|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2020 15:42:32 GMT
I am very doubtful on what logic truly can gives us.
Logic do not give us a rational life, not a pure rational one.
And I agree that is experience the true master of life and society.
For that reason I believe that philosophy, in essence, is solving ethical problems, as Socrates did.
And not reasoning endless about pure logical problems.
Logical problems have his place, but I don't believe that his place is in philosophy.
Logic is mathematics. But ethics is the true nature of philosophy.
We can reason about any kind of thing. But to solve a true ethical problem requires life experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 17, 2020 18:38:31 GMT
I am very doubtful on what logic truly can gives us. Logic do not give us a rational life, not a pure rational one. And I agree that is experience the true master of life and society. For that reason I believe that philosophy, in essence, is solving ethical problems, as Socrates did. And not reasoning endless about pure logical problems. Logical problems have his place, but I don't believe that his place is in philosophy. Logic is mathematics. But ethics is the true nature of philosophy. We can reason about any kind of thing. But to solve a true ethical problem requires life experience. According to Gram Harman's " Weird-Realism" (2012) Humean view on the world was that any object was a set or a bunch of perceptions. So, for instance, an apple is a sum of our feelings of it. I find your views closer to Humean. What would you say, is it so? What kind of alternative to logic you can present? |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2020 21:02:15 GMT
Logic for natural sciences, and ethics for human sciences.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2020 21:03:13 GMT
I don't believe is necessary to explain logically a custom, a behavior. Because there is not a explanation out the intention of the viewer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 17, 2020 21:06:46 GMT
Logic for natural sciences, and ethics for human sciences. In other words you're saying that logic diminished or reduces to plain level any relations that important for human-human systems, is that right? Because, actually, we're constantly using logic while arguing anything. It's just a matter of the structure of sentences or a certain structure of texts (i.e. in opposition to texts like those which describe something, or to historical texts). |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2020 22:38:31 GMT
Logic for natural sciences, and ethics for human sciences. In other words you're saying that logic diminished or reduces to plain level any relations that important for human-human systems, is that right? Because, actually, we're constantly using logic while arguing anything. It's just a matter of the structure of sentences or a certain structure of texts (i.e. in opposition to texts like those which describe something, or to historical texts). Agree. Logic is mathematics, and ethics is the reason of society. I believe that a reason without logic perfect normal. Logical in my understanding, is the mathematization of reason. Pure reason is ethics. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 17, 2020 23:55:05 GMT
In other words you're saying that logic diminished or reduces to plain level any relations that important for human-human systems, is that right? Because, actually, we're constantly using logic while arguing anything. It's just a matter of the structure of sentences or a certain structure of texts (i.e. in opposition to texts like those which describe something, or to historical texts). Agree. Logic is mathematics, and ethics is the reason of society. I believe that a reason without logic perfect normal. Logical in my understanding, is the mathematization of reason. Pure reason is ethics. I can't say for sure, but it's closely to as Hegel's so the Absolute Idealism philosophy. In details they had divided pure reason and calculations. The last one is kinda an attempt of mathematization of a reason. The more important lesson of how the Absolute Idealism was critiqued for that was that they claimed while providing no techniques to understand it: briefly, how to study reason? I guess your answer is more concrete and it has its contours, because we know where the reason might be located. Actually, I thought about this. There was my publication on it – in this thread – some months ago. I saw it through dilemmas, and it allowed logic to be joined too, but its role was plain. The more interesting of it I found on various types of choice aka sorts of dilemmas. Here they are: a. Picking; b. An alternative; c. Dilemmas; d. Zugzwang. (Now I presented them roughly, but conceptually it should be viewed as more deep level of how choices work.) |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2020 2:17:44 GMT
Agree. Logic is mathematics, and ethics is the reason of society. I believe that a reason without logic perfect normal. Logical in my understanding, is the mathematization of reason. Pure reason is ethics. I can't say for sure, but it's closely to as Hegel's so the Absolute Idealism philosophy. In details they had divided pure reason and calculations. The last one is kinda an attempt of mathematization of a reason. The more important lesson of how the Absolute Idealism was critiqued for that was that they claimed while providing no techniques to understand it: briefly, how to study reason? I guess your answer is more concrete and it has its contours, because we know where the reason might be located. Actually, I thought about this. There was my publication on it – in this thread – some months ago. I saw it through dilemmas, and it allowed logic to be joined too, but its role was plain. The more interesting of it I found on various types of choice aka sorts of dilemmas. Here they are: a. Picking; b. An alternative; c. Dilemmas; d. Zugzwang. (Now I presented them roughly, but conceptually it should be viewed as more deep level of how choices work.) Perfect. Agree. |
|
