Logic

reply to post by GypsK


You're thinking Krypton. Former home of Superman.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by GypsK

 

You're thinking Krypton. Former home of Superman.

lol no
I'm thinking Vulcan, former home of Spock
which exploded in the last star trek movie :p

Originally posted by DB340
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?

haha ok now my head is spinning! love it

I can't come up with an example right now
but I do know that in love and war, illogical decicions are made that give great results. That is not to say that the logical decicion would have failed...maybe, maybe not.

hope that was enough for you for now, lol

Logic is a tool, not a motivating force.

The idea that in any dilemma there is always a logical choice which is the correct choice is absurd. It ignores the values underlying the decision, values which are irrational. It ignores the fact that it is emotion, not logic, that provides motivation.

Do we use our hammer to put a nail in a wall or to nail two boards together? Well that depends on if we want to hang a picture or build a shed. Which of those two is more logical? Well that depends on the needs of the situation. What are the needs? Follow this chain long enough and you end up with "Well I just value A over B." You will find that the end of such chains is always, always irrational.

At the end of the day, most disagreements come down to a value difference between the two parties. This applies to disagreements between people as well as dilemmas within oneself. The only time logic can sort out a disagreement is if the underlying values are the same. Only then can it possibly be proven via logic that there is one way that is superior than the other in bringing those values to fruition.

But if you have differing values, fuggetaboutit. At that point the debate is over, you "agree to disagree" if you're halfway sane. You cannot logically prove a value because values are based on human motivating factors (emotions) and are thus irrational. Nor can you avoid values because they are ubiquitous. Conclusion? It's impossible to avoid irrational factors in human decision-making.

I suggest that those who are obsessed with always making the logical choice, are in fact obsessed with the thrill of pride they get from seeing themselves as logical beings. It's not necessarily true of every such person, but my point is, remember, always look for an emotional motivation. Because there is one.


ETA: I actually started this post intending to talk about Gödel. I think this one came out better. I'll let somebody else talk about ol' Kurt.

reply to post by DB340

is it logical to question the logic of logic?

Is this a serious question?

You are using the definition of a word to question that definition?

Its like if I asked; is it ok to allow the acceptance of what we permit?

reply to post by GypsK


My thoughts exactly. I think it's very logical for us to turn to Spock. I feel like Spock everytime I read a post on this thread.

Oh Spock! Where have you gone?

Our nation turns it's lonely eyes to you.

______________

Yikes, thunder and lightening. Lightening on the ground, my computer will fry, and so will I.

Wait! Did I just use logic?

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
reply to post by GypsK

 

My thoughts exactly. I think it's very logical for us to turn to Spock. I feel like Spock everytime I read a post on this thread.

Oh Spock! Where have you gone?

Our nation turns it's lonely eyes to you.

______________

Yikes, thunder and lightening. Lightening on the ground, my computer will fry, and so will I.

Wait! Did I just use logic?

edit on 6/28/2011 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)

lol

euuuu so weird you say that about thunder and lightening!
were having a huge thunderstorm over here right now

The point of discussion is starting to be missed, avoided or mocked. This is not helpful. The thread is just a light-hearted look at a particular point of philosophy, one of which I personally find interesting for the reasons I have outlined in my posts so far on the matter.

To compare logic to permission: I fail to see your connection. I see your comparison, but not the connection. Perhaps you would take a few seconds (because I can't imagine you spending more time on this already decided-upon pointless discussion) to describe the 'connection' between logic and permission? Your format of the question is an accurate 'comparison', but to 'connect', you did not.

Mockery is no substitute for discussion.

Regarding NewlyAwakened's comment about logic not being a motivation for an absolute truth is not something I have considered before. The emotion of desire for an absolute answer in itself pushes logic to the side, according to this statement. How can emotion alone provide an absolute truth? I don't believe it can, but I'm open to that suggestion.

I am surprised that many people, in fact, agree with my opening post that logic is in fact flawed, even to a small degree. Most people find an absolute truth through emotion, belief or necessity at the time.

I still feel that the original question, however, is valid and still stands. Is it logical to question the logic of logic?

Yes.

Answers so far have not supported the premise that logic is the be-all and end-all in the path to absolute truth; this is what intrigues me.

if something is foisted upon us as logic and a flaw is later found in the argument. then the subject logical argument was never logical.as there is a flaw. proper logic based on real, accurate data is infallible.

if there is any extrapolation then it isn't a logical argument it is a semi logical argument based partly on unknown facts. it does not rise to the level of "logical" unless it is irrefutable.

Originally posted by DB340


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?

Logic is a form.

You can have a logical but invalid, (untrue) conclusion if your premises are not true. What comes out of the form of logic is only as true as what is put into the form of logic.

You should learn a little bit about logic. There is a book, "Being Logical" that is a very nice introduction for those who dont have a back ground in logic but who want to understand it better. You seem to be confusing "truth" with logic, and while ideally logic is a means to discover truth, it can also be used to serve falsehood. (Rationalization)

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened


The idea that in any dilemma there is always a logical choice which is the correct choice is absurd. It ignores the values underlying the decision, values which are irrational. It ignores the fact that it is emotion, not logic, that provides motivation.

You are correct that logic is not the proper tool to use for all types of decision making, and that emotions are sometimes a better way to make certain decisions, its just knowing which tool works best for what type of decision.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
You are correct that logic is not the proper tool to use for all types of decision making, and that emotions are sometimes a better way to make certain decisions, its just knowing which tool works best for what type of decision.

My point wasn't that sometimes emotions are a better tool. I agree with what you're saying here but I would use the word "intuition" rather than "emotion" (this, however, is semantic--and my way is probably nonstandard too, at least if you use Jung/MBTI as standard).

But my point was that some emotional force or another underlies every human action. Therefore the whole idea of being a human being who is motivated entirely by logic is impossible. Logic is a tool, not a power source.

Something gets Spock out of bed in the morning, and it's not logic.

"It does not rise to the level of "logical" unless it is irrefutable".

A logical statement based on the true meaning of what logic is. But who has determined what logic stands for? Logic, surely, can only be a manmade 'concept', rendering it universally unacceptable (like most manmade things, it is created to work for us, moulded into our shape for our own use). Do you agree?

"It", rising to the level of 'logical' means that the 'level of logical' has to be determined, this being exactly what I spoke about in my other responses (and the opener): Who defines 'logic'? Is it not illogical to suppose that logic exists, knowing that it renders all other options completely invalid/void because of its own self-given righteousness? Logic may well state that A + B = C but sometimes in life, as has been discussed just above and with which I am coming to accept and agree, it is rather emotion and feeling which leads us to the 'correct' answer.

It seems that, in discussing the potential flawed concept of 'logic', that we have stumbled across a new question of ponderation:

What is the value of 'correctness'?

It seems also, in hindsight, that my opening gambit shoud have been:

"What value is logic's absolute truth if 'correctness' is, like beauty, only what sees the eye of the beholder".

How interesting...

reply to post by DB340

Surely the mere fact of logic's own existence means that a logical ideology exists

This almost reads as an oxymoron. Ideology can sometimes be very illogical.

When there is said to be only one logical answer, and a myriad of incorrect answers, this makes an overwhelming possibility of said premise to become false. It's like a math equation, 2+2=4, where only one answer can possibly be correct. This means that this equation therefore has the potential to be false. It is from these sorts of militant logical objectives that we find possible wrong answers or fallacies.

In personal objectivity and opinion we find similarities with each other and this is a good thing, there are no right nor wrong answers. Finding common interests and opinions with each other gives us a feeling of being in good company. In reality there are very few things that can actually be wrong. Math is one of them and any question that searches for specific logical objectives is another.

Opinions can not be false, they may appear very odd but in the end they are simply opinions. Faith and belief can not be false neither until one attempts to impose these beliefs upon another. All of our sensory perceptions are not false, they can be proven wrong yet this is how we perceive the world and is therefore true from our point of view. From this direction there remains little that can actually be false, unless we are looking from a logical perspective in which everything can be proven false.

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.

I concur yet I do not feel threatened by the desire of other people to hold onto the idea of logic, actually I do this as well. Truth can be hidden in knowledge and can only be found through understanding.

What kind of logic would lead to an incorrect answer?

The illogical questioning of logic leads to an incorrect answer which makes logic, in this way, one of the few things that can actually be false.

reply to post by DB340


I was comparing the usage of a definition.
You wanted to know if it was "logical" to question "logic" or the logic of logic...and I was trying to point out how if you use the definition to question that very definition it is counter-productive.

Originally posted by DB340
It seems also, in hindsight, that my opening gambit shoud have been:

"What value is logic's absolute truth if 'correctness' is, like beauty, only what sees the eye of the beholder".

logic's object (in the case of the way you are using it as things "logical") is to analyze reason, and to draw its conclusions on the basis of "circumstantial evidence and prior conclusions", rather than simply taking things at face value or direct appearances.

Now if you're suggesting that these conclusions have some form of "intellectual beauty", thus swaying "correctness" depending on its presentation, then I wouldn't disagree, only because I think one's sense of understanding is always subjective.

also this

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

Originally posted by DB340


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?

Logic is a form.

You can have a logical but invalid, (untrue) conclusion if your premises are not true. What comes out of the form of logic is only as true as what is put into the form of logic.

just because it is logical does not mean it is correct or true, but that it makes sense based off if the premise is accurate.

reply to post by juveous

I was comparing the usage of a definition.
You wanted to know if it was "logical" to question "logic" or the logic of logic...and I was trying to point out how if you use the definition to question that very definition it is counter-productive.

Ah, yes. Using the ambiguity of a word and its specific definition to show a contradiction in that same word. This is indeed a fallacy yet try and use all words in your daily communication as they are truly defined. There will be many times that you'll be reminded how much we all take words for granted. The philosophical aspect of the scientific method is unavoidable.


ADD;

one's sense of understanding is always subjective.

Well put.

reply to post by DB340


All logic is based on emotions and all emotions are logical. Real logic is not of this existance, so unless you want to be a computer or rock or force of nature, then human logic is flawed when it assumes it is logical. In different circumstances logic will change to fit those circumstances after all it is logical to know that circumstances dictate a great part of logic.

Is is logical to question the logic of logic?

Only an illogical creature would question the logic of logic, hence it depends on who asks. So since you asked then the answer is, YES it is logical to question the logic of logic, because humans are very illogical. As you can see it is only logical.

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?

The mere fact that logic exists is an illogical fact, when thought about logically. But I suppose it would be like any duality, one only exists because of the other. Without up we would not have down, and without pain we would not have pleasure.

So it stands to reason that without the illogical we would not have the logical. Ah but without the illogical all would be logical. A conundrum eh!..... And there is were logic differs from all other duality's because without pain, pleasure would not exist, but without illogical the logical would still exist.

So you can say that, all is logical on some scale of things that we do not see and can not grasp, but once in a while we get a glimpse of, and misunderstand it.

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

It is only logical to accept past experiences that have been proven as fact, but excepting without question its conclusion is only logical based on how much we know about this 'logical' adjective, in question. So as you can see the question is not 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?

Logic as we and most people know it is just the sum of all facts and experiences of humanity as far as we know and have seen and experienced. So no logic is not a factual constant, it to changes eventually, and it is only logical to accept that everything changes eventually. The only constant is that there is no constant.

So then the question becomes....Under what premise do you accept it as logical?

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.

Under what premise do you accept it as logical? For there is bound to be more then one logical answer to any given question or assumption.

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.

All that is....is logical to he or she or it, that presumes to know it's conclusion. All logic is but a tool for our use, and everything we create we then must make an excuse for its creation, so as to have a point and reason for its creation. So hence you have a point, and somebody else might have another. So were is the logic in logic when everybody can assume that there logic is logical?

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

Spoken like a illogical creature.

"All logic is based on emotions and all emotions are logical. Real logic is not of this existance, so unless you want to be a computer or rock or force of nature, then human logic is flawed when it assumes it is logical. In different circumstances logic will change to fit those circumstances after all it is logical to know that circumstances dictate a great part of logic".

Quite a forward statement. I never considered how logic is based on emotions. Is a calculator emotional, or does it simply provide us with the logical, absolute answer? I believe the latter is true. You speak of "human logic". What other logic exists? Initially, logic was understood to be one absolute path, but now we speak of emotion and variable logic to fit our own ideal. This in itself destroys the true nature of logic, thus rendering the perfect logic null and void.

You later speak about logic existing because of its 'negative pair', non-logic (duality). "So it stands to reason that without the illogical we would not have the logical. Ah but without the illogical all would be logical." If I bring these two concepts together; emotional logic and duality, we can see that 'pure logic', the absolute perfect truth, has no place. It seems we have destroyed the existance of logic, which I already put forward as a manmade ideology made for our own satisfaction, and created a more refined concept of 'logic', that of emotional logic.

I fear that, once emotions are involved, we no longer have pure logic, but a warped and thwarted, biased modification of what a pure logic would have been. This renders the use of the word 'logic' completely illogical in our world.

"Logic, as we and most people know it, is just the sum of all facts and experiences of humanity".

This further supports my comments of logic being a manmade creation. If something is manmade, it cannot universally be accepted since it is completely biased. So, to make it clearer, logic in itself, as a universal constant, might well exist but our 'version' of logic is flawed because it involves emotion. Logic based upon emotion is illogical because it is biased and interpreted differently; thus, 1+1 = 3 for some people because that is how their views of the world are.

I have thus identified an emotional logic and a universal constant of logic; the latter of which we have no idea about for reasons stated above.

"So no, logic is not a factual constant, it too changes eventually and it is only logical to accept that everything changes eventually. The only constant is that there is no constant".

This supports my comments above re. thwarted, manmade logic.

"Spoken like a illogical creature".

Rather, an emotionally logical one.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

no answer to this logic either

Perhaps logic is when we apply numerical or computational concepts to the spoken word, the differences in interpretation owing to the premise that all words should be logical, as opposed to a more dynamic expression of ones interior state, as is the case with truly expressive words, that can only be communicated adequatley when spoken in context, as opposed to trascriptions of ones thoughts.