goes...

logic can only be logical when the 'subject' of the applied logic is already learned and structured within our brain. When it is not already learned our brain will try to find the desired logic that is used in similar subjects or experiences and then apply the same logic to our new subject or problem.

but often, (and IMHO), the logical answer is not always the correct one.
Logic is the language of our structured brain and is often a part of 'taught thought patterns', just like taught behaviour.
Sometimes the language of the heart or the language of intiution is a more suitable one, mostly not logical, but much more truthful.

boy, I would so not be welcom on Vulcan!
edit: nvm, forgot it exploded...

reply to post by GypsK


You lead me to asking you one question:

Why is the logical answer not always the correct one?

What kind of logic would lead to an incorrect answer? That means that what was logical was actually illlogical all along.

Who says the actual answer is correct and the logical answer was actually correct all along and you are in fact illogical to think the logical answer is illogical?