Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:58 pmAll problems are base in ignorance. If you knew the answer would it be a problem?
I'm not sure why this was even brought up or how it relates to the discussion, but no, I don't think all problems can be rooted in an ignorance.

Fair enough, explain why.
You say I am wrong; therefore I am wrong...it is still the same structural formula.
It's still wrong and fallacious, but I actually don't think that example demonstrates circular reasoning; The conclusion doesn't throw itself back to the premise in a way that would demonstrate circularity, you just get it wrong from the get-go, because merely saying something is not enough to grant the conclusion 'therefore it is'. The point of my bible example is that the premise requires a belief in the conclusion, so it can never be used to prove anything, which is not the case with yours as far as I can tell. But what exactly is your point, here?

Here is a simple question, which may give answer to the aforementioned points, what is proof?
Definition is a contrast between "being" and "non-being" and in this respect is an extension of structure for what "being" exists without structure?
I do not know what you're saying.

When we observe "definition" what we are observing is "the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, especially of an image in a photograph or on a screen [or one can say the axiom].

https://www.bing.com/search?q=definitio ... 859726607E

And that is why philosophy is dying as it is in a continual state of "fluxing knowledge"...ie "opinion"
You can disagree with the practical use of 2 proposition arguments in real-world scenarios - and they're actually not practical for that, only in showing some basic truths. Which is exactly what I was using it for. It's not an "opinion" that some things can be shown as true with only 2 propositions. Are you seriously arguing against the truth that "Wellington is in New Zealand. Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand", an extremely basic application of the law of identity?

Not at all. What the law of identity does, however is create a Polarity between "A" and "A". This may seem confusing at first but let me explain.

"A" moving to "A = A" creates a polarity between "A" and itself resulting in "=" as an extension of "A". This splitting of "A" creates a polarity within "A" that results in "=" as a third logistic "particle" that stabilizes "A". That is a difficult concept for alot of people to "swallow" so if you have further questions...it is not your intelligence at all is my point.

Then linear reasoning is faulty as it exists as form of 1 dimensionality which must continually expand (move in 1 direction) otherwise is zero dimensional.
What sort of 'dimensions' are you talking about? What is a 'dimension' in these logical examples?

Logic depends on the observation of "direction" when view in linear terms. A lead to B, B leads to C, etc. ad-infinitum. In this respect is requires continual "movement" if any true definition is to exist.

A is actual only if B is potential. B is actual only if C is its potential. C is not strictly "actual" unless it has potential "x".

In these respect C is strictly a point of demarcation defining both A and B and what we understand of A,B and C is strictly definition as "relation".

The problem occurs, as A,B,C become a logistic "particulate" in themselves and need further logistic particulate in order to relate. In these respects A,B,C is an "atom" of truth or "grade" of truth and cannot be argued as a strict "solution" other than as a grade of definition.

These particulate act as "dimensions" or measurements of truth in that they are observed as degree in both form (as a linear particle) and function (linear direction).

So the words do not have to meanings as long as the argument is "linear"?
I'm saying you don't you need to understand the meaning of the words - in actually more than just a 2 proposition argument. It's essentially a matter of whether the argument is deductive. "Jon eats turducken. Peggy also eats turducken. Therefore, both peggy and Jon eat turducken" is an argument with more than 1 premise, yet our conclusion can still be made without even knowing what 'turducken' actually is. When the argument makes some sort of claim which requires a knowledge of what it actually is, than obviously we need to know its meaning. But the very basic examples in this thread simply do not.

So meaning comes strictly from deduction? If that is the case and you are for it, then not only would you have to deduct the argument itself, resulting in infinite regress as a form of "structural stability" but:

1) You would have to used abductive reasoning to build a theory about deduction, this is in order to define its nature. In this respect what we understand of "deduction" is strictly only an "approximate" through a necessary "theory". Without the theory it cannot be fully explained nor defined, however with it deduction cannot exist on its own logistic terms.

"Abductive reasoning (also called abduction, abductive inference or retroduction) is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation."

https://www.bing.com/search?q=abductive ... 4B5BD70FA5

2) You would have to used inductive reasoning to validate the premise of deduction. In this respect, the conclusion is striclty a "truthful" extension of a "true" premise. This third degree of "truth" between premise and conclusion acts a stabilizing median not limited to a linear form or function.

An inductive logic is a system of evidential support that extends deductive logic to less-than-certain inferences. For valid deductive arguments the premises logically entail the conclusion, where the entailment means that the truth of the premises provides a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=inductive ... 398CA54804

3) Deduction is strictly a medial point of Abductive and Inductive reasoning and in this respect cannot exist on it own terms. If this is the case, that deduction alone is illogical and Logic manifests through a trifold structure of deduction, abduction, and induction.

If that is the case the argument for linearism is circular. "Linearism is said to be true; therefore Linearism is true" is a circular argument.
No, that's not what I'm saying, but why are you talking about the truth of "linearism" in general? Aren't we just talking very specifically about the use of words within them?

No I am just point out the form of argument you are using is similar to the form you are arguing against.
Any application of "therefore" is an argument.
I mean, it's an "argument" that's not actually arguing for anything because it's not presenting any new or contended information. It's something that should just be 'self-evident' to anyone.

The Bible example provides "new" information and shows a "propogative circularity". The wellington example shows that definition can maintain circularity without contradiction and circularity however that law of identity point we are talking about applies here also.


Actually it has everything to do with it as the definition of the words are circular in both form and function. Why would the argument not follow the same form and function of the words it is composed of? Both are different degrees of definition but definition nontheless.
By the time you get to formulate any sort of logical argument like this, it's already assumed that some of the words you're using are following some sort of meaning, it's just basic English. But what do you mean that "words are circular"?

Try the dictionary example I mentioned prior. If you do not agree, then we can discuss this further.

Anyway, I feel like this discussion has become incredibly discombobulated and I don't feel any closer to understanding your position of why circular reasoning isn't fallacious.
That's because it has become to long and we are talking about to many separate points. It is not discombobulated to me, but rather makes sense....but I am used to this "pattern". If you want we can just talk about two points at a time. It might make more sense for you then.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:01 pmFair enough, explain why
I could very easily devise a hypothetical scenario where an omniscient creature is trapped in an unbreakable cage, with no way to get out. There are problems where knowledge isn't to someone's benefit, but I'm still left confused why this was brought up, so let's just drop it.
Not at all.
It certainly seemed like you were objecting to the use of 2 propositional examples, to me
What the law of identity does, however is create a Polarity between "A" and "A".
...No

It's ironic, that in your objection to my mention of the law of identity, you end up disobeying the law of non-contradiction. That is to say - there is no 'polarity' between "A and A", because they're the exact same thing. It's the exact opposite of what a 'polarity' even is.
"A" moving to "A = A" creates a polarity between "A" and itself resulting in "=" as an extension of "A". This splitting of "A" creates a polarity within "A" that results in "=" as a third logistic "particle" that stabilizes "A". That is a difficult concept for alot of people to "swallow" so if you have further questions...it is not your intelligence at all is my point.
I think you're conflating a demonstration of the law as a logical argument, with its actual application. Someone like Bertrand Russel would only ever show formulate it like this to demonstrate how it has to be true in any given situation. He's not actually implying that the first and second "A" is a different variable; That's a difficult concept to swallow, because what you're saying makes absolutely no sense.
Logic depends on the observation of "direction" when view in
Try again.

It sounds increasingly obvious that you're making lingo up as you go along. Or you have your own philosophical terms that you've devised for your own use, which isn't very convenient for a conversation.
So meaning comes strictly from deduction?
I'm saying there are arguments that strictly use deduction.
If that is the case and you are for it, then not only would you have to deduct the argument itself, resulting in infinite regress as a form of "structural stability"
By the time you get to accepting and realizing what a "deductive" argument is, you've already accepted that there is a thing known as "language". This is why what you're saying is beside the point, and often beside the intention of the argument being made.
2) You would have to used inductive reasoning to validate the premise of deduction. In this respect, the conclusion is striclty a "truthful" extension of a "true" premise. This third degree of "truth" between premise and conclusion acts a stabilizing median not limited to a linear form or function.
Well, I guess you've used inductive reasoning to determine that the English language is a thing which needs to be followed when used, it just doesn't fit into something for consideration within making logical deductive arguments themselves, because language is already accepted, and is just a basic way to communicate them. Language doesn't make it so there is no such thing as a deductive argument, I just think you're misunderstanding what a deductive argument actually is in philosophy. Even if it took inductive reasoning to get to the conception of a deductive argument, it doesn't change the nature of the actual argument.
The Bible example provides "new" information
I was talking about the wellington one, exclusively, but to be clear the bible thing only "attempts" to show new information.
The wellington example shows that definition can maintain circularity without contradiction and circularity however that law of identity point we are talking about applies here also.
While that might be the intention of the argument and why it was made, it's not what I mean. I'm talking about the contents within the argument itself.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:41 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Oct 29, 2017 5:01 pmFair enough, explain why
I could very easily devise a hypothetical scenario where an omniscient creature is trapped in an unbreakable cage, with no way to get out. There are problems where knowledge isn't to someone's benefit, but I'm still left confused why this was brought up, so let's just drop it.


If knowledge is not to one benefit they they lack the knowledge to deal with the perceived knowledge. Take for example the case where spouse x has commited adultery on spouse y. Spouse y is ignorant upon how to deal with such a situation and in turn resorts to an immoderate form of violence as a result of the offense. Because Spouse y lack the knowledge to deal with such a situation, in many respect spouse y cannot be informed until informed or aware of the nature of his/herself and how to take within measure such a situation.

If the omniscient creature is "trapped" in a cage and aware of:

1) Itself; then through the act of self reflection it may continually move inward and in this respect is not "trapped" as it is still able to propogate itself through itself.

2) The cage; then through the act of reflection between itself and the cage, the cage becomes an extension of the omniscient being and both become extensions of eachother.

3) Being trapped in the cage; then the omniscient being is aware of an "outside" to the cage and is no longer fully "trapped"...if at all.

Not at all.
It certainly seemed like you were objecting to the use of 2 propositional examples, to me

I am simply observing that all 2 propositional examples either have a third element not being observed or require continual propogation. In regards to the second point, 2 propositional examples manifest further "logistic movement" and cannot be considering a "truth in themselves" unless viewed as a "logistic atom". The problem of "logistic atoms" is that they need further "logistic atoms" to relate to in order to exist.
What the law of identity does, however is create a Polarity between "A" and "A".
...No

It's ironic, that in your objection to my mention of the law of identity, you end up disobeying the law of non-contradiction. That is to say - there is no 'polarity' between "A and A", because they're the exact same thing. It's the exact opposite of what a 'polarity' even is.


"In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (or the law of contradiction or the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) is the second of the three classic laws of thought. It states that contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B " and "A is not B " are mutually exclusive."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

The division of A, into "A = A" creates a duality of "A" and "=" as logistic Atoms. "A" and "=" are polarized due to this duality. Introducing "A" again stabilizes the argument, however the "A" and "=" are still seperate logistic atoms. The creation of "A" and "A" is a polarizing effect in that is creates a contradiction unless a third element is involved as "=".

A contradiction is a deficiency in structure, nothing more.

"A" moving to "A = A" creates a polarity between "A" and itself resulting in "=" as an extension of "A". This splitting of "A" creates a polarity within "A" that results in "=" as a third logistic "particle" that stabilizes "A". That is a difficult concept for alot of people to "swallow" so if you have further questions...it is not your intelligence at all is my point.
I think you're conflating a demonstration of the law as a logical argument, with its actual application. Someone like Bertrand Russel would only ever show formulate it like this to demonstrate how it has to be true in any given situation. He's not actually implying that the first and second "A" is a different variable; That's a difficult concept to swallow, because what you're saying makes absolutely no sense.

Maybe I word it poorly and/or you misunderstood me, but the polarization or separation of "A" into ("A" and "A") is a contradiction in the respect it is deficient in structure as it is just "A". "A" and "A", by polarizing them requires another logistic atom to be synthesized, in this case "=". In this respect "A = A" maintains a structural symmetry and is not a contradiction, however the observation of "A = A" still observes a polarization was made by "A" and itself resulting in "=".

In this respect "A = A" still observes a polarity as "A" and "=" are the only variables involved. This polarity between "A" and "=" can result in a simple structure such as "A" being the solution. Or "=" being propogated from it.

Through "A" rotating upon itself "=" was reflected as a structural extension.


Logic depends on the observation of "direction" when view in
Try again.

It sounds increasingly obvious that you're making lingo up as you go along. Or you have your own philosophical terms that you've devised for your own use, which isn't very convenient for a conversation.

Okay, look at it this way. Linear 1 dimensional logic can be observed universally as: A leads to B. B leads to C. Etc.. Right? How is that not "directional" considering dimensions are "measurement in one direction"?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dimension

Directionality implies movement. Logic is not always striclty a "static" thing.

So meaning comes strictly from deduction?
I'm saying there are arguments that strictly use deduction.

And those arguments need inductive and abductive reasoning for further structure.
If that is the case and you are for it, then not only would you have to deduct the argument itself, resulting in infinite regress as a form of "structural stability"
By the time you get to accepting and realizing what a "deductive" argument is, you've already accepted that there is a thing known as "language". This is why what you're saying is beside the point, and often beside the intention of the argument being made.

All arguments, or maybe better put: "axioms", require further axioms to exist.
2) You would have to used inductive reasoning to validate the premise of deduction. In this respect, the conclusion is striclty a "truthful" extension of a "true" premise. This third degree of "truth" between premise and conclusion acts a stabilizing median not limited to a linear form or function.
Well, I guess you've used inductive reasoning to determine that the English language is a thing which needs to be followed when used, it just doesn't fit into something for consideration within making logical deductive arguments themselves, because language is already accepted, and is just a basic way to communicate them. Language doesn't make it so there is no such thing as a deductive argument, I just think you're misunderstanding what a deductive argument actually is in philosophy. Even if it took inductive reasoning to get to the conception of a deductive argument, it doesn't change the nature of the actual argument.

The mathematical forms use to determine the abstract nature of the deductive argument (along with Abductive, Indudctive) are in themselves a language. These "forms" rotate through eachother no different than multiplication and division are rotary duals.
The Bible example provides "new" information
I was talking about the wellington one, exclusively, but to be clear the bible thing only "attempts" to show new information.

Definition is information, the grade of definition in turn reflects the grade of truth.
The wellington example shows that definition can maintain circularity without contradiction and circularity however that law of identity point we are talking about applies here also.
While that might be the intention of the argument and why it was made, it's not what I mean. I'm talking about the contents within the argument itself.

Unless I was missinterpreting you, the emphasis was state on the necessity in "form" only validating the argument.
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

Post by Arising_uk »

Eodnhoj7 wrote:The tool, considering it is no natural formation, is an extension of consciousness for both manifests measurements. Measurements and consciousness cannot be seperated. How is a tool not an extension of consciousness considering it does not form naturally?

The relations of the particles change through the nature of the detector considering the detector manifests an environment not natural to the particle.
That's stretching it a bit. So are you saying that the detector has a consciousness?
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

Unread post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:32 am

That is my point all philosophy is fundamentally the observation of definition. Circular logic observes this nature of definition as it observes "center(s)". It does not contradict linearism as linearism exists if and only if there are axioms. These axioms maintain a form of circular rationality by default

But the definition/sentiment come sentiments where what is can be identified may not possess any nature of its own, because observations/realizations are very often personalityless. The specific nature of mind which took one there might be suggested to, but there could never be any certainty of accuracy here, and in any event would shift what should be a philosophical process on to a psychological one. From no matter which angle/from what prospective/axiom about a sentiment, namely one stating that which actually is, should be questioned, if genuine logic be applied that which is shall not be found wanting. From every place that which is will be discovered/found to be that which is. I`m merely thinking aloud, and my logic, should this contain any, has evolved, not been borrowed in any single part. Neither is this do I think complete.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Arising_uk wrote: Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:22 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:The tool, considering it is no natural formation, is an extension of consciousness for both manifests measurements. Measurements and consciousness cannot be seperated. How is a tool not an extension of consciousness considering it does not form naturally?

The relations of the particles change through the nature of the detector considering the detector manifests an environment not natural to the particle.
That's stretching it a bit. So are you saying that the detector has a consciousness?
You are fair in saying "that's stretching it a bit" considering the detector is an artificial extension of the observer.

If we look at matter it is fundamentally, in simplified terms, relations of complex particles which extend from the environment. When this environment is formed according to certain measurement, either natural or artificial, the particles in term relate to and through that environment.

Considering the detector is simply matter rearranged to specific measurements, the particles in turn relate to and through that environment. That environment, in this case the detector, is strictly a specific set of dimensions that form the "matrix" in which and through which the particles relate.

Particles are extensions of the environment they are in, with the particles themselves being environments for further particles. In the case of the detector, this environment is strictly a "physicalization" of an abstract idea which in turn becomes a "new particulate" (as a particulate at its root is a "part of something" in this case the observer).

Considering the detector is a material extension of an abstract idea it has a "degree of consciousness". That is an important word I want to emphasize: "degree", as it is not fully conscious due to its inability to self-reflect except through an observer.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:32 am Unread post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 21, 2017 12:32 am

That is my point all philosophy is fundamentally the observation of definition. Circular logic observes this nature of definition as it observes "center(s)". It does not contradict linearism as linearism exists if and only if there are axioms. These axioms maintain a form of circular rationality by default

But the definition/sentiment come sentiments where what is can be identified may not possess any nature of its own, because observations/realizations are very often personalityless.

All observations are rooted in the "axiom". The axiom, by its very nature as "self" and "evidence" maintains a duality of subjective awareness and objectivity. Think of it this way, the modern symbolism for mathematics was developed by a man by the name of Euler in the 1700s (I am going off of a poor memory, so I want you to double-check that point for yourself, don't take my word for it yet.). This symbolism formed the perspective methodology we use today and determined the vary perspective through which we observe mathematics. On the other hand a culture such as the aztecs used a line and dot system in order to percieve spatial quantities/qualities and that perspective enabled them to produce some of the finest astronomical recording in what we know of as history.

All objective truths are filtered through the cultures that percieve them and in turn reflect with that culture to form the very culture itself. Is their still strict objective truth? Yes. Objectivity forms subjective with subjectivity in turn reflecting objectivity. This "rotation" forms the "axis" of our perspective realities through the "axiom".

Does subjectivity limit objectivity? Not necessarily considering the basis of all mathematics and geometry (hence the rest of the sciences) breaks down to the "line" and "point" which unify both the subjective and objective as "one" for they cannot be disagreed upon or view any differently then what they are.


The specific nature of mind which took one there might be suggested to, but there could never be any certainty of accuracy here, and in any event would shift what should be a philosophical process on to a psychological one.

See example above. All philosophical and psychological processes which maintain their foundations in this inevitable maintain a balance between subjective and objectivity. If we look at the ancients, whose focused primarily on this process, they where able to maintain a level of balance between the "self" and "evidence" considering the observation means at their disposal (know tools such as microscopes, yet still able to observe the "atom" as an "axiom".

From no matter which angle/from what prospective/axiom about a sentiment, namely one stating that which actually is, should be questioned, if genuine logic be applied that which is shall not be found wanting. From every place that which is will be discovered/found to be that which is. I`m merely thinking aloud, and my logic, should this contain any, has evolved, not been borrowed in any single part. Neither is this do I think complete.

The problem which the "old-modern way" of thinking is that they believed if they broke a truth down in to parts they would understand its reality "fully". Now Wittgenstein, and Russel if I remember correctly, observed the failure of this "Logical Atomism" yet we still observe it today. To moved towards a logical holism and yet were unable to fully justify that either (at least that is my opinion).

So what we get in trying to observe the nature of logic is a duality between "A whole truth" and "multiple truths" that fundamentally balance out under the nature of "approximation" between the "whole" and the "many" by observing thier reflective capabilities that maintain their stability and the degree of movement through which they relate.

By observing the stable/moving aspects of truth along with the "whole" and "multiplicity" we are better able to synthesize self-evidence through definition. This definition in turn forms the "axis" upon which we are better able to stabilize our observations and in a seperate respect "extend" them to their limits and possibilities.

Axioms are like seeds. Throw them in the darkness of "ignorance" and they eventually "die" only to give form to a tree which gives birth to further axioms. The light that maintains this tree is reason itself as the observation of symmetry.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

I only said the last line of that, the rest was a quote. I`m not sufficiently interested in this subject to read your full post, sorry, and I have little or no time for other people`s notions for how I should use my mind. It matters not how one`s mind operates in discovery of new meaning, only that it can, and that it does. Formulae for the process is both meaningless and pointless to me. Good instinct alone is sufficient to know whether an individual may be on the right path, and this far supersedes any a b c`s. One should be in the business of testing the conclusions rather than the journeys, for to focus too hard on the journey, on actual mental function, is at odds with creativity. Others, namely the gods, would wish to own not just the truth, but also how we should think, but I personally have little time for them.

Most of what you say is vague, difficult to get any handle on, because it is wantant of actual examples from life experience . Life is made up not of truths, well, it is I suppose, but truths are perceptual, so you likely mean lots of that which actually is? You argue that there is this on one hand and what in totality is on the other. So you remove perception then. There is not all that much left now, is there?

"Stable/moving"? - That means stable or moving, both. Why examine them both as one when they are themselves opposites? The gods were in the business of being gods, being thought of as gods, not just having a contribution to make to philosophy, but through owning the subject to in a sense indirectly own us too. We are not even permitted to formerly participate in the process without first exchanging our minds for their own. HOWEVER, the way forward to genuine contribution is by the pioneering route, not copying and coveting as one`s own.

Of course "self" is at odds with social philosophical progression but it takes for an entirely process deficient individual to not have the functionality required by appropriate mental application, and the question, is this what you personally think, or is this what you logically think being ever present.

This is a subject for pure academics, mental process for mental processes sake, dead boring, but it is not a question for those that I would consider to be philosophers. One is either capable of the process or one is not. Do n`t trust the gods, it cannot be taught!
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:02 pm I only said the last line of that, the rest was a quote. I`m not sufficiently interested in this subject to read your full post, sorry, and I have little or no time for other people`s notions for how I should use my mind.

Noone is forcing you here.
It matters not how one`s mind operates in discovery of new meaning, only that it can, and that it does. Formulae for the process is both meaningless and pointless to me. Good instinct alone is sufficient to know whether an individual may be on the right path, and this far supersedes any a b c`s. One should be in the business of testing the conclusions rather than the journeys, for to focus too hard on the journey, on actual mental function, is at odds with creativity. Others, namely the gods, would wish to own not just the truth, but also how we should think, but I personally have little time for them.


Most of what you say is vague, difficult to get any handle on, because it is wantant of actual examples from life experience . Life is made up not of truths, well, it is I suppose, but truths are perceptual, so you likely mean lots of that which actually is?


You argue that there is this on one hand and what in totality is on the other. So you remove perception then. There is not all that much left now, is there?

We will use these above two statements as a real life example.

1) Truths are perceptual, according to you; therefore your statement is a perception of yours.

2) Considering your statement is a perception of yours, it is true; therefore all other perceptions are true (as all truths are perceptual).

3) - "Most of what you say is vague, difficult to get any handle on, because it is wanting of actual examples of life experience."
- "You argue that there is this on one hand and what in totality is on the the other."
= Me to you: "Most of what you say is vague, difficult to get any handle on, because it is wanting of actual examples"

4) "Truths are perceptual" and "you remove perception then".
results in:

a) I removed the truth, according to you.
b) observing the removing of truth is a "perception" and therefore is a truth.
c) I exclaim a truth/not truth so either
a) I contradict myself
b) Truth and not truth exist at the same time in different respects as grades.
c) Considering all truth is perspective, I do not contradict myself but you perceive that I do; therefore your truth is one of contradiction. It is not that I am vague but that you percieve that I am vague which is true as all truth is perspective according to you. In these respects "truth as perspective" is vague.


My point in all of this is that circular logic enables a "self-reflective" aspect to all logical forms and enable a greater understanding and definition of both oneself, the other, and the corresponding arguments.

The ability for "logical self-reflection" gives structure and definition.


"Stable/moving"? - That means stable or moving, both. Why examine them both as one when they are themselves opposites?


An argument is stable in one respect:
example: A leads to B. B leads to C. A leads to C.

An argument is moving in a seperate respect:

A leads to C through B. However: B reflects b1; therefore A leads to B and B1. b1 leads to C through B.

Arguments have both a stable and fluxing element to them that coexists in different non-contradictory respects.



The gods were in the business of being gods, being thought of as gods, not just having a contribution to make to philosophy, but through owning the subject to in a sense indirectly own us too. We are not even permitted to formerly participate in the process without first exchanging our minds for their own. HOWEVER, the way forward to genuine contribution is by the pioneering route, not copying and coveting as one`s own.

"God is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and circumferance is nowhere."
https://dialinf.wordpress.com/2008/04/0 ... verywhere/

You claim we are not permitted to formerly participate in the process "without first exchanging our mind for their own."

How is circular reasoning seperate from this?

How am I copying and coveting what is universal; therefore within all of us as extensions of the one "Logos".


Of course "self" is at odds with social philosophical progression but it takes for an entirely process deficient individual to not have the functionality required by appropriate mental application, and the question, is this what you personally think, or is this what you logically think being ever present.

If I believe it is logically ever present, then by default it is what I personally think otherwise it would not be "ever present". Considering you believe all truth is perspective, then what you say is true in the respect that it is your perspective. How can you argue "the self is as odds with social philosophical progression" when you admit all truth is perspective?

"but it takes for an entirely process deficient individual to not have the functionality required by appropriate mental application..."

Are you talking about yourself? Or who exactly?


This is a subject for pure academics, mental process for mental processes sake, dead boring, but it is not a question for those that I would consider to be philosophers. One is either capable of the process or one is not. Do n`t trust the gods, it cannot be taught!

Then why bother with "what is dead boring"?

You: "Of course "self" is at odds with social philosophical progression"
You: "it is not a question for those that I would consider to be philosophers."
Me: therefore you are at odds with philosophical progression.

See circular logic has practical use in defining an "argument" for what it really is. "What goes around comes around."
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

We will use these above two statements as a real life example.

1) Truths are perceptual, according to you; therefore your statement is a perception of yours.


Yes, but only according to me in terms of my useage of the term truth. It is a mere word, a term, so without having on board in what context one uses that word discussion over what another may think in relation to a particular first party singled out may likely be to trigger cross purpose and meaningless discussion. The mistake too many of you make here is this one, higher level unsuccessful communication, for too many of you are far too narrow in both your usage, as well apparently, your acceptance, of the full breath of potential meaning possessed within a term. Philosophical process exists only beyond the barrier which language imposes on us, whilst of course language must also assist us on our journey. Truths are most definitely perceptual, for given the same circumstances and same environment what is true for one may not be so for another. These subtle differences of perception between individuals are shown little to know respect in our society. Correct though, all perceptions the product of total and unimpeded consideration are truths, what is true for that individual.( I do n`t think in terms of higher order truths than this, I switch terms.) This is not all which perceptions may be, some perceptions also parallel with that which actually is, or independent reality. Why do n`t you discuss one small detail at a time, is n`t that the only genuine way forward in philosophical discussion?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2017 3:52 pm We will use these above two statements as a real life example.

1) Truths are perceptual, according to you; therefore your statement is a perception of yours.

I don't understand why you are here if this "bores" you. Anyhow:

Yes, but only according to me in terms of my useage of the term truth.
You yourself admit the focus on "I" prohibits philosophical progression. Considering all truth is perspective, according to you, then you believe only what you can perceive.

It is a mere word, a term, so without having on board in what context one uses that word discussion over what another may think in relation to a particular first party singled out may likely be to trigger cross purpose and meaningless discussion.

The mistake too many of you make here is this one, higher level unsuccessful communication, for too many of you are far too narrow in both your usage, as well apparently, your acceptance, of the full breath of potential meaning possessed within a term. Philosophical process exists only beyond the barrier which language imposes on us, whilst of course language must also assist us on our journey.

Language is median which forms further medians. As a median it is equivalent to all other medians in the respect it is a median. Considering communication is a median of information, language fulfills this role.

To argue that language is deficient is to use language and therefore argue "one's argument" is deficient.



Truths are most definitely perceptual, for given the same circumstances and same environment what is true for one may not be so for another.

These subtle differences of perception between individuals are shown little to know respect in our society.

[/color]The mistake too many of you make here is this one, higher level unsuccessful communication, for too many of you are far too narrow in both your usage, as well apparently, your acceptance, of the full breath of potential meaning possessed within a term.

Narrowness is a subtle difference.




Correct though, all perceptions the product of total and unimpeded consideration are truths, what is true for that individual.( I do n`t think in terms of higher order truths than this, I switch terms.) This is not all which perceptions may be, some perceptions also parallel with that which actually is, or independent reality. Why do n`t you discuss one small detail at a time, is n`t that the only genuine way forward in philosophical discussion?

If that is what you want.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

Philosophy is n`t dieing, there are just fewer gods sat in their ivory towers, and with that being the case philosophy is likely taking off. It just takes for those with good instinct to come down of their high horses, to be honest with themselves, and to pick up on it, for it exists where it was always supposed to, with those that have no voice, not that counts, with ordinary people. The gods may think that they own that which is, but in reality that which is owes them absolutely nothing, and absolutely nothing more than anybody else taken at total random.

We are a very unaware bunch if we have to create formulae over the realization for that which is likely actual, I am virtually certain that there are those with more than adequate instinct for this. As for what this instinct is constructed of, quite honestly, what does it matter, we cannot go on to reconstruct how our minds function merely by application to it of a formulae, not in my view, it`s a fallacy, The best we can do is in steering the course in a general direction, and this may be more than sufficient. Should one successfully remove self from their functionality of opinion they`ll discover that they have nothing left to contribute. However, for want of being better understood the instruct should likely still be to remove the self element, for it takes you in the right general direction. Even where it concerns logic though, nothing exists beyond common logic in the absence of self. Do n`t waste time here, build the rockery such that it looks and feels right, do n`t calculate for why each and every stone should be positioned such, for over thinking puts one`s mind in reverse gear.

You yourself admit the focus on "I" prohibits philosophical progression. Considering all truth is perspective, according to you, then you believe only what you can perceive.

You said that, you are dictating where you should be asking a question of me, for you are not a god that you dictate how my mind functions. You may think that you are though, this is the biggest problem that foresets philosophy/philosophical progression, always has been.. No, wrong answer, ultimately I try to contribute outside and beyond my personal perception. The limitations of common opinion, and more so personal perception all too often have to be realized before any genuine philosophical progression can be attained, but perception is then required to catch up.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:33 pm Philosophy is n`t dieing, there are just fewer gods sat in their ivory towers, and with that being the case philosophy is likely taking off. It just takes for those with good instinct to come down of their high horses, to be honest with themselves, and to pick up on it, for it exists where it was always supposed to, with those that have no voice, not that counts, with ordinary people. The gods may think that they own that which is, but in reality that which is owes them absolutely nothing, and absolutely nothing more than anybody else taken at total random.

Oh...gods = academia, I thought you were coming from a pagan perspective of "the gods" as strictly anthropomorphizations of different degrees of the human condition.

Well if that is the case, I agree with you...they can be cast into the hell they created called "ignorance". I worked with a harvard proffessor briefly on writing a screen play, I can assure you from personal experience that outside of their very limited "field" they are very unintelligent. Academia is about "specialization". This "specialization" is a result of the linear emphasis place on logic back in the 17th - 18th century...at least that is what it appears.

When you place an emphasis on a linear only approach to how one "rationalizes" reality you inevitable created division as the "line" is strictly a "dividor". This division, marked under the label of progressivism, is further exasterbated due to the inability for linear thinking to maintain any form of self reflective activity that justifies its foundations.

What you have, as a a result, is a million different schools all arguing in different languages about the same thing. Take philosophy for example, you have one school that props up (lets say the positivists) and in response a counter school props up (anti-positivists) both of which are two sides of the exact same coin. These schools branch off into others and what you have is a continual "fissuring" of knowledge that stems from man's emphasis on a 1 dimensional linear form of thinking.



We are a very unaware bunch if we have to create formulae over the realization for that which is likely actual, I am virtually certain that there are those with more than adequate instinct for this.

Circular rationality is not specifically a formulae, although it is universal in nature and can be observed in such terms as you have already seen, but rather a logical way of self reflection, inter reflection between arguments, and observing the self-reflective structure of an opponent's argument.

Considering nature goes through cycles (and we can observe this in the microscopic scale with atoms or the macroscopic with planets) and the sphere is the most balanced and stable geometric object that exists....why not mirror logic on its original foundations?


As for what this instinct is constructed of, quite honestly, what does it matter, we cannot go on to reconstruct how our minds function merely by application to it of a formulae, not in my view, it`s a fallacy, The best we can do is in steering the course in a general direction, and this may be more than sufficient. Should one successfully remove self from their functionality of opinion they`ll discover that they have nothing left to contribute. However, for want of being better understood the instruct should likely still be to remove the self element, for it takes you in the right general direction. Even where it concerns logic though, nothing exists beyond common logic in the absence of self. Do n`t waste time here, build the rockery such that it looks and feels right, do n`t calculate for why each and every stone should be positioned such, for over thinking puts one`s mind in reverse gear.

You yourself admit the focus on "I" prohibits philosophical progression. Considering all truth is perspective, according to you, then you believe only what you can perceive.

You said that, you are dictating where you should be asking a question of me, for you are not a god that you dictate how my mind functions.
I quoted you saying the "I prohibits philosophical progression". Actually I am just reflecting on what you said and seeing how it reflected on other statements you said...circular reasoning has practical benefits.

You may think that you are though, this is the biggest problem that foresets philosophy/philosophical progression, always has been.. No, wrong answer, ultimately I try to contribute outside and beyond my personal perception. The limitations of common opinion, and more so personal perception all too often have to be realized before any genuine philosophical progression can be attained, but perception is then required to catch up.

In all frankness...you are offended not because of me but because you realize you are vague even towards yourself. The simple truth is that your argument does not work and you vision of reality is threatened by it.

So what...there are worse things than temporary insanity. I still don't know why you are here if you are bored with this subject.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

Sure, yes, I follow this, you obviously having a better grasp of it, well, complete grasp I should say. Linear thinking, one could reasonably remove "self" initially, for how else could one genuinely claim to be of open mind, but without self in constant catch up all arguments in any way to be associated with the psychophysiological awareness of advanced beings would require to be tested by the application of the rational mind. Self has to be elastic, and to possess the functionality of smooth adaptions, but should never be left indefinitely behind. If self cannot go a place there may be a substantial reason for it. I think I am basically just putting your general direction into my own words? If so my untampered state of awareness coincides.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Celebritydiscodave2 wrote: Sun Nov 05, 2017 10:05 am Sure, yes, I follow this, you obviously having a better grasp of it, well, complete grasp I should say. Linear thinking, one could reasonably remove "self" initially, for how else could one genuinely claim to be of open mind, but without self in constant catch up all arguments in any way to be associated with the psychophysiological awareness of advanced beings would require to be tested by the application of the rational mind.

That is the problem with philsophy: "language". And that is why I favor circular reasoning...it enables a "binding median" between two seperate languages and in turn allows a reflective capacity where both parties can move forward in some form of "balance".
Self has to be elastic, and to possess the functionality of smooth adaptions, but should never be left indefinitely behind. If self cannot go a place there may be a substantial reason for it. I think I am basically just putting your general direction into my own words?


In many degrees yes. The problem with the "I" in philosophy is that it does not enable a full degree of transcendence past the self that allow for a more universal "knowledge" to be observe. In a seperate respect the "I" is unavoidable as all axioms are "self"-evidence. What circular reasoning allows is a simultaneous transcendence past the self while maintaining the integrity of the individual as a self-reflective entity.

The "I" exists in its fullest form through the act of "reflection" which is embodied more fully in circular reasoning than linear reasoning. Linear reasoning does have its "merits" however, much in the same manner a spear or arrow "pierces" an enemy to reveal who he is, so linear reasoning does the same with an argument in certain respects.

Considering the ancients viewed the "circle" as divine...why shouldn't we apply it to logic also?
If so my untampered state of awareness coincides.
Post Reply