|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 21, 2022 20:08:35 GMT
Triangle told me that each culture has its own logic. I asked him if that was true, then by which logic anyone could realize there were more, than one logic? So, I want us y'all, what do you think abou it. Whether or not logic is one and the only? Or we've got plenty of logics? My argument is that there is only one logic, and that logic is most general. If we suppose the opposite, that there are more, than one logic, then it can be asked further, how have we come to this general conclusion from a perspective of a certain local logic?
|
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 22, 2022 8:05:34 GMT
There are many different logics this could be observed when one person sees another person being completely illogical and upon pointing this out that person says to them that that is the most illogical thing they've ever heard because they are being completely logical
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 22, 2022 8:47:41 GMT
There are many different logics this could be observed when one person sees another person being completely illogical and upon pointing this out that person says to them that that is the most illogical thing they've ever heard because they are being completely logical Let's imagine one (logocal, or shortly the L) persons speaking to another one (illogical, or shortly the Il), what may we've got: The L: Hi! The Il: Hi, there! The L: Are you illogical? The Il: Who told you that? The L: Well, I don't know. It's by default. The Il: Really? And who's that by default? The L: He is... well, this is true. Just nevermind. This is true. Accept it. The Il: !!?? If you're telling me that I am illogical, that how this suppose gonna happen? The L: You see! You are illogical! The Il: I don't think so. Each my conclusion was made according to logic. I'd recommend you to go and check some logical textbooks firstly. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 22, 2022 8:55:38 GMT
There are many different logics this could be observed when one person sees another person being completely illogical and upon pointing this out that person says to them that that is the most illogical thing they've ever heard because they are being completely logical There might be another situation. Let's imagine there are only logical and illogical people. So, in a certain number of people 1/2 are logical, and 1/2 are illogical (the proportion might be different). Then how those people would decide who's who? To do it, there must be some overrules, or meta-rules, or the most general rules to conclude it. Otherewise we might have this type of situation: - you're illogical! - no, it's you! - no, it is you! - it's you, it's you, it's you, it's you.... And the speech between them wouldn't be different, than a children's talk. To conclude anything people must be agree on something the rules of logic requires it. The simplest example of conclusion is this one: All men are mortal Socrates is a man Socrates is a mortalIf among the premises (the first two claims) there are no positive claims, then there cannot be any conclusion. All dogs are not flying A fly is not a dog
???
And the same with any other ones. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Mar 22, 2022 15:35:51 GMT
there is only one type of logic
but there are various degrees of accuracy
being a bit inaccurate can often save time
and thus can be paradoxically more effective
despite being less real
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 24, 2022 21:01:37 GMT
Triangle told me that each culture has its own logic. I asked him if that was true, then by which logic anyone could realize there were more, than one logic? So, I want us y'all, what do you think abou it. Whether or not logic is one and the only? Or we've got plenty of logics? My argument is that there is only one logic, and that logic is most general. If we suppose the opposite, that there are more, than one logic, then it can be asked further, how have we come to this general conclusion from a perspective of a certain local logic? The question of "one x or many x" boils down to a question of "the one and the many" and can be best expressed through the example of (a) line(s). ._._. observes a total of 3 lines: the 2 lines between each set of points and the 1 line between each end point. The 2 lines result in 1 line and the 1 line result in the 2 lines which compose it. There are both 1 line and 2 lines for a total of 3 lines. This relegates itself to the question of "unity and multiplicity" in the respect one phenomenon, unity or multiplicity respectively, results in the complete opposite. Their totality is 1 thing thus resulting in "unity" prevailing; there contradictory nature of either/or is also 2 things thus resulting in "multiplicity" prevailing. Under these terms "unity" and "multiplicity" comprise each other: 1. What is unified exists through a series of parts, ie "multiplicity". 2. What is multiple exists through the same quality individuality all parts share, ie "unity". This mutual comprisal results in "unity" and "multiplicity" equivocating in such a manner that there respective meanings are null and void thus resulting in "formlessness" as the fundamental quality of being. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 25, 2022 2:03:15 GMT
There are many different logics this could be observed when one person sees another person being completely illogical and upon pointing this out that person says to them that that is the most illogical thing they've ever heard because they are being completely logical There might be another situation. Let's imagine there are only logical and illogical people. So, in a certain number of people 1/2 are logical, and 1/2 are illogical (the proportion might be different). Then how those people would decide who's who? To do it, there must be some overrules, or meta-rules, or the most general rules to conclude it. Otherewise we might have this type of situation: - you're illogical! - no, it's you! - no, it is you! - it's you, it's you, it's you, it's you.... And the speech between them wouldn't be different, than a children's talk. To conclude anything people must be agree on something the rules of logic requires it. The simplest example of conclusion is this one: All men are mortal Socrates is a man Socrates is a mortalIf among the premises (the first two claims) there are no positive claims, then there cannot be any conclusion. All dogs are not flying A fly is not a dog
???
And the same with any other ones. So I feel like you're trying to point out the problem that if there isn't a fundamental opinion that is higher than mortal man's then nothing can get accomplished and I agree that if it's just my opinion against your opinion we're going to butt heads and not get anywhere and that if logic is necessary for any thing to get accomplished in that situation it would need to come from a higher source than just the opinion of people, however Logic is made by people in fact what is decided on logical and illogical is silly based on the majority vote so if the majority of people agree that a certain thing or way or action is logical then it is officially speaking logical and once that vote changes so does the official statement on it being logical as well Now obviously we don't literally vote on these things but the majority does rule because it eventually becomes literal law and when push comes to shut of what really counts in court is a specific way because the majority has ruled it to be that way However all of these opinions on logic are subject to fluctuation with society because it is based off of the people in the society nothing more this is why at one point people used to eat their dinner while watching slaves fight lions and hopefully not get killed and usually when they did they were torn apart and this was an event for the whole family to watch logically today that would be immoral so we don't do it but at one time it was obviously moral and logical. Just like some tribes in the rainforest will voluntarily sacrifice themselves for rituals and it's the logical thing to do to keep tribe safe which in America where the majority rules it to be different than that it's clearly illogical. And there are many many more examples like this Now we tend to when push comes to shove have the same logical opinions on certain things but we also tend to eat the same foods early similar foods we both cook our food we both wear clothes I would hope and we both do very human modern things because well that's just what we do so naturally our morals and opinions and logic are going to mirror each other in one way or another. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 25, 2022 7:58:35 GMT
There might be another situation. Let's imagine there are only logical and illogical people. So, in a certain number of people 1/2 are logical, and 1/2 are illogical (the proportion might be different). Then how those people would decide who's who? To do it, there must be some overrules, or meta-rules, or the most general rules to conclude it. Otherewise we might have this type of situation: - you're illogical! - no, it's you! - no, it is you! - it's you, it's you, it's you, it's you.... And the speech between them wouldn't be different, than a children's talk. To conclude anything people must be agree on something the rules of logic requires it. The simplest example of conclusion is this one: All men are mortal Socrates is a man Socrates is a mortalIf among the premises (the first two claims) there are no positive claims, then there cannot be any conclusion. All dogs are not flying A fly is not a dog
???
And the same with any other ones. So I feel like you're trying to point out the problem that if there isn't a fundamental opinion that is higher than mortal man's then nothing can get accomplished and I agree that if it's just my opinion against your opinion we're going to butt heads and not get anywhere and that if logic is necessary for any thing to get accomplished in that situation it would need to come from a higher source than just the opinion of people, however Logic is made by people in fact what is decided on logical and illogical is silly based on the majority vote so if the majority of people agree that a certain thing or way or action is logical then it is officially speaking logical and once that vote changes so does the official statement on it being logical as well Now obviously we don't literally vote on these things but the majority does rule because it eventually becomes literal law and when push comes to shut of what really counts in court is a specific way because the majority has ruled it to be that way However all of these opinions on logic are subject to fluctuation with society because it is based off of the people in the society nothing more this is why at one point people used to eat their dinner while watching slaves fight lions and hopefully not get killed and usually when they did they were torn apart and this was an event for the whole family to watch logically today that would be immoral so we don't do it but at one time it was obviously moral and logical. Just like some tribes in the rainforest will voluntarily sacrifice themselves for rituals and it's the logical thing to do to keep tribe safe which in America where the majority rules it to be different than that it's clearly illogical. And there are many many more examples like this Now we tend to when push comes to shove have the same logical opinions on certain things but we also tend to eat the same foods early similar foods we both cook our food we both wear clothes I would hope and we both do very human modern things because well that's just what we do so naturally our morals and opinions and logic are going to mirror each other in one way or another. Well, by default I may agree with you. I am also aware of that fact that logic is not something each person on a planet is familiar with. But even this fact doesn't hit the point. Even if an animal doesn't know how to operate premises and get conclusions use logic when it does something. But how? Generalizing it. Only for animals and plants their actions are completely predictable, or can be predictable. For people it might be true, that their actions would be completely predictable; in certain cases, we do predict them. Another thing that doesn't hit the point is that even in your claims about a social side of this question there is a generalization, and, in turn, some common truth. I mean it seems like you're using some premise like: No logic is given a priori
or in other words: Any logic is invented by humans
Such premises are also logical, why? Because you use them to get the conclusion: Any logic is invented by some humans Something invented by a human is not general
Something that is not general is subjective
That certain logic (Eugene is mentioning) is made by some humans
Therefore, that certain logic is subjective
This can show the steps you've been using to get this conclusion. And an important point is that it's impossible to avoid any generalizations. I know you don't like any references to past philosophers, but I think here I can add one of them. Aristotle 2500 years ago explained this saying that either a doctor has only experience how to cure a patient, or he's got something more, than just an experience. That something's more is a prediction, a hypothesis or whatever that is general. And that general knowledge is generalization of your experience, because there's no generalization of experience, we need to do some brainwork to generalize different cases into one conclusion. And that work - is logic. Many human being have been doing this many times during their history. For instance, how to get water, how to make a bow, or how to milk a cow. By this point logic isn't something unnatural, no, it's just rewriting the common truths about our own thoughts, or the inner process of thinking. That |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 25, 2022 16:38:24 GMT
So I feel like you're trying to point out the problem that if there isn't a fundamental opinion that is higher than mortal man's then nothing can get accomplished and I agree that if it's just my opinion against your opinion we're going to butt heads and not get anywhere and that if logic is necessary for any thing to get accomplished in that situation it would need to come from a higher source than just the opinion of people, however Logic is made by people in fact what is decided on logical and illogical is silly based on the majority vote so if the majority of people agree that a certain thing or way or action is logical then it is officially speaking logical and once that vote changes so does the official statement on it being logical as well Now obviously we don't literally vote on these things but the majority does rule because it eventually becomes literal law and when push comes to shut of what really counts in court is a specific way because the majority has ruled it to be that way However all of these opinions on logic are subject to fluctuation with society because it is based off of the people in the society nothing more this is why at one point people used to eat their dinner while watching slaves fight lions and hopefully not get killed and usually when they did they were torn apart and this was an event for the whole family to watch logically today that would be immoral so we don't do it but at one time it was obviously moral and logical. Just like some tribes in the rainforest will voluntarily sacrifice themselves for rituals and it's the logical thing to do to keep tribe safe which in America where the majority rules it to be different than that it's clearly illogical. And there are many many more examples like this Now we tend to when push comes to shove have the same logical opinions on certain things but we also tend to eat the same foods early similar foods we both cook our food we both wear clothes I would hope and we both do very human modern things because well that's just what we do so naturally our morals and opinions and logic are going to mirror each other in one way or another. Well, by default I may agree with you. I am also aware of that fact that logic is not something each person on a planet is familiar with. But even this fact doesn't hit the point. Even if an animal doesn't know how to operate premises and get conclusions use logic when it does something. But how? Generalizing it. Only for animals and plants their actions are completely predictable, or can be predictable. For people it might be true, that their actions would be completely predictable; in certain cases, we do predict them. Another thing that doesn't hit the point is that even in your claims about a social side of this question there is a generalization, and, in turn, some common truth. I mean it seems like you're using some premise like: No logic is given a priori
or in other words: Any logic is invented by humans
Such premises are also logical, why? Because you use them to get the conclusion: Any logic is invented by some humans Something invented by a human is not general
Something that is not general is subjective
That certain logic (Eugene is mentioning) is made by some humans
Therefore, that certain logic is subjective
This can show the steps you've been using to get this conclusion. And an important point is that it's impossible to avoid any generalizations. I know you don't like any references to past philosophers, but I think here I can add one of them. Aristotle 2500 years ago explained this saying that either a doctor has only experience how to cure a patient, or he's got something more, than just an experience. That something's more is a prediction, a hypothesis or whatever that is general. And that general knowledge is generalization of your experience, because there's no generalization of experience, we need to do some brainwork to generalize different cases into one conclusion. And that work - is logic. Many human being have been doing this many times during their history. For instance, how to get water, how to make a bow, or how to milk a cow. By this point logic isn't something unnatural, no, it's just rewriting the common truths about our own thoughts, or the inner process of thinking. That I feel like you are maybe stretching the term "logical " to make it fit more categories then it was originally intended to cover Which brings up a good point and that is that yes "logical " is just a semantic humans made and it implies a certain certain action people preform which makes people like plants and other animals"predictable " granted it's harder to predict humans then it is other animals but that's only because we are also humans so self predictability is not as easy as it is with simpler life forms but non the less it can be done |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 25, 2022 17:30:46 GMT
Well, by default I may agree with you. I am also aware of that fact that logic is not something each person on a planet is familiar with. But even this fact doesn't hit the point. Even if an animal doesn't know how to operate premises and get conclusions use logic when it does something. But how? Generalizing it. Only for animals and plants their actions are completely predictable, or can be predictable. For people it might be true, that their actions would be completely predictable; in certain cases, we do predict them. Another thing that doesn't hit the point is that even in your claims about a social side of this question there is a generalization, and, in turn, some common truth. I mean it seems like you're using some premise like: No logic is given a priori
or in other words: Any logic is invented by humans
Such premises are also logical, why? Because you use them to get the conclusion: Any logic is invented by some humans Something invented by a human is not general
Something that is not general is subjective
That certain logic (Eugene is mentioning) is made by some humans
Therefore, that certain logic is subjective
This can show the steps you've been using to get this conclusion. And an important point is that it's impossible to avoid any generalizations. I know you don't like any references to past philosophers, but I think here I can add one of them. Aristotle 2500 years ago explained this saying that either a doctor has only experience how to cure a patient, or he's got something more, than just an experience. That something's more is a prediction, a hypothesis or whatever that is general. And that general knowledge is generalization of your experience, because there's no generalization of experience, we need to do some brainwork to generalize different cases into one conclusion. And that work - is logic. Many human being have been doing this many times during their history. For instance, how to get water, how to make a bow, or how to milk a cow. By this point logic isn't something unnatural, no, it's just rewriting the common truths about our own thoughts, or the inner process of thinking. That I feel like you are maybe stretching the term "logical " to make it fit more categories then it was originally intended to cover Which brings up a good point and that is that yes "logical " is just a semantic humans made and it implies a certain certain action people preform which makes people like plants and other animals"predictable " granted it's harder to predict humans then it is other animals but that's only because we are also humans so self predictability is not as easy as it is with simpler life forms but non the less it can be done How would you be going to find the one and the only definition of that term, if previously you had said there are no general logic? Again you do this mistake, you just ignore general things. We would never understand each other if we both take the different terms. This is quite weird that you keep looking for some underneath intentions of mine. Seems like another hunting ghost or conspiracies. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 25, 2022 20:12:35 GMT
I feel like you are maybe stretching the term "logical " to make it fit more categories then it was originally intended to cover Which brings up a good point and that is that yes "logical " is just a semantic humans made and it implies a certain certain action people preform which makes people like plants and other animals"predictable " granted it's harder to predict humans then it is other animals but that's only because we are also humans so self predictability is not as easy as it is with simpler life forms but non the less it can be done How would you be going to find the one and the only definition of that term, if previously you had said there are no general logic? Again you do this mistake, you just ignore general things. We would never understand each other if we both take the different terms. This is quite weird that you keep looking for some underneath intentions of mine. Seems like another hunting ghost or conspiracies. I'm saying that there's no fundamental beyond man's opinion higher than man type "thing" that is called logic that we all submit to because it is logical regardless of if we exist or not, I'm saying that that kind of thing does not exist. I'm saying general, logic does exist and it's non-permanent it can flip and be completely backwards in 100 years from now because what's called logic is ruled by the majority not some higher power not some element of existence but a temporal opinion social construct of mankind |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 25, 2022 20:55:20 GMT
How would you be going to find the one and the only definition of that term, if previously you had said there are no general logic? Again you do this mistake, you just ignore general things. We would never understand each other if we both take the different terms. This is quite weird that you keep looking for some underneath intentions of mine. Seems like another hunting ghost or conspiracies. I'm saying that there's no fundamental beyond man's opinion higher than man type "thing" that is called logic that we all submit to because it is logical regardless of if we exist or not, I'm saying that that kind of thing does not exist. I'm saying general, logic does exist and it's non-permanent it can flip and be completely backwards in 100 years from now because what's called logic is ruled by the majority not some higher power not some element of existence but a temporal opinion social construct of mankind I also want to clarify something. Your philosophical point is grounded and can be accepted. However, as any other one it has its flaws. One of such is appealing to some objective laws, or the third side, or whatever. There are more straightforward philosophy points about that for now, one of such is Speculative Realism that critisizes such views on any subject where a human point is a central one. For example, there were times when there were no men, so how the world or the universe existed then? We cannot even realize it, because any such realization would have a man look, while it's not true. The universe is not what we see. But even that ultimate philosophical view cannot get rid of logic. It's just as impossible as to cease to use logic. Why so? What such a big importance here, you may ask? The thing is that if a person is trying to be illogical he can't do this, because it would be just another logic. The same is about the chaos or the random number generator: there's no way to imagine all that as well as we cannot create neither of such. In other words, any of us is too rational to stop being logical at all. But within these 'logic' there are many types of that, while any of such are already being interpreted. I mean that it seems that to the logic you've beep appealing is one of interpreted ones, or you have been probably going to say that there are numerous of interpretations of logic. If you had said that you would have been at the same poin I would agree. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 26, 2022 3:26:37 GMT
I'm saying that there's no fundamental beyond man's opinion higher than man type "thing" that is called logic that we all submit to because it is logical regardless of if we exist or not, I'm saying that that kind of thing does not exist. I'm saying general, logic does exist and it's non-permanent it can flip and be completely backwards in 100 years from now because what's called logic is ruled by the majority not some higher power not some element of existence but a temporal opinion social construct of mankind I also want to clarify something. Your philosophical point is grounded and can be accepted. However, as any other one it has its flaws. One of such is appealing to some objective laws, or the third side, or whatever. There are more straightforward philosophy points about that for now, one of such is Speculative Realism that critisizes such views on any subject where a human point is a central one. For example, there were times when there were no men, so how the world or the universe existed then? We cannot even realize it, because any such realization would have a man look, while it's not true. The universe is not what we see. But even that ultimate philosophical view cannot get rid of logic. It's just as impossible as to cease to use logic. Why so? What such a big importance here, you may ask? The thing is that if a person is trying to be illogical he can't do this, because it would be just another logic. The same is about the chaos or the random number generator: there's no way to imagine all that as well as we cannot create neither of such. In other words, any of us is too rational to stop being logical at all. But within these 'logic' there are many types of that, while any of such are already being interpreted. I mean that it seems that to the logic you've beep appealing is one of interpreted ones, or you have been probably going to say that there are numerous of interpretations of logic. If you had said that you would have been at the same poin I would agree. Yes there was a time before man existed and that time didn't contain logic . Look you keep agreeing and at the same time you seem to be trying to not agree but your failing . It's getting confusing |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 26, 2022 4:05:40 GMT
I also want to clarify something. Your philosophical point is grounded and can be accepted. However, as any other one it has its flaws. One of such is appealing to some objective laws, or the third side, or whatever. There are more straightforward philosophy points about that for now, one of such is Speculative Realism that critisizes such views on any subject where a human point is a central one. For example, there were times when there were no men, so how the world or the universe existed then? We cannot even realize it, because any such realization would have a man look, while it's not true. The universe is not what we see. But even that ultimate philosophical view cannot get rid of logic. It's just as impossible as to cease to use logic. Why so? What such a big importance here, you may ask? The thing is that if a person is trying to be illogical he can't do this, because it would be just another logic. The same is about the chaos or the random number generator: there's no way to imagine all that as well as we cannot create neither of such. In other words, any of us is too rational to stop being logical at all. But within these 'logic' there are many types of that, while any of such are already being interpreted. I mean that it seems that to the logic you've beep appealing is one of interpreted ones, or you have been probably going to say that there are numerous of interpretations of logic. If you had said that you would have been at the same poin I would agree. Yes there was a time before man existed and that time didn't contain logic . Look you keep agreeing and at the same time you seem to be trying to not agree but your failing . It's getting confusing Agreeing or disagreeing doesn't depend on my personal attitude. If I disagree it does not mean I disrespect a vis a vis, or I hate him. No. I think that the mind should be cold, and that's why a discussion allows to reveal good or bad points of beliefs, tastes, or preferences we've got before. What do I mean? Let's say I had been thinking that it's not good to be soft and calm. But after a discussion, or due to it, I can change my mind. I believe a person might be wrong about his own thoughts, so for him it's better to be certain abthis own thoughts. Complete self-insurance or total egoistic style isn't a good way. I believe nobody is perfect, and lending a hand of help is a better way for people to cooperate. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Mar 26, 2022 8:16:26 GMT
Yes there was a time before man existed and that time didn't contain logic . Look you keep agreeing and at the same time you seem to be trying to not agree but your failing . It's getting confusing Agreeing or disagreeing doesn't depend on my personal attitude. If I disagree it does not mean I disrespect a vis a vis, or I hate him. No. I think that the mind should be cold, and that's why a discussion allows to reveal good or bad points of beliefs, tastes, or preferences we've got before. What do I mean? Let's say I had been thinking that it's not good to be soft and calm. But after a discussion, or due to it, I can change my mind. I believe a person might be wrong about his own thoughts, so for him it's better to be certain abthis own thoughts. Complete self-insurance or total egoistic style isn't a good way. I believe nobody is perfect, and lending a hand of help is a better way for people to cooperate. "Disagree" was probably a pore choice of words on my partner It's more like you are misunderstanding and or misrepresenting what I said on purpose which if you are by accident doing so then that's totally fine because that's what a discussion is for is to work these things out However if you are doing it on purpose to try and idk break down my theory in a combative way well there are much better productive ways to go about figuring out the best answer to this philosophical question then that for sure |
|
