Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?
Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?
Opinions, Quotes, Sources, etc.? What do you think and why?
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22498
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?
Haha, linear logic is linear because it is a lineates.
- henry quirk
- Posts: 14706
- Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
- Location: Right here, a little less busy.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?
It's not, as HQ points out its just devoid of explanation.Eodnhoj7 wrote:Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?
Last edited by Arising_uk on Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22498
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?
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.
Is there something I am missing? Opinions as to why the hostility? Is it a western "thing"?
Is there something I am missing? Opinions as to why the hostility? Is it a western "thing"?
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?
More that I have no idea what you are trying to say?Eodnhoj7 wrote:Is there something I am missing? Opinions as to why the hostility? Is it a western "thing"?
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?
Circular logic treats the premise and the conclusion as interchangeable so A is B and B is A are taken to be true
However in standard logic the conclusion cannot ever come before the premise otherwise it is a logical fallacy
However in standard logic the conclusion cannot ever come before the premise otherwise it is a logical fallacy
Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?
But why? If I take it as "authority" then I commit the fallacy of "authority" and I still break standard logic.surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 8:01 am Circular logic treats the premise and the conclusion as interchangeable so A is B and B is A are taken to be true
However in standard logic the conclusion cannot ever come before the premise otherwise it is a logical fallacy
Considering the following logical examples:
1) a → b → ax → bx → ay → bx
"a" and "b" cycle through eachother but in doing so they manifest a linear form as x → x → y → y as x → y
2) a → b → c → d → e → f
a) "a" through "f" manifest eachother if and only if their is a common median to unite them as "Φ" so:
(a → b → c → d → e → f) → (Φa → Φb → Φc → Φd → Φe → Φf)
b) in this respect with "Φ" as a unified median"
(Φa → Φb → Φc → Φd → Φe → Φf) (Φa → Φc → Φb → Φd → Φe → Φf) (Φa → Φb → Φd → Φc → Φe → Φf)
(Φa → Φb → Φc → Φe → Φd → Φf) (Φa → Φb → Φc → Φd → Φf → Φe) (Φf → Φb → Φc → Φd → Φe → Φa)
(Φa → Φf → Φc → Φd → Φe → Φb) (Φa → Φb → Φf → Φd → Φe → Φc) (Φa → Φb → Φc → Φf → Φe → Φd)
....etc.
causes a "cycle" through "unity" as (a,b,c,d,e,f) are interchangeable through Φ.
c) "a" and "f" as beginning and end points in themselves
c1) can circulate while still enable definition of (b → c → d → e) as linear:
(a → b → c → d → e → f) → (f → b → c → d → e → a)
c2) must be viewed as axiomatic and in this respect must be composed of circular definition
a = a1 → a2 → a3 → a4 → a5 → a1 and b = b1 → b2 → b3 → b4 → b5 → b1
or "a" and "f" exists as part of an infinite "chain" but leads back to point b).
And I can go further, but I will lead it with these three points.
-
- Posts: 4365
- Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm
Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?
I exist as a thinking being therefore I think I exist...
Cartesian planes don't fly...
-Imp
Cartesian planes don't fly...
-Imp
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?
Sorry but what logic are you using here? What are 'ax', 'bx', etc meant to represent? Otherwise 'a' is not the same as 'ax' etc, and the only form they represent are P->Q->R->S->...(which is also a bit odd as one doesn't know where the material conditionals are meant to apply).Eodnhoj7 wrote:Considering the following logical examples:
1) a → b → ax → bx → ay → bx
"a" and "b" cycle through eachother but in doing so they manifest a linear form as x → x → y → y as x → y ...
Really no idea what you are trying to say here with these symbols nor how you are using the material conditional?2) a → b → c → d → e → f
a) "a" through "f" manifest eachother if and only if their is a common median to unite them as "Φ" so:
(a → b → c → d → e → f) → (Φa → Φb → Φc → Φd → Φe → Φf)
b) in this respect with "Φ" as a unified median"
(Φa → Φb → Φc → Φd → Φe → Φf) (Φa → Φc → Φb → Φd → Φe → Φf) (Φa → Φb → Φd → Φc → Φe → Φf)
(Φa → Φb → Φc → Φe → Φd → Φf) (Φa → Φb → Φc → Φd → Φf → Φe) (Φf → Φb → Φc → Φd → Φe → Φa)
(Φa → Φf → Φc → Φd → Φe → Φb) (Φa → Φb → Φf → Φd → Φe → Φc) (Φa → Φb → Φc → Φf → Φe → Φd)
....etc.
causes a "cycle" through "unity" as (a,b,c,d,e,f) are interchangeable through Φ.
Sorry, again not a clue what you are saying with these symbols. Can you make the point in English please it might help.c) "a" and "f" as beginning and end points in themselves
c1) can circulate while still enable definition of (b → c → d → e) as linear:
(a → b → c → d → e → f) → (f → b → c → d → e → a)
c2) must be viewed as axiomatic and in this respect must be composed of circular definition
a = a1 → a2 → a3 → a4 → a5 → a1 and b = b1 → b2 → b3 → b4 → b5 → b1
or "a" and "f" exists as part of an infinite "chain" but leads back to point b).
Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?
Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 9:18 pmSorry but what logic are you using here? What are 'ax', 'bx', etc meant to represent? Otherwise 'a' is not the same as 'ax' etc, and the only form they represent are P->Q->R->S->...(which is also a bit odd as one doesn't know where the material conditionals are meant to apply).Eodnhoj7 wrote:Considering the following logical examples:
1) a → b → ax → bx → ay → bx
"a" and "b" cycle through eachother but in doing so they manifest a linear form as x → x → y → y as x → y ...Really no idea what you are trying to say here with these symbols nor how you are using the material conditional?2) a → b → c → d → e → f
I'll elaborate further. We will use "material particles" and "consciousness" as an example (this is just an example I must emphasize, one that stems from a loose interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Matter forms Consciousness. Consciousness in turn forms matter but in doing so changes the form of the matter. The matter as a changed form in turn changes the form of consciousness...etc. Both matter and consciousness alternate between eachother and are "stable" in one degree. In a seperate degree grades of each continually "change". These "changes" can be observed as a linear progression of "new grades of being" while matter and consciousness maintain a stability through circulation between eachother. I hope that make more sense.
a) "a" through "f" manifest eachother if and only if their is a common median to unite them as "Φ" so:
(a → b → c → d → e → f) → (Φa → Φb → Φc → Φd → Φe → Φf)
b) in this respect with "Φ" as a unified median"
(Φa → Φb → Φc → Φd → Φe → Φf) (Φa → Φc → Φb → Φd → Φe → Φf) (Φa → Φb → Φd → Φc → Φe → Φf)
(Φa → Φb → Φc → Φe → Φd → Φf) (Φa → Φb → Φc → Φd → Φf → Φe) (Φf → Φb → Φc → Φd → Φe → Φa)
(Φa → Φf → Φc → Φd → Φe → Φb) (Φa → Φb → Φf → Φd → Φe → Φc) (Φa → Φb → Φc → Φf → Φe → Φd)
....etc.
causes a "cycle" through "unity" as (a,b,c,d,e,f) are interchangeable through Φ.
Using the above example of just consciousness strictly, the grades of change continue and are "degrees" or "dimensions" in themselves. These "degree" as "dimensions" in themselves exist if and only if they have a unifying median to "connect them". In this case Consciousness as "Φ".Sorry, again not a clue what you are saying with these symbols. Can you make the point in English please it might help.c) "a" and "f" as beginning and end points in themselves
c1) can circulate while still enable definition of (b → c → d → e) as linear:
(a → b → c → d → e → f) → (f → b → c → d → e → a)
c2) must be viewed as axiomatic and in this respect must be composed of circular definition
a = a1 → a2 → a3 → a4 → a5 → a1 and b = b1 → b2 → b3 → b4 → b5 → b1
or "a" and "f" exists as part of an infinite "chain" but leads back to point b).
All linear forms of reasoning begin with axioms. These axioms require a paradoxical form of definition in order to exist. This paradox is usually in the form of circular reasoning.
The linear form itself can exist if the axioms of "a" "f" circulate between eachother as "a" leading to "f" and "f" leading to "a". This circulation does not inhibit the definition observed as b,c,d,e.
If "a" and "f" exist only as points from and infinite chain they are still subject to the necessary "unifying" median found in point B, which in that example was "consciousness".
Is that clearer?
-
- Posts: 4257
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am
Re: Socratic Method Only: Why is Circular Logic Considered a Contradiction?
A syllogism has to have two premises and a conclusion [ PI and P2 and C ] They cannot be interchangeableEodnhoj7 wrote:But why ? If I take it as authority then I commit the fallacy of authority and I still break standard logicsurreptitious57 wrote:
Circular logic treats the premise and the conclusion as interchangeable so A is B and B is A are taken to be true
However in standard logic the conclusion cannot ever come before the premise otherwise it is a logical fallacy
for that would then be a tautology which could still be true but would be trivial and no longer a syllogism
- 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?
It doesn't necessarily present a contradiction - as most fallacies don't - it just means that in practice, it's never a good way to argue for something. "The bible is true, because the bible says it is", is a logically redundant statement because the conclusion that you're trying to prove involves a belief in the premise. You're basically trying to prove something within the very thing you're trying to prove to the other person; If you don't understand how that very simple concept is flawed, I'm not sure there's many more ways I can lay out to demonstrate that it is.
Let's also keep in mind that circular reasoning is only a practice that's fallacious in contended claims. It is not fallacious when it doesn't actually attempt to prove anything. As an example I pulled from wikipedia, "Wellington is in New Zealand. Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand." is not fallacious, even though the statement technically uses the principle of circular reasoning.
Can you give us a practical, real world example where the use of circular reasoning in an argument can be applied to show something is correct?
Let's also keep in mind that circular reasoning is only a practice that's fallacious in contended claims. It is not fallacious when it doesn't actually attempt to prove anything. As an example I pulled from wikipedia, "Wellington is in New Zealand. Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand." is not fallacious, even though the statement technically uses the principle of circular reasoning.
It's not usual that an explanation leaves me with even less of an understanding of what the other person is talking about.
Can you give us a practical, real world example where the use of circular reasoning in an argument can be applied to show something is correct?