|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 25, 2021 16:21:48 GMT
Actually, doubting logic isn't an easy stuff. How would you doubt something if to doubt something you should prove what you've done? So, considering there is no logic, if this sentence is true, then there must be some proof about it. And if there is a proof about it - there is a proof that there is logic. Just think about, how to prove something without logic?
Another way to try to doubt it is to get rid of semantics. If I typed something p&¬p then it's supposed I've written something logically, but indeed that's not the whole answer: it can be that that note is just a name of my neighbour, i.e. the name of my neighbor is "p&¬p". The weird one, but not impossible.
So what can we do also? We just may forget about logic, not even mentioning it. It may be helpful, but I think there's also another interesting way. What if we were trying to specify each act? Indeed, who said that logic is under generality? I mean how logic wants to be something primary without explaining its appealing to the universalitiness? In other words, how logic explains its being universal?
To continue this doubt let's imagine that logic tells us about about sequences or lines, like this: b comes after a, 4 comes after 3, ... If logic talks about that, then what logic does is only some kind of descriptions about some sequences, and that's all. It is the same to say that logic responses for writing alphabets or number sequences. Considering the fact there might be numerous sequences, and among theme there might be as many as possible sefl-contradictory sequences, this means that, oops, logic may got some troubles.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Nov 27, 2021 14:26:52 GMT
Logic changes just like society changes and in 100yrs logic will be different then it is right now and right now it is different then it was 3k years ago and even this very moment logic can be argued over by different countries and people's based on what was established as "logical" to those people as they were growing up as little kids learning what is logical by observing the people around them
So logic is like fluid only holding form within the vessel called man .
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 27, 2021 16:20:56 GMT
Logic changes just like society changes and in 100yrs logic will be different then it is right now and right now it is different then it was 3k years ago and even this very moment logic can be argued over by different countries and people's based on what was established as "logical" to those people as they were growing up as little kids learning what is logical by observing the people around them So logic is like fluid only holding form within the vessel called man . Agree.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 2, 2021 22:14:55 GMT
Actually, doubting logic isn't an easy stuff. How would you doubt something if to doubt something you should prove what you've done? So, considering there is no logic, if this sentence is true, then there must be some proof about it. And if there is a proof about it - there is a proof that there is logic. Just think about, how to prove something without logic?Another way to try to doubt it is to get rid of semantics. If I typed something p&¬p then it's supposed I've written something logically, but indeed that's not the whole answer: it can be that that note is just a name of my neighbour, i.e. the name of my neighbor is "p&¬p". The weird one, but not impossible. So what can we do also? We just may forget about logic, not even mentioning it. It may be helpful, but I think there's also another interesting way. What if we were trying to specify each act? Indeed, who said that logic is under generality? I mean how logic wants to be something primary without explaining its appealing to the universalitiness? In other words, how logic explains its being universal? To continue this doubt let's imagine that logic tells us about about sequences or lines, like this: b comes after a, 4 comes after 3, ... If logic talks about that, then what logic does is only some kind of descriptions about some sequences, and that's all. It is the same to say that logic responses for writing alphabets or number sequences. Considering the fact there might be numerous sequences, and among theme there might be as many as possible sefl-contradictory sequences, this means that, oops, logic may got some troubles. To doubt means a separation of truth from the observer as what is doubted, even though it exists as a phenomenon, does not align with the observers perspective, ie it is "separated". 1. Descriptions are phenomena thus hold truth value. 2. A description is the connection of the observer and that which is observed; this connection is a phenomenon. 3. To say "all logic is a description" is in itself a description thus description holds a truth value and if it does not hold a truth value (ie saying descriptions are absent of truth) then describing the descriptions of logic is a self contradiction. If it is the latter, a self contradiction, then anything goes in the description process therefore anything goes within the realm of being considering description is a part of being. 4. To say that description is a separate entity from being, ie does not mirror it, necessitates the description of description (ie saying all logic is description) as the manifestation of separate phenomenon (ie one description to that of another). However a paradox occurs considering all descriptions point to a phenomenon thus necessitate a connection; one cannot describe without pointing to something even if the statement only points to itself.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 2, 2021 22:16:16 GMT
Logic changes just like society changes and in 100yrs logic will be different then it is right now and right now it is different then it was 3k years ago and even this very moment logic can be argued over by different countries and people's based on what was established as "logical" to those people as they were growing up as little kids learning what is logical by observing the people around them So logic is like fluid only holding form within the vessel called man . 1. To say "logic changes" and hold it as an unchanging logical statement is a contradiction. 2. 2+1=3 always holds across some group of observers at some time and as such is one objective reality amidst many. Objectivity is that which unchanging; as unchanging it can be observed across multiple subjective states. The multiplicity of objective truths is an objective truth thus objective truth exists. ****Objectivity can be viewed as synonymous to logical, in the above context, given both objectivity and logic are expressions of being.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 3, 2021 4:29:08 GMT
Logic changes just like society changes and in 100yrs logic will be different then it is right now and right now it is different then it was 3k years ago and even this very moment logic can be argued over by different countries and people's based on what was established as "logical" to those people as they were growing up as little kids learning what is logical by observing the people around them So logic is like fluid only holding form within the vessel called man . 1. To say "logic changes" and hold it as an unchanging logical statement is a contradiction. 2. 2+1=3 always holds across some group of observers at some time and as such is one objective reality amidst many. Objectivity is that which unchanging; as unchanging it can be observed across multiple subjective states. The multiplicity of objective truths is an objective truth thus objective truth exists. ****Objectivity can be viewed as synonymous to logical, in the above context, given both objectivity and logic are expressions of being. I fear you will never gain wisdom throughout your entire life. But hopefully you'll prove me wrong
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 8, 2021 22:28:23 GMT
1. To say "logic changes" and hold it as an unchanging logical statement is a contradiction. 2. 2+1=3 always holds across some group of observers at some time and as such is one objective reality amidst many. Objectivity is that which unchanging; as unchanging it can be observed across multiple subjective states. The multiplicity of objective truths is an objective truth thus objective truth exists. ****Objectivity can be viewed as synonymous to logical, in the above context, given both objectivity and logic are expressions of being. I fear you will never gain wisdom throughout your entire life. But hopefully you'll prove me wrong Your inability to respond with a counter argument only shows how deep your "wisdom" goes.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 9, 2021 16:12:22 GMT
I fear you will never gain wisdom throughout your entire life. But hopefully you'll prove me wrong Your inability to respond with a counter argument only shows how deep your "wisdom" goes. I love how when somebody is disagreed with they automatically challenge them on the very thing they were accused of not having because that's totally a wise thing to do because all of reality is the way you think it is and so naturally your opinion is the right one. Or as you would so immaturely put it One world where one person being one of many different ones necessitates the many through being the one and having one opinion about the many as the many cannot exist without the one therefore necessitates the ones opinion is the right opinion because (insert random things that have nothing to do with anything fundamentally yet sounded good when some guru said them one time ) therefore I'm right your wrong blablabla (goes and starts 1976 new topics about this conversation because he can't let it go ) .. better?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 9, 2021 23:19:46 GMT
Your inability to respond with a counter argument only shows how deep your "wisdom" goes. I love how when somebody is disagreed with they automatically challenge them on the very thing they were accused of not having because that's totally a wise thing to do because all of reality is the way you think it is and so naturally your opinion is the right one. Or as you would so immaturely put it One world where one person being one of many different ones necessitates the many through being the one and having one opinion about the many as the many cannot exist without the one therefore necessitates the ones opinion is the right opinion because (insert random things that have nothing to do with anything fundamentally yet sounded good when some guru said them one time ) therefore I'm right your wrong blablabla (goes and starts 1976 new topics about this conversation because he can't let it go ) .. better? Still diverting the subject, you have not pointed to how: "1. To say "logic changes" and hold it as an unchanging logical statement is a contradiction.
2. 2+1=3 always holds across some group of observers at some time and as such is one objective reality amidst many. Objectivity is that which unchanging; as unchanging it can be observed across multiple subjective states. The multiplicity of objective truths is an objective truth thus objective truth exists."is wrong. Rather you are just stating it is wrong with no justification to back it up. Without justification on your part I might as well be right according to you. This section of the forum is about the justification of arguments; ie an argument is presented and a counterargument is in turn revealed. This goes back and forth until some truth is agreed upon. And again explain to me how there can be a multiplicity of phenomenon without a respective void....you keep avoiding this task.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 10, 2021 17:49:40 GMT
I love how when somebody is disagreed with they automatically challenge them on the very thing they were accused of not having because that's totally a wise thing to do because all of reality is the way you think it is and so naturally your opinion is the right one. "1. To say "logic changes" and hold it as an unchanging logical statement is a contradiction.Not necessary. Why so? - The transcendental argumentation is also left.I hope these three examples would be helpful.
1) I am doubting every things 2) "I am doubting every things" stays beyond any doubtness ("I doubt in anything" is left undoubtness) 3) While I doubt in someting something is left undoubtnessa) There is no "I" until I doubt in "I" b) There is something (is hidden?) that allows "I" to appeari) Everything changes (= Panta Rei) ii) When everything changes something is being left unchanged iii) That someting that is being left unchanged is a necessary cause for Panta Rei to performAll those three demonstrate the transcendental argumentation. Of course, this argument isn't so absolutely pure, but anyway this shows us that some of arguments are being hidden, while we're asking. Kant and Hegel mostly used this types of arguments to try to make some left-side in Philosophy.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 12, 2021 12:12:33 GMT
Nope none of that was fundamentally a fact that was all opinion and not even yours it's borrowed but nevertheless just opinion granted agreed upon opinion by many many people but just opinion.
And you seem to get so hung up on contradictions as if they cannot exist yet people use them daily their contradictions they exist get over it they're real saying something always changes and that statement never changes is a contradiction but it can also be true at the same time as being a contradiction that's reality for you.
As for the other points if I hand them to you you won't gain any wisdom yourself cuz you didn't find them and understand them yourself but even then you wouldn't even understand them they go over your head like usual.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 16, 2021 20:56:04 GMT
Nope none of that was fundamentally a fact that was all opinion and not even yours it's borrowed but nevertheless just opinion granted agreed upon opinion by many many people but just opinion. And you seem to get so hung up on contradictions as if they cannot exist yet people use them daily their contradictions they exist get over it they're real saying something always changes and that statement never changes is a contradiction but it can also be true at the same time as being a contradiction that's reality for you. As for the other points if I hand them to you you won't gain any wisdom yourself cuz you didn't find them and understand them yourself but even then you wouldn't even understand them they go over your head like usual. If contradictions can be true then anything goes and what I say can therefore be right and factual thus your disagreements are invalid. And again explain to me how there can be a multiplicity of phenomenon without a respective void....you keep avoiding this task.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Dec 16, 2021 21:05:36 GMT
"1. To say "logic changes" and hold it as an unchanging logical statement is a contradiction.Not necessary. Why so? - The transcendental argumentation is also left.I hope these three examples would be helpful.
1) I am doubting every things 2) "I am doubting every things" stays beyond any doubtness ("I doubt in anything" is left undoubtness) 3) While I doubt in someting something is left undoubtnessa) There is no "I" until I doubt in "I" b) There is something (is hidden?) that allows "I" to appeari) Everything changes (= Panta Rei) ii) When everything changes something is being left unchanged iii) That someting that is being left unchanged is a necessary cause for Panta Rei to performAll those three demonstrate the transcendental argumentation. Of course, this argument isn't so absolutely pure, but anyway this shows us that some of arguments are being hidden, while we're asking. Kant and Hegel mostly used this types of arguments to try to make some left-side in Philosophy. 1. If I doubt everything thus I must doubt doubt therefore doubt self-negates; this self-negation is contradiction as it is self-opposition. 2. If there is no I until I doubt I then I is grounded in doubt; this doubt which necessitates the "I" can be doubted therefore the "I" self-negates. This self-negation is contradiction as it is self-opposition. 3. If everything changes this is an unchangeable fact thus not everything changes. If not everything changes then "everything changes" is a false statement. However if not everything changes how this is expressed in the fabric of being changes thus everything changes. Everything thus changes and does not change; reality is a contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Dec 17, 2021 0:14:58 GMT
Changing could change the change without change therefore necessitating change ever-changing without change could change the change without changing itself therefore never changing forever changing. Yeah I think those will make good lyrics for my song I'll title it "wordplay pointless mind calories spent"
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Dec 17, 2021 11:23:50 GMT
1. If I doubt everything thus I must doubt doubt therefore doubt self-negates; this self-negation is contradiction as it is self-opposition. - Sorry, where did you get this? David Hume's guillotine reads: "IS doesn't imply OUGHT TO". How can you claim that if this dog is grey, then this dog is necessary grey? If you doubt doubt then it might end differently. Cartesian version ends on "Cogito". I think you din't get my point. Honestly. You should read Kant further on this. I'll send you a link. 2. If there is no I until I doubt I then I is grounded in doubt; this doubt which necessitates the "I" can be doubted therefore the "I" self-negates. This self-negation is contradiction as it is self-opposition. - I agree with you on that if ther's no "I" until I doubt, then "I" is grounded in doubt, but I can't accept the logic behind it. You're saying further that ..."I" can be doubted, therefore (?) "I" self-negates, how that self-negation appears here? Even if this self-negation occurs, it means that you don't have the full view of that "I" (or just I). For instance, if a girl is crying, and a girl isn't crying both say about the same girl, then one of those propositions has to be truth, but if we cannot be sure whether this is a girl, then our discussion hasn't finished yet, and until a gender question hasn't been completed, we can't be certain about the logical value of these propositions. But, if we would take these or such propositions as the general cause for the all events exists and the general cause for the all events doesn't exist, then we would trap to the transcendental trap, because we cannot get rid of such question (on the one hand), while we cannot decide who's right (on the other), so until that the general cause is founded (it's never happened, but the research'll be always happening) the talk of this is transcendental.3. If everything changes this is an unchangeable fact thus not everything changes. If not everything changes then "everything changes" is a false statement. However if not everything changes how this is expressed in the fabric of being changes thus everything changes. Everything thus changes and does not change; reality is a contradiction. - Here may be a nog example it's true. But I think it can be reforumlated to the nex one:
Thesis: for any deity (a thing, or a complex) it's impossible to not change a) if there's a thing that never changes this thing is unchangeable (doubting the thesis) b) if there's an unchangeable thing there has to be a criterion for the unchangeable thing (the same is about changeable things) c) if there are only changeable things, then there is no such a criterion, but among those things there are unchangeable things, then it's possible that among those things there is the criterion. d) if there are at least two things: a changeable and unchangeable, then either their changeability is relative, or not; d1) if their relativity is on, then when one of this things is changing, the other is not; d2) if their relativity is off, then when one thing is changing, then the other is the unchangeable thing e) if there more, than two things, then among them one thing is changeable, and one is unchangeable f) but if there are any things there has to be at least two different types of things, then there has to be an unchangeable thing that produces the law of that criterion g) if that one unchangeable of the rest things thing is a bearer of that criteria, then this thing is some kind of the main head, or a kingpin for the others. But this is impossible since hierarchy breaks those differences down.
Anyway, this may be say shortly: 1) if there are changeable and unchangeable things, then there is some kind of a law that prescripts this to be so; 2) the law that says that this must be so is not a changeable thing, or else it's not a law anymore 3) so that law has to predict the unchangeable thing! that is impossible. 4) so even this thesis that there has to be changeable and unchangeable things is a contradiction.
|
|