logic not logic

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by vulcan947, Apr 20, 2013.

  1. vulcan947 Registered Member

    much of human thought is about real logic{philosophy}
    yet do we know after thousands of years of study , what it is ??
    maybe in a pure form, it's something which looks illogical to us.

    and also for those who who live overly ordered lives ,is this not a form of emotion,perhaps true logic is emotion,
    2000 years and we still dont know
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps you don't know but many of us try to understand and learn as we grow older. As we age we can pick up valuable tools to get along and adapt to life's up's and down's so to be able to get along with others and ourselves.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    I don't think that I want to equate philosophy with logic. Philosophy uses logic, but it's also concerned with how our words should be defined and understood, and with how knowledge can be obtained here in the real world, which is oftentimes more of an empirical question than a question of pure logic. There are also questions about what we should do, what our goals should be and so on.

    What logic is? No, I think that's still a big mystery. It seems (to me anyway) to be something that's pretty basic to being itself. (I'm not sure how to describe or account for being either.)

    One of the things that's defined the study of philosophical logic in the second half of the twentieth century is the proliferation of all kinds of alternative logics. Modal logics, tense logics, epistemic logics, paraconsistent logics, fuzzy logics...

    These aren't all consistent with early twentieth century predicate and quantified formal logic, and are even less consistent with traditional Aristotelian logic. But having said that... they aren't really illogical and they don't seem illogical to us, once we are brought up to speed on what they are and on what motivates them.

    So that seems to suggest that our innate human sense of natural logic might be more expansive than the various formal systems that we have already created.

    And that raises the question of whether the hypothetical realm of all possible logics might exceed our human ability to know. In other words, are varieties of logic hypothetically possible that simply exceed the powers of human cognition in principle?

    If we adopt a purely psychologistic approach to this, by arguing that logic is just the formalization of the innate principles of human cognition, the answer would presumably be 'no'. Our human power of cognition would define the range of all possible logics, simply by (psychologistic) definition.

    But logic doesn't seem to me to merely be a description of human cognition. It seems to be a more objective sort of metaphysical principle as well, that physical reality continues to adhere to even when human beings' backs are turned. On this more realist account of logic, human cognition shares and participates in the larger logical principles of the universe itself, as opposed to the experienced universe seeming to adhere (Kantian-style) to the innate rules of all possible human knowing.

    On this second realist account of logic, it would seem to be possible that the universe might indeed have underlying logical principles that exceed human cognitive powers to know.

    After all, cockroaches don't have the intellectual powers to understand our existing human formal logic. They have kind of a logic built in to their behavior, but they can't think about it or spell it out it abstractly, and it probably only extends to the kinds of situations that they've evolved to face in their daily lives.

    So analogously, perhaps the range of human cognition only extends to the kinds of situations that human beings have evolved to face in our lives.

    It's conceivable that different logical principles are at work on scales (the quantum microscale?) or in radically different physical conditions (inside black-hole event-horizons) that human beings never encounter in their earthly lives. And it's also conceivable (albeit even more speculative) that human beings might not be any better prepared to understand those principles than cockroaches are able to understand Maxwell's equations.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. vulcan947 Registered Member

    alright, so if we look at the universe ,accept it's real , then you think that an ultimate truth exists ??

    also you hinted at quantum physics, in the physical sense[whatever it is}
    super symmetry may point us in the right direction.
    having read kant, when i was younger, i recall something about understanding is the ability to judge, etc{i do not recall precisely} which begs the question ,judge what?
  8. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps to judge what you see in life to either accept it or reject it which makes up part of your personality.
  9. vulcan947 Registered Member

    you think i have a personality hahha
  10. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Whether you think so or not, yes everyone has a "personality" it's just that some people do not understand themselves for they never bother to look honestly at themselves in a mirror for they are afraid as to what they will see.
  11. vulcan947 Registered Member

    perhap's but this is part of living in a modern world,and your point is well taken,
    yet a bout of introspection is not the style of some people,
    also even those who do not know themselves, do not escape the sub-concious,in fact may proud liberal's
    hide or are only barely aware of the prejudice and dark thoughts that seem to be part of the make up thats makes us all to human . best wishes michael
  12. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Those who do not take time to understand themselves can never be able to understand others.
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    If you look at a particular philosophy, like the Epicurean philosophy for example, logic is used to rationalize the premises of this POV. If we apply principles of science, although pleasure is a valid and important human reaction/emotion/sensation, this is not all the data that is humanly possible. It is actually only partial or cherry picked data, from the entire human set, that will define a particular sub-curve. All the data would have a different curve and need different logic.

    Say another person was into Goth and pain instead of pleasure. Their data points would form a different curve. Based on this data and curve, the logic of their philosophy will add up to this cherry picked data. The Epicurean may not like these pain data points, even if a valid part of the human experience ( pain is pleasure?) and will erase these, so the original logic continues to add up, better.

    Logic is pure, but is is only as good as the premises and the data. Most logic courses make sure they use common agreed upon data and premises so the logic appears to be universal. It would interesting to teach advanced logic, using subjective data and premises. The result would be more than one curve/philosophy forming as different people interpret the data and place that data into the curve of their liking. Then they will back add the logic that defines the curve.

    If we take democrat and republican, both define truth (good data) but neither curve defines the whole truth; truth that is used by the other. So we get two curves with part data, instead of one curve with all the data. Both then use their limited data set to create premises and draw conclusions. Most people see that each logic set adds up, but they don't do a data check to make sure no data points were eliminated so the logic curve looks more perfect.

    Say all the data was a sine wave. One side will pick the tops and the other the bottoms. We can then form logic that will explain each of the two data situations, but this will not be the same as the entire sine curve. I think partial data philosophy is done because you need to walk before you can run, with logic getting harder as more and more data is included, especially if it conflicts.
  14. river


    There is Emotional logic , a social logic therefore

    And it is a true logic

    But this not a true logic outside of the social sphere of Human interactions
  15. Mathers2013 Banned Banned

    I have used Logic (on everyday things) since I was a child and it was only when I came to sciforums that I was corrected and informed that what I was doing is called Philosophy, not logic. :-( I still prefer logic.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    My appetite increased when I would solve logical puzzles like those that can be found in magazines: a google search yields such things. There is usually a proposal (or clue) such as "John has brown hair which is the same as Alice's" and then you can put a tick in the box indicating that John's hair is brown as is Alices, BUT ALSO a cross in every other box for hair colour indicating that their hair is not any other colour. The boxes I write of can be seen on pages yielded by google searches for logic puzzles. As I have already written, the logic puzzles usually begin with a proposition but they do not provide all of the answers, you must solve the clues (and usually refer to the boxes) to solve the whole puzzle.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. andy1033 Truth Seeker Valued Senior Member

    I personally think that all adults have built a lens of hate they see the world through. This is something built into our minds eye and we view the world through this.

    I personally believe we where created, and i am glad we all see the world slightly differently. It amazing what drives most of you, i have no interest in. Plus what i am interesting in, is not interesting in your mind.

    I agree what have we really learned about logic and philosophy in thousands of years, and all these people minds thinking. Nout really, other than we all create a lens of hate, and live our lifes through what we hate.

    Its like how gravity bends light. Our perceptions take in all this info, and our lens bends it to our own perception. Its amazing how if your not interested in something, it can be so illogical for others to be interested in it. But they could also see you as illogical.

    So i think there is some degree that our reality is right, but we all bend it to our own perceptions. What degrees of what we take in is right, and what is skewed by our lens of hate?

Share This Page