|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 15, 2021 19:22:53 GMT
Some people, like Kantians, claim that following moral prescriptions is enough to be religious person. So, all what religion is about is just morality or some moral prescriptions.
Quite similar views were shared by Nietzsche and the followers of his views. Although they would agree with Kant, they would also add that that moral was a tricky religious invention, and the religious moral was the worse one.
Anyway, both of such views (maybe there are many others, I don't really into this) can be explained rationally and argumentative. The views above didn't take into account that a person's morality was fluent and changeable.
Ok, so the Kantian one doesn't consider that a person can develop or master it's own morality by making it more and more clearer, more straight, more rigorous, and so on. Being moral doesn't imply - there's no more higher or more better morality (behaviour).
The next view is mostly about the ugliness or the weakness of such moral as a Christian one. But those "viewers" had to understand that such a critique must imply a requirement of the criterion, and no Nietzsche's followers couldn't present any such provable criteria. Obviously, the religious view has one - to believe in God.
In conclusion, a person can grow spiritually and morally by living his life more and more religious. And his path is difficult and hard. And his inner faith and outer deeds help him to master his own religious life.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 15, 2021 19:36:07 GMT
Well, if you don't wanna study about your religion, but follow the precepts, that is okay. It's nothing wrong with it. So, what is the problem? In what does to follow only prescriptions goes?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 15, 2021 19:44:37 GMT
Well, if you don't wanna study about your religion, but follow the precepts, that is okay. It's nothing wrong with it. So, what is the problem? In what does to follow only prescriptions goes? If there was one prescription like " to know thyself", " never stop mastering your morality", or "try harder", I guess following diligently one of those prescriptions wasn't bad, was it? Many people try to catch everything, rushing following dozens of cults, religious practices, yoga, fitness, and so on, but mostly end up with nothing. Dogmas are not fairy tales being told by the old timers, no dogmas are everywhere: from science to daily principles. But there are cliches which usually tag to religions or philosophies to mark them as more rusty, or less new, or not modern, or not trendy, etc. - A typical thinking of many young timers. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 15, 2021 19:55:28 GMT
The dogma is a conclusion based on faith, not on logic. So, if you follow the dogma, you're following only a possibility, and not a real thing. That is the problem.
It's more exact to think that science have axioms, and not dogmas. Axioms are base om logic, and that is a second hole of logic: to search axioms in every science.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 15, 2021 19:56:36 GMT
Logic searchs for the fundament of knowledge in every science.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 15, 2021 19:57:26 GMT
And I foretell another use for logic: to organize scientifical knowledge.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 15, 2021 19:59:18 GMT
Because the principle of every science can only be logical.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 15, 2021 20:11:12 GMT
Just a observation: if a syllogism is perfect, it can be turned as an axiom. So, Socrates is mortal can be turned as the end of life is the primary datum of humam existence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 15, 2021 22:17:25 GMT
The dogma is a conclusion based on faith, not on logic. So, if you follow the dogma, you're following only a possibility, and not a real thing. That is the problem. It's more exact to think that science have axioms, and not dogmas. Axioms are base om logic, and that is a second hole of logic: to search axioms in every science. There are no problems: logic is a formal procedure. What do you mean based on logic? Any faith is also based on logic, and atheism as well. I think you wanted to say that the faith means to have contradictions. But it's also not necessary. Science isn't complete, and many other views also. So, I see no reasons to prefers something to faith, just because faith is faith. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 15, 2021 22:23:19 GMT
Logic searchs for the fundament of knowledge in every science. Oh, no, the one you've named - is philosophy, not logic. For instance, Husserl attempted to go further to things using phenomenology, and Heidegger did it in his way as well. Logic is that: If some fishes can fly and cats are dogs, then cheese is made of money. It's logically true. Such a sentence as Colorless green ideas sleep furiously is correct as a grammar example, and we can't say anything logically about it. All we can think is that there's broken semantics example. And when you call something to be fundamental is the same as you want to proclaim something as more essential as something other. In that case, the theme automatically transfers to the value theory. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 15, 2021 22:33:17 GMT
The dogma is a conclusion based on faith, not on logic. So, if you follow the dogma, you're following only a possibility, and not a real thing. That is the problem. It's more exact to think that science have axioms, and not dogmas. Axioms are base om logic, and that is a second hole of logic: to search axioms in every science. There are no problems: logic is a formal procedure. What do you mean based on logic? Any faith is also based on logic, and atheism as well. I think you wanted to say that the faith means to have contradictions. But it's also not necessary. Science isn't complete, and many other views also. So, I see no reasons to prefers something to faith, just because faith is faith. But atheism isn't a faith, is a belief. Not at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 15, 2021 22:33:22 GMT
Because the principle of every science can only be logical. It won't help calling everything logically. No, there are things beyond logic or, at least, that deals with it in a minor sense. For instance, as I've introduced it previously - a quadrilateral has four right angles. - This sentence is beyond logic, but there were period in science then this principle was among many others taken. I can't say that there are no illogical principle in science now. For instance, a) science doesn't accept non-falsifiable theories b) quantum mechanics doesn't have the accepted logic c) anything that refuses the accepted logic can't be 1-to-1 presented as a model d) with no 1-to-1 models there are no certainty about the results e) no certainty about the results automatically leads to non-falsifiable theories f) science accepts the quantum theory, therefore science has one contradiction *h) science can throw away certain (unappropriate) philosophical principles, but it won't make it better. The same can be said about the big bang hypothesis. This hypothesis cannot be checked (how?). So, I see no reason to 1) accept this really weird hypothesis, 2) claim that this hypothesis is better, than the Theism. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 15, 2021 22:34:14 GMT
Logic searchs for the fundament of knowledge in every science. Oh, no, the one you've named - is philosophy, not logic. For instance, Husserl attempted to go further to things using phenomenology, and Heidegger did it in his way as well. Logic is that: If some fishes can fly and cats are dogs, then cheese is made of money. It's logically true. Such a sentence as Colorless green ideas sleep furiously is correct as a grammar example, and we can't say anything logically about it. All we can think is that there's broken semantics example. And when you call something to be fundamental is the same as you want to proclaim something as more essential as something other. In that case, the theme automatically transfers to the value theory. Fundament of science is diferent from fundament of knowledge. |
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on May 15, 2021 22:35:41 GMT
Because the principle of every science can only be logical. It won't help calling everything logically. No, there are things beyond logic or, at least, that deals with it in a minor sense. For instance, as I've introduced it previously - a quadrilateral has four right angles. - This sentence is beyond logic, but there were period in science then this principle was among many others taken. I can't say that there are no illogical principle in science now. For instance, a) science doesn't accept non-falsifiable theories b) quantum mechanics doesn't have the accepted logic c) anything that refuses the accepted logic can't be 1-to-1 presented as a model d) with no 1-to-1 models there are no certainty about the results e) no certainty about the results automatically leads to non-falsifiable theories f) science accepts the quantum theory, therefore science has one contradiction *h) science can throw away certain (unappropriate) philosophical principles, but it won't make it better. The same can be said about the big bang hypothesis. This hypothesis cannot be checked (how?). So, I see no reason to 1) accept this really weird hypothesis, 2) claim that this hypothesis is better, than the Theism. Logic is essentially axiom and syllogism, and the conversion of one into another. Imperfect syllogism and demonstrations also have logical value. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 15, 2021 22:37:15 GMT
Just a observation: if a syllogism is perfect, it can be turned as an axiom. So, Socrates is mortal can be turned as the end of life is the primary datum of humam existence. According to Wittgenstein, any tautologies are empty, because - they are semantically free (you can put whatever deities you want, and so?). Correct syllogisms prove anything, but that we accept them. Moreover, logic won't move you further, just because you're on the logic side. There were many example are off logic usage and movement in science. Even the Neanderthals got to how to find the fire. Folks in many different territories did the same about many things. And it concerns no only the human species, but the animals too. Also, the syllogism shouldn't be just valid, it has to be sounded. And for that your premises have to be true. So, how do you find out your premises are true? |
|
