Logic

Apparently, when you have dig yourself into a ditch, your strategy is to continue digging....

Im stupid, remember? According to you, all I know is shovel and hole. Wouldnt it be illogical for you to assume id do anything else besides dig?

Rationality has been around longer than you might think, and is responsible for most if not all of humanities survival and prospering.

hmm then you said

The fact that humanity spreads upon the face of the Earth as the dominant species is owed almost ENTIRELY to rationality, and Logic

So it seems that the illogical has at least contributed some value to our rise as a dominant species, since the logical cannot account for our ENTIRE progress. (otherwise you wouldnt have said almost) I wonder if you could provide an example of a non logical contribution to the furtherance of the species?

Or did you just misspeak?

I am telling you this because *IT IS THE TRUTH* and every endeavour that has aided humanities rise from the mud centuries ago is owed to Logic.

Sorry above you said 'almost' and now youre saying 'every'. Which is it, I wonder?

Also, this concept of 'humanity' is confusing to me. 'Humanity', to me, is a universal description of the aggregate of individual humans who do exist or who ever have existed. So thats a pretty wide net youve thrown.

Since 'humanity' consists of all humans, are you saying that everything that has advanced each individual human throughout time until present has been done so by 'logic'?

Is it true then that everything that is beneficial to every human always is due to logic and logic alone? (or mostly, im not sure of your stance as you contradicted yourself)

If this is true, and you stick by your position that everything that is gained by humans is done so via logic, then please answer me this, if you would be so kind.

If a mugger steals your wallet, and your wallet has $100 in it, surely the mugger, who is a component of 'humanity', has benefited via his endeavor, and said theft is thus by definition 'logical'... (as is has benefited him) I wonder if you, who are also a human and thus make up part of humanity...i wonder if *you*, (who has surely only lost benefits), are somehow a beneficiary of the muggers 'logical' action?

If you are somehow benefitting from this, as your theory states, I would like to know why this is the case. If you are not, in fact, gaining value from this transaction, which was totally logical from the muggers standpoint, then I wonder how you can assert that logic benefits all of humanity, of which you certainly a part of?

It seems to me that in the above example, logic has *not* benefited all of humanity, even though one human benefited. In fact, if the mugger was acting logically, then you indeed have been the direct victim of 'logic', and thus it could not be said that logic = benefits, as it could as easily be said that logic = getting mugged.

My statements are that humanity OWES most all of it's success as the dominant species to Logic.

Again, if logic is not 100% responsible, what accounts for the benefits achieved not due to logic?

One could say that before humanity achieve sentience, that there was no logic to aid humanity, and this would be true... But it didn't make us the Dominant species, did it?

Again you use the umbrella term of 'humanity'. Again you = dominance with logic.

If logic = dominance, doesnt that make Obama or Bush far more the logical man than you or i?

No, apparently we are not... you are after "Victory"

Very telling and interesting projection here.

and I am trying to educate you on what logic IS and ISN'T

Interesting teaching style. Next time someone under me at work messes up, maybe I shall adopt your style of 'educating' them and berate them with slurs and insults. Ill let ya know how that works out.

Oh and youve made it very clear what you think 'logic' is. Logic = dominance over resources. I get it.

Man, that Stalin sure was logical!

I'd say that you are a bit hasty in everything that you do, including arguments.... you obviously have no clear grasp of what logic and rationality are, and instead of admitting your lack of knowledge, you are just throwing a sort of "pseudo-intellectual" tantrum.

Hmmm i really am baffled, confused and slightly amused by the above hodge podge of ad hominems and wild assertions. I feel that Ive been nothing but receptive to correction and education throughout our interaction. Ive been nothing but civil and open even in the face of your constant barrage of bullying beratement.

If I have no clue at this point, I really must indeed be an idiot. If this is true, I wonder why you have engaged in such a furious debate with me? I mean, I dont make a habit of spotting retards and entering into heated philisophical discussions with them. (cont)

you are just throwing a sort of "pseudo-intellectual" tantrum.

Ill take that as a huge compliment then! Ive always dreamed of rising to the rank of 'pseudo intellectual'!

Rationality is NOT whatever we define it as.... Because it already has a definition.

And its definition is that which aids life. Right, or am I wrong?

One can only judge another's Rational by their actions, because we can't read minds.

*taking notes...* cant read minds. gotcha.

One cannot "Irrationally Sit in a chair" it's just stupid.... Rationality is something that we can only ever objectively perceive by someone else's actions

So if you perceive me sitting in a chair for days on end without food or water, and I die...this cannot be irrational? But that course of action doesnt further my life.

Then why do you keep responding? You are wasing MORE of my time!!!

Hmm if I have wasted your time, and this wasting is not a furtherance to your life, couldnt it be said that responding to me is irrational?

I respond because its kinda fun.

Rationality: 1. The state of having good sense and sound judgment 2. the quality of being consistent with or based on logic 3. consistent with or based on or using reason

hmmm i see nothing here about the acquisition of resources or dominance. It would seem that one could be totally rational according to the above and still be the victim of a mugging.

Is it possible to be totally rational and not dominate? Is domination just one possible effect of rationality? If so, that would falsify your logic = dominance theory.

Okay.... now tell me HOW you can judge George Bush as being Rational, or Irrational, if you do not perceive him actually DOING anything... Go ahead... answer the question.

I perceive him signing a bunch of papers that result in a million+ deaths. I see him writing books and selling out speaking engagements. I see he has a library named after him. I see he has propagated 2 very viable offspring. By your definition, he is incredibly dominant and successful. Thus he must owe his dominating success to logic.

Rational for the individuals motivations, perhaps.... Rational for the society? Or their Victims? No, not in the slightest....

So your definition of rational is that which benefits 'society'? What is this 'society' you speak of? Do the aggressors somehow not make up a part of 'society'? If yes, then your theory fails as their logic has not universally benefited all humans. If no, the aggressor is not a part of 'society', then you you have subdivided 'humanity' and 'society' into subgroups, for who logic either aids or harms. If this is so then it *cannot* be said that logic is that which aids humanity. (as humanity is an arbitrary and invalid term that serves no useful description in this case)

If I am a human and thus part of 'humanity', and you are also human and belong to the same category, how can it be said that my robbing you is 'aiding humanity'? For sure it aids *me*, and as you say, this would be logical. But my logical actions come at your expense, and thus logic, in this case, has not aided you, and in fact has harmed you.

Furthermore, if I were to jack you up and gain from it, you would have no moral grounds upon which to condemn me, as by your definition, i was acting exactly as I should have been - logically.

Furthermore, Since any dominance or resource gain that one might achieve is based upon the foundation of cooperative society, These tactics are viewed in that light as illogical, and irrational.

When you start throwing around conceptual fictions like 'society' willy nilly, I start to doubt how rigorous youve been in your pursuit for truth, or even if youve cracked Atlas Shrugged.

You see youve laid down a universal rule that states that all the advances humans is the rational. Imaginary concepts like 'society' and its values have no bearing on objective truth, in the same way no country could logically declare 2+2=5. Conceptual groupings are *irrelevant* as a yardstick when measuring truth. (cont)

reply to post by NewlyAwakened



In my illogical view, yours was the most logical answer to this dilemma.

You are looking at rational all wrong... it is not some "Inherent Trait" that people posses, like having internal organs... it is not a noun. It is an adjective in this sense, and is a description of something... not a thing itself.

You must think Im even stupider than I thought if you feel the need to explain the above.

Do you gain a feeling of dominance picking on your intellectual inferiors? I guess at least youre consistent.

You are trying to say that "Logic" "Says" that murder is good.... it's childish.

hmm well i suppose since you insulted me it must be true...do you debate with children often, or what?

Sorry, just applying your principle to an example. If I plot some murderous scheme against a wealthy man, and somehow get all his money in doing so, wouldnt that be super logical of me?

First off, Murder is not a "Tactic"

Geez, and all this time I thought military tactics referred to overwhelming tickle fights. So just to be clear, it can never be to ones tactical advantage to kill another human being?

Secondly.... seriously, what are you smoking?

Only the good stuff bro.

And the American Economy is basically breaking down because of his "Irrational" decisions.

And last I heard he and his extended family and cronies own massive, militarized estates in Peru. So hes doing alright, I think.

Hey, if you want to go to jail... just go there, ask them to lock you up... you don't need to kill people.

Are you in the habit of not answering someones direct question?

No, just because someone communicates someone, doesn't mean that WHAT they communicate is Logical, it MEANS that they are using LOGICAL and RATIONAL means to communicate their Irrational Drivel, much as you are now.

Right. Of course. So you agree that religion, while communicated via logic, is itself illogical?

Please explain its astounding success throughout human history then, please. Or is Vatican city not successful, in your opinion?

It would seem that irrational thought systems, like church and state, are so successful that they have literally shaped the course of human history and are major contributing factors that have culminated even into this conversation were having now. Astounding and seemingly everlasting success.

So tell me, is the Pope logical or illogical, in your estimation?

Your position is that Irrationality is bennificial, and you gave Organized Religion as an exmaple... I Refuted your claim, by trying to explain to you that the *ORGANIZED* part of "Organized Religion* *IS* rational.... and, I might add, what is the ONLY PART of religion that is responsible for any GOOD that Organized Religion has done.

The pope represents the ultimate example of organized religion in the world today. Thus the pope, and the organization he represents, must logically contribute to humanity in some meaningful way just by the numbers.

Tell me, what benefits do the catholic church impart unto humanity?

Hence, Communication, and Organization, which you are calling "Irrational" because it is Religious people doing the organizing, and you are still completely oblivious to the fact that WHAT they are doing is still a rational ACT.

Theres a blue while simultaneously green dragon the lives in the center of the sun and also on the dark side of the moon, at the same time. This dragon is omnipotent and omnipresent, it is both alive and dead and it shoots bubblegum out of its mouth. Im organizing a cult, er group to worship this invisible dragon. Since ive communicated this to you via logically agreed upon symbols, does this make my statement logical as a whole? If I gain a following, does it follow that since I said pretty words in a recognizable fashion, and people were able to decipher them, does their joining my cult then become rational, if we had meet ups and organized events and the like?

In short, of *friggin course* our mode of communication must rely on objectively defined symbols. This is true a priori. It is implied and accepted to be true via our very 'debate'. THIS IS NOT WHAT WERE TALKING ABOUT.

The topic is the validity and rationality of concepts and their relationship to success and resource acquisition, That Bush speaks in the english language does not make the content of *what he says* logical or valid. That i tell you in Arabic that 2+2=5, while communicable, does not validate my equation.

This is why you are Mr. Scarecrow.... because your only argumentative strategy is a complete misrepresentation of my position, so that you can "Pretend" that my argument is as ridiculous as those that you "Pretend" that I am making. So, if you are Quite done twisting my words to suit your own childish sense of superiority.... Perhapse we can continue?

The words people use to insult others are usually the words that have hurt them most.

You see what happened there? You state that irrational concepts helped aid humanity..... you cite Thieves as an example. I state that they steal out of rational goals... Rational to themselves, perhaps not rational in the mindset of society. So when you retort with "Obviously they planned...." you are IMPLYING RATIONALITY. You have flipped 180 degrees in the course of *2* posts....

Again with this fictional entity you give attributes to called society. I suppose youre qualified to speak for this 'society', and all of its component members? What about a society of thieves?

So any planned action = rational and rational must = good?

Iraq 2 was planned many years in advance, very rationally. It also enriched certain segments of 'society' in unimaginable ways, providing benefit to not only the actors themselves, but intergenerationally to their offspring. If rationality = benefit and benefit = good, I suppose the slaughter of over a million innocents is perfectly logical and rational, and thus morally justifiable, in your view, since war profiteers, who make up a part of 'society', have made an absolute killing from the war?

and yes I know GWB2 signed the orders in english, and commands were executed via language and symbols, but is their *content* logical?

Yeah, I'm done with you.

Class dismissed. And as usual, the prof doesnt know what the sh*t hes talking about heheheh~

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


Just dropping through and noticed youre conspicuously absent from the thread and have no rebuttal. Thus, since you have defined me as 'irrational', and you have also accepted defeat implicitly by fleeing from the field, I guess 'team irrational' wins again!

Well, that was interesting!

From my original question of is it logical to question logic, we have had quite a rollercoaster of a ride! It has now well and truly been ridden out, no!?

Of course, the purpose of my question was to demonstrate that, although it is not correct to question something by using its own implied incorrectness to justify itself, the point was still understood.

I think, however, after reading everything, that logic is not natural phenomena, but manmade to help us understand what is around us. Our brains are linear, and logic is linear. The world is full of dimensions and perspectives and irregularities where logic does not work as we wish it to. Thus, something is deemed 'illogical', even though in reality it is probably very logical, but in its own definition of 'logic', which is not linear as we use it, but appropriately suited to whatever it may be (and that which we will probably never understand as linear beings).

It is thus not illogical (from our linear perspective) to question the logic of logic because we 'invented' it (or realised it, let's say), so logic for us is linear and can thus be questioned as a 1+1 = 2. But, unfortunately, the world does not work in that way (nor do people, sometimes, it seems!) so logic as we know it, must be questioned because it is not the answer or way to acquiring some kind of 'almighty' knowledge.

See you in the next thread

From my original question of is it logical to question logic, we have had quite a rollercoaster of a ride! It has now well and truly been ridden out, no!?

Perhaps in this thread. But I wouldnt be so hasty as to assume weve wrapped up this most core and critical aspect of human thought in a neat little bow in our one little conversation!

Adhere to the methodology of persistent curiosity, and dont cling to conclusions and define yourself by them, imo.

Of course, the purpose of my question was to demonstrate that, although it is not correct to question something by using its own implied incorrectness to justify itself, the point was still understood.

The fundamentals of reality are true a priori, that is they exist ontologically as rules of existence, and these fundamentals precede human thought or perception. Gravity existed prior to Newtons first real stab at codifying these pre-existing rules.

I think, however, after reading everything, that logic is not natural phenomena, but manmade to help us understand what is around us.

Of course, like math or the scientific method.

The world is full of dimensions and perspectives and irregularities where logic does not work as we wish it to.

Does this indicate to you a fundamental flaw in logic itself, or does it suggest an inherent randomness and unpredictability in the rules of existence? Or do these paradoxes you site simply escape our ability to logically understand them, at this point?

Thus, something is deemed 'illogical', even though in reality it is probably very logical, but in its own definition of 'logic', which is not linear as we use it, but appropriately suited to whatever it may be (and that which we will probably never understand as linear beings).

To quote the smokey 'godess' of reason herself, Ayn Rand 'if you discover a contradiction in your thinking, check your premises. One or both of them is wrong.'

Is logic flawed, or is your application of logic flawed?

It is thus not illogical (from our linear perspective) to question the logic of logic because we 'invented' it (or realised it, let's say), so logic for us is linear and can thus be questioned as a 1+1 = 2. But, unfortunately, the world does not work in that way

Can you provide an example, if youre not totally done with this thread, in which the rules of logic are broken?

(nor do people, sometimes, it seems!) so logic as we know it, must be questioned because it is not the answer or way to acquiring some kind of 'almighty' knowledge.

So youve used logic to set aside the logical process as the highest form of truth acquisition. Can you show us a better way of achieving valid truths?

Great talk btw.

reply to post by DB340


Logic itself can't be flawed, for it is mearly a word that is an attempt to embody a set of mental procedures used in the hope of reaching the best possible solution or most likely outcome or what have you.

Now, one's own application of logic can indeed be flawed, and one's own logic can be weaker than that of another's, just as any part of a man can be weaker than that of others. But logic itself is nothing we simply choose to adopt or shun; it is something present in every man (or other sentient beings, I suppose) whether it be weak or strong in the numerous individuals, whether they be aware of it or not. Even those who allow emotion to hold dominion over there logic, or those who choose to ignore the nastiness in the world and so poison their logic with ignorance, even they still posses logic.

So, to put it all simply, I do believe that logic is present from birth and so it can be no more imperfect than the need to poop, and everybody poops. It is nature, my friend, and what else can we call truly perfect, but nature? Logic is a tool which naturally developed in the minds of man and one which we also follow in a natural attempt to preserve our own survival,thus; it is perfect in itself. What is truly abnormal and self-defeating is to deny logic.

Nice responses.

Neo: I wish I could answer your questions but my mind is spinning. I honestly think that, before starting my next thread discussion, I can only see (at this point) that logic is a humanistic 'device' that we use to understand our environment. 'Breaking' this logic is not something 'we' can do, but rather, is a passive way of saying that our logi is flawed.

For example, the recent particle accelerator which appears to have sent a particular particle (I forget which, but no doubt you're familiar with the story) faster than light. In other words, it arrived before light would (who are we to say nothing can go faster than light? That's logical, right?).

This 'logic' is 'our' logic which has been broken, so if a particle of the natural world (which appears illogical to us but in itself, logical beyond our comprehension - if that doesn't confuse you, I don't know what will) decides to go faster than light and arrive faster than light, it must have done so by following some kind of quantum logic. Human logic is thus broken which, if I'm not mistaken, would 'prove' that our logic is only good enough for our feable, mortal minds and nowhere near this so-called (by me!) quantum logic... meaning that human logic is not the correct logic, it's just a mis/ill-placed environmental template of understanding and only over time, can we modify this incorrect logic (because it's only logical to us, not the 'absolute logic' I mentioned previously in the thread) and bring it into line with absolute logic.

Perhaps then, we will have utter control and perspective of our universe?

Thanks for the responses.

It's definitely logical to question your own logic. This is because what is logical or illogical is all subjective. I can't understand the logic of many things other people do, but I totally understand the logic of what I, myself, do. Also, my own logic evolves with the life I am living so is only logical in the context of my own experiences and circumstances.

In the end, true logic is close to impossible for humans. We are, by nature, emotional beings.

reply to post by DB340


I've been staying away from this one - I think - but I do want to make this one statement concerning the usefulness of logic.

There is the black and white logic (straight up "yes/no") that is best depicted by Boolean Logic, and then there is the conditional logic ("yes/no" depending on a range of contributing factors) best depicted by Set Logic. These are very different forms of logic. Math is basically playing with Set Logic, and adjusting the contributing factors to witness their impact on a defined premise. Boolean Logic is the AND/OR/NAND/NOR gate configurations that set the theoretical basis of computer science. Each of these fundamental approaches to logic branch off into a myriad of more siloed approaches, with Set Logic definitely logging the best numbers when it comes to relative shadings - including the kind of extremely relative stuff that a lot of people on this board struggle with.

Reality consists of both forms of logic, with contextual environments defined by the contributing factors that rule the Set Logic that - in turn - promote and enforce what's emerged as the conditional "yes" and the conditional "no". Depending on the primitive pervasiveness of the factors involved, this logic can be iron fisted, and nearly as immutable as the definitive "Boolean style" logic that sets the common table for all contextual environments, and ensures that something is always "yes" or "no", to ensure physical stability, reliability and progressive development.

The impetus for this order is the imperative "first, survive" that everything that exists serves in its own non-intelligent, non-aware manner. Survival is the carrot and the stick (an apt metaphor, but don't get confused thinking that I'm declaring any of this to be life or intelligent life - it's not). Without this stable basis, nothing would exist at all. Certainly not intelligent consciousness.

reply to post by DB340


NorEaster gave a better reply than I could muster but i love your questions and theyve certainly taxed my brain! I think what your post is grappling with is a paradox, to which the answer is not at all obvious, thus the need for philosophy and logic.

To paraphrase Rand "if you find a contradiction or paradox in your thinking, check your premises. One, or both of them are wrong."

And if youre really into this topic like it seems you are, pick up Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead. Who better to learn the simple beauty of logic from than the smokey 'godess' (figurative of course~) of logic herself?

EDIT: just re-read my above post and realized i pulled out the same Rand quote twice hehehe~ I guess my subconscious likes to repeat itself!)

This is because what is logical or illogical is all subjective.

So the reasoning that this statement rests upon is also subjective, or whatever one wants it to be?

I dont understand. If everything is subjective, does this include your own words?

I can't understand the logic of many things other people do, but I totally understand the logic of what I, myself, do.

So that you cannot read the minds of others invalidates logic?

Also, my own logic evolves with the life I am living so is only logical in the context of my own experiences and circumstances.

I think you might misunderstand logic if you think it is a tool only used to describe ones own, subjective experience. I dont mean that insultingly, i just genuinely think you may be misusing or misunderstanding the term, which is no crime.

In the end, true logic is close to impossible for humans. We are, by nature, emotional beings.

Is the equation A = A, or 2+2=4 not 'true logic', in your understanding?

reply to post by Neo_Serf


I shall check out the book - thanks

To be honest, I'm logic'ed out! I'll soak this up for a while and when a lightbulb illuminates, shall report back!

On to a new discussion!

Originally posted by DB340
reply to post by Neo_Serf

 

I shall check out the book - thanks

To be honest, I'm logic'ed out! I'll soak this up for a while and when a lightbulb illuminates, shall report back!

On to a new discussion!

/wave~~~

Originally posted by DB340
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?

Considering it requires logic to question, to question logic then is illogical.

Logic is the Source of Everything.

Ribbit

reply to post by Neo_Serf

Im stupid, remember?

The list of evidence is certainly mounting.

Rationality has been around longer than you might think, and is responsible for most if not all of humanities survival and prospering.

hmm then you said

The fact that humanity spreads upon the face of the Earth as the dominant species is owed almost ENTIRELY to rationality, and Logic

So it seems that the illogical has at least contributed some value to our rise as a dominant species, since the logical cannot account for our ENTIRE progress. (otherwise you wouldnt have said almost) I wonder if you could provide an example of a non logical contribution to the furtherance of the species? Or did you just misspeak?

I don't misspeak... you merely mishear, and then attempt to strawman your way out of your own ignorance of logic and rationality.

I am telling you this because *IT IS THE TRUTH* and every endeavour that has aided humanities rise from the mud centuries ago is owed to Logic.

Sorry above you said 'almost' and now youre saying 'every'. Which is it, I wonder?

/sigh....

Endeavor (noun):An attempt to achieve a goal

I can't believe that I am actually continuing this discussion with you...

You clearly don't understand most of the words that are being exchanged here, and I would posit that this may be deliberately.

Also, this concept of 'humanity' is confusing to me. 'Humanity', to me, is a universal description of the aggregate of individual humans who do exist or who ever have existed. So thats a pretty wide net youve thrown.

So?

Since 'humanity' consists of all humans, are you saying that everything that has advanced each individual human throughout time until present has been done so by 'logic'?

Is that what I said?

Or is that merely what your inability to understand communication has led you to believe?

Is it true then that everything that is beneficial to every human always is due to logic and logic alone? (or mostly, im not sure of your stance as you contradicted yourself)

No, you simply don't understand what I am saying, because you have a poor grasp of logic, rational, and communication.

your position that everything that is gained by humans is done so via logic

This is a strawman Fallacy.

This is why I stopped arguing with you, because you do not know how to argue.

You are arguing against a fantasy that you have concocted in your imagination, that merely happens to share my avatar.

You are not responding to my actual words, points, or arguments.

You are not listening to the words that I am saying, you are making things up, and accusing me of holding these fallacies as my opinion, or position.

You are not arguing, you do not know what logic is.

Therefore, Your entire thread, decrying Logic, has no merit in reality, since you yourself do not know what LOGIC *IS*.

This is a shame and a travesty of rational discourse that you continue to argue the exact same points that I have already proven are fallacious, and continue to use strawman tactics, and red herring arguments to further your position.

You sir, are a POOR arguer, and have no grasp of the CONCEPT of logic.

It seems to me that in the above example, logic has *not* benefited all of humanity, even though one human benefited.

And you continue to argue against a position that you falsely claim that I hold, instead of arguing against my actual position.

Again, if logic is not 100% responsible, what accounts for the benefits achieved not due to logic?

Again, this is a strawman argument.

Again you use the umbrella term of 'humanity'. Again you = dominance with logic.

If logic = dominance, doesnt that make Obama or Bush far more the logical man than you or i?

And this is a fallacious argument with no substance or merit.

Very telling and interesting projection here.

Really? In what way?

Go on... tell us!

Oh and youve made it very clear what you think 'logic' is. Logic = dominance over resources. I get it.

And again with the strawman tactics.

Logic is not dominance.

Logic can sometimes afford dominance but it is not automatic, or even implicit.

Your continued ignorance on the subject is stifling, actually.

...I feel...

And that's the problem... you are not thinking, you are feeling your way through this discussion, and it shows.

If I have no clue at this point, I really must indeed be an idiot.

That's why I stopped arguing with you the first time.

And its definition is that which aids life. Right, or am I wrong?

You are wrong, of course.

reply to post by Neo_Serf

So if you perceive me sitting in a chair for days on end without food or water, and I die...this cannot be irrational? But that course of action doesnt further my life.

Again you are assuming that you know what logic means, or what I mean when I say logic (The two are the same, you grasp neither)

You have presupposed that my (THE) definition of logic is:

YOU SAID:
And its definition is that which aids life. Right, or am I wrong?

And now you are arguing against that definition, despite the fact that....

A. I do not agree with it

B. That is not my position

C. It is wrong.

Hmm if I have wasted your time, and this wasting is not a furtherance to your life, couldnt it be said that responding to me is irrational?

That depends totally on what my motivation is, doesn't it?

mmm i see nothing here about the acquisition of resources or dominance.

That is because you threw that definition in there as a straw man argument.... and it's not the definition of the word at all.

You really don't understand logic, do you?

It would seem that one could be totally rational according to the above and still be the victim of a mugging.

And this statement has nothing to do with anything.

/sigh

Is it possible to be totally rational and not dominate?

Yes, it is.

Is domination just one possible effect of rationality?

IT is, yes.

If so, that would falsify your logic = dominance theory.

And again with the strawman fallacy.

Where did I state that logic is dominance?

Go ahead, quote me, I dare you.

I perceive him signing a bunch of papers that result in a million+ deaths. I see him writing books and selling out speaking engagements. I see he has a library named after him. I see he has propagated 2 very viable offspring. By your definition, he is incredibly dominant and successful.

I agree that he is financially successful, and had at one time great power.

Thus he must owe his dominating success to logic.

And there is that strawman argument again.

Look, Stop using the word "Logic", because every time you use it, you degrade its meaning, because you don't comprehend it.

So your definition of rational is that which benefits 'society'?

No.

What is this 'society' you speak of?

The aggregate of humans cooperating for mutual protection, defence, trade, self betterment, etcetera...

Do the aggressors somehow not make up a part of 'society'?

Yes, they do, but they harm it with their predations.

If yes, then your theory fails as their logic has not universally benefited all humans.

Again, you are citing a strawman argument that I never made.

You are doing this on purpose.

Stop it.

If no, the aggressor is not a part of 'society', then you you have subdivided 'humanity' and 'society' into subgroups, for who logic either aids or harms. If this is so then it *cannot* be said that logic is that which aids humanity.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and actually isn't even a point or argument.

(as humanity is an arbitrary and invalid term that serves no useful description in this case)

How so?

If I am a human and thus part of 'humanity', and you are also human and belong to the same category, how can it be said that my robbing you is 'aiding humanity'?

I don't know.... YOU are the one saying it, after all.

For sure it aids *me*, and as you say, this would be logical. But my logical actions come at your expense, and thus logic, in this case, has not aided you, and in fact has harmed you.

Yes, this is true.

Furthermore, if I were to jack you up and gain from it, you would have no moral grounds upon which to condemn me, as by your definition, i was acting exactly as I should have been - logically.

And this is a moronic statement.

You are violating my rights by stealing from me, therefore, logically, as reciprocation for your transgression, I could steal from you and we would be even.

You do not understand what logic is, and are arguing against what you "Feel" that it is.... This entire thread is merely the proof of your own ignorance of the subject matter of your own thread.

When you start throwing around conceptual fictions like 'society' willy nilly, I start to doubt how rigorous youve been in your pursuit for truth, or even if youve cracked Atlas Shrugged.

Society is not a conceptual fiction... it is humanity collectively cooperating for the benefit of all.

Society (Noun): The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community

reply to post by Neo_Serf

You see youve laid down a universal rule that states that all the advances humans is the rational.

I have not.

Imaginary concepts like 'society' and its values have no bearing on objective truth,

They are the subject of discussion.

in the same way no country could logically declare 2+2=5.

But that is what you are trying to do.

Conceptual groupings are *irrelevant* as a yardstick when measuring truth. (cont)

You don't even know what you are saying, do you?

You must think Im even stupider than I thought if you feel the need to explain the above.

Why?

We have already seen that you lack a fundamental understanding of many of the words that you are bantering about.... why should it come as a surprise when I define words in the thread to make sure that you know how to use them properly?

Do you gain a feeling of dominance picking on your intellectual inferiors? I guess at least youre consistent.

I don't really have any feelings about stepping on ants, honestly... one way or the other.

hmm well i suppose since you insulted me it must be true...do you debate with children often, or what?

Are you a child?

Sorry, just applying your principle to an example. If I plot some murderous scheme against a wealthy man, and somehow get all his money in doing so, wouldnt that be super logical of me?

/sigh

That would be immoral of you.

No, murder is a tactic used to achieve a strategy of dominance. Sorry for being so stupid.

First off, Murder is not a "Tactic"

Geez, and all this time I thought military tactics referred to overwhelming tickle fights. So just to be clear, it can never be to ones tactical advantage to kill another human being?

/sigh

Tactic (noun): An action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end

If you are arguing that Murder is logical, then you must also state the end GOAL of that murder.

In some instances, yes... Murder can be a logical and successful TACTIC to achieving certain ends, such as war.

However, Murder for the sake of murder is not a tactic, because the murder itself is the End Goal, so the PLAN end EXECUTION of the murder *IS* the tactic, and not the murder itself.

Comprende?

And last I heard he and his extended family and cronies own massive, militarized estates in Peru. So hes doing alright, I think.

Yeah... this is true... but he has made enemies of a large portion of the population, hasn't he?

And if you value your freedom, than it would be *ILLOGICAL* to engage in activity such as mass murder....

And if I dont value freedom? Would the opposite be true and logical?

Hey, if you want to go to jail... just go there, ask them to lock you up... you don't need to kill people.

Are you in the habit of not answering someones direct question?

Why do you want to continue to equate Logic with Murder?

Right. Of course. So you agree that religion, while communicated via logic, is itself illogical?

There is really no way of knowing that, actually.

The existence of god is beyond the realm of the observable universe, and so we can't really use logic to say what is true or fake about it.

Certain PARTS of religion may be able to be falsified, but the central tenants of a "Creator God" or whatever can never be empirically tested.

Please explain its astounding success throughout human history then, please. Or is Vatican city not successful, in your opinion?

Why?

What would the point of that be?

It would seem that irrational thought systems, like church and state, are so successful that they have literally shaped the course of human history and are major contributing factors that have culminated even into this conversation were having now. Astounding and seemingly everlasting success.

We don't know if religion is logical or illogical.

Your point is irrelevant.

So tell me, is the Pope logical or illogical, in your estimation?

Are you asking me if the POPE is logical? if his position is logical? if the church is logical? if the word "Pope" is logical? if faith or belief are logical?

Or all of the above?

Just to let you know, I've never met the pope himself, so I really can't say whether he is logical or not.

The pope represents the ultimate example of organized religion in the world today. Thus the pope, and the organization he represents, must logically contribute to humanity in some meaningful way just by the numbers.

Tell me, what benefits do the catholic church impart unto humanity?

Well, they make people feel good...

But the point is irrelevant, because you can't prove or disprove the existence of god.