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 »

surreptitious57 wrote: Sat Oct 21, 2017 10:01 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
surreptitious57 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
But why ? If I take it as authority then I commit the fallacy of authority and I still break standard logic
A syllogism has to have two premises and a conclusion [ PI and P2 and C ] They cannot be interchangeable
for that would then be a tautology which could still be true but would be trivial and no longer a syllogism
That I understand:

Syllogism:

an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion (e.g., all dogs are animals; all animals have four legs; therefore all dogs have four legs).

https://www.bing.com/search?q=syllogism ... B6BD7E2C95

The problem occurs as (using the dog example):
(∀D = A) ^ (∀A ∋ [4]L) ∴ (∀D ∋ [4]L)

A ∋ (∀D ∋ [4]L) ******(note)***** and in this respect "(∀D ∋ [4]L)" and "A" are "duals":

⟨A|(∀D ∋ [4]L)⟩ which must "rotate" in order to exist.

This dual to "A ∋ (∀D ∋ [4]L)" can be observed as: A ∈ (∀D ∋ [4]L)

******""Containing as an element" is a "degree" or "grade" of equality and in this respect is equality in "grade" (which is still "equality" at the micro scale).

1) In this respect (∀D ∋ [4]L) exists if and only if there is "A".

2) (∀D ∋ [4]L) is therefore an approximate logistic structure of "A" with "A" being the unifying median of "A".

3) As (∀D ∋ [4]L) is a structural extension of unifying median "A", it is strictly a "grade" of "A".

4) As a "grade" of "A", or element of "A", (∀D ∋ [4]L) is a result of "A" reflecting upon itself through ("^" as "and").

You see my point?
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 22, 2017 7:28 am 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.

Using the bible example to address the above point and give example to the below point:

1) The bible reflects truth because the bible claims that the bible reflect truth.
B ≡ T ∵ B ≡ (B ≡ T)

2) The bible reflects the bible reflecting truth therefore the bible reflects truth.
B ≡ (B ≡ T) ∴ B ≡ T

****In this respect we are able to observe both cause and effect as beginning and end points through "because" and "therefore". In this respect the statement observe a duality where B causes T

3) The bible reflecting both itself and truth reflects x therefore x reflects both the bible and the truth.
B ≡ (B ≡ T) ^ B ≡ X ∴ T ≡ X

4) Considering that the bible reflects both truth and "X" truth and x are approximates of the bible. In this respect the bible does not equal "truth" but is an approximate of truth.

5) The bible may claim to be true and claim x,y,z but if x,y,z do not reflect eachother then what the bible claims as "truth" is merely a gradation of truth (which is a truth) for x, y, z are merely deficiencies in bible's reflection of truth. In these respects because the points within the bible do not circulate between eachother they cannot reflect the bible's claims. A lack of reflection between B,T and XYZ occurs and while the bible may claim to be "true" it is observing mere grades of it.

6) In simpler terms a paradox, or form of circular reasoning, needs another form of circular reasoning to justify it. These circular "axioms" must reflect further circular definitions in order to exist. If these axioms do not reflect, they are taken on their own account.

7) "The bible is true because it says it is true" means the bible reflects truth however in that act of reflection both truth and bible are approximate structures of eachother and in this respect are "grades" of being. We can observe the bible and truth as independent structure are not "unified" and in this respect must look for further reflections to justify it.

8) The bible may claim truth and claim x as true however x being true is dependent upon what else x and truth reflect. Correction is an act of reflection until symmetry is reach. Symmetry is merely definition and what we deem as "truth" or "being correct" is simply definition.

*****I feel like I left out a few points somewhere (or was to vague), so if this does not answer question then I will continue further or you can ask another.





****For the record, the bible does not claim it is true in the "infallible" method most protestants attribute to it. There is no quote. Does it manifest degrees of truth? Yes. Falsity? Yes.
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 »

You don't seem to be using the "Socratic Method" at all. Needless to say, I don't understand the vast majority of what you just said, probably because it just doesn't make sense. I don't know what "reflects" means in the context of your example, but just saying something "reflects truth", doesn't mean that something actually "reflects truth". Your example also still misses the point about circular reasoning only being fallacious in the case of an argument. You more or less, just regurgitate known facts that can be deduced simply from within the example itself, I.e "Bible reflects truth, therefore the bible reflects truth". That's really just the Law of identity being applied, and no new data is actually found.

The point is you can never use circular reasoning to prove anything.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:14 pm****For the record, the bible does not claim it is true in the "infallible" method most protestants attribute to it.
It literally doesn't matter. Replace 'bible' with literally anything you want, because I was just using it as a random example to show how the principle can never hold true.
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 22, 2017 8:26 pm You don't seem to be using the "Socratic Method" at all. Needless to say, I don't understand the vast majority of what you just said, probably because it just doesn't make sense. I don't know what "reflects" means in the context of your example, but just saying something "reflects truth", doesn't mean that something actually "reflects truth". Your example also still misses the point about circular reasoning only being fallacious in the case of an argument. You more or less, just regurgitate known facts that can be deduced simply from within the example itself, I.e "Bible reflects truth, therefore the bible reflects truth". That's really just the Law of identity being applied, and no new data is actually found.

The point is you can never use circular reasoning to prove anything.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:14 pm****For the record, the bible does not claim it is true in the "infallible" method most protestants attribute to it.
It literally doesn't matter. Replace 'bible' with literally anything you want, because I was just using it as a random example to show how the principle can never hold true.


How can anything be proved except through definition? What is proof but definition?

In this respect, the nature of circular reasoning as "propogative" in nature is one propogative of definition.

(as argued in: "the bible says it is true therefore it is true. The bible says X therefore X is true. Source Y say x is false; therefore the bible and Source Y disagree.")

Circular reasoning is a higher degree of "definition" than "linear reasoning" and "in these respects" it constitutes "proof" as a degree of proof. It is in the ability for the circular argument to both reflect upon itself and further reflect other arguments that it maintains this definition as a form of unification between axioms.

The bible point, had nothing to do with "religion" but rather that is a false example that does not reflect reality. Reflection gives definition to structure (as other sources following the same logic argue that it does not say that, while still following a similiar argument of "I say it is true therefore it is true) In this respect circular reasoning reflects other forms of circular reasoning to proof further circular reasoning.


Actually both of us are following it, and if I am not then neither are you, considering your form is similiar to mine.

"Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates. Elenchus is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions."

https://www.bing.com/search?q=socratic+ ... 789DF7D73D


One circular argument reflects another circular argument and in turn another circular argument is formed. Strict linearism is impossible considering it requires axioms, in both beginning and ending, that must be circular. (Agree or disagree?)


Reflect:

(of a surface or body) throw back (heat, light, or sound) without absorbing it:
"when the sun's rays hit the earth a lot of the heat is reflected back into space" · [more]
synonyms: send back · throw back · cast back
(of a mirror or shiny surface) show an image of:
"he could see himself reflected in Keith's mirrored glasses"
synonyms: send back · throw back · cast back
embody or represent (something) in a faithful or appropriate way

https://www.bing.com/search?q=reflect+d ... 2F3C5793BA


Axioms, as all propositions are axioms, reflect other axioms through approximating eachother. This act of approximation in turn forms a further axiom. A reflects B which in turn reflects as (or is congruent in structure to) C. In this respect A B and C reflect eachother as they are approximates of eachother and in this respect are interchangeable (circulate) through proximity.

That applies to the bible example where the circular proposition, considering it is composed of reflecting axioms (bible, truth, says, is...etc. are all "axioms" forming further axioms), must reflect current approximate axioms. In this respect all circular propositions are:

1) True in themselves as axioms.
2) Untrue as they are approximates of other axioms not observed.
3) Both true and false at the same time in different respects depending on what they reflect.

Arguments are definition reflecting definition, like what we are doing right now. You present an Argument. I present an argument. The arguments reflect and in doing so reflect another 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: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.
Well apart from you using -> to be "forms" no it doesn't. Can you give an example of where consciousness forms matter and changes its form?

The rest I'll leave as it seems to hinge upon your reply.
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 24, 2017 10:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: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.
Well apart from you using -> to be "forms" no it doesn't. Can you give an example of where consciousness forms matter and changes its form?

The rest I'll leave as it seems to hinge upon your reply.
A drug dealer alters a marijuana plant. The marijuana plant alters his perceptions. The drug dealer in turn alters a marijuana plant....etc.

A mechanic creates a car for himself from scrap. The car in turn changes his perceptions about what it is to be a mechanic. The mechanic creates a new car from scrap and/or alters the old....etc.

The quantum physicist observes a particle. The particle changes its behavior. The physicist changes his observation of the particle...etc.
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:A drug dealer alters a marijuana plant. The marijuana plant alters his perceptions. The drug dealer in turn alters a marijuana plant....etc.

A mechanic creates a car for himself from scrap. The car in turn changes his perceptions about what it is to be a mechanic. The mechanic creates a new car from scrap and/or alters the old....etc. ...
They are still plants and cars and in these cases its matter changing matter. Also there is no necessary correlation between smoking the herb and changing the plant.
The quantum physicist observes a particle. The particle changes its behavior. The physicist changes his observation of the particle...etc.
This is still just a model and given detectors can apparently do the same consciousness doesn't seem to necessarily be involved.
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 24, 2017 11:37 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:A drug dealer alters a marijuana plant. The marijuana plant alters his perceptions. The drug dealer in turn alters a marijuana plant....etc.

A mechanic creates a car for himself from scrap. The car in turn changes his perceptions about what it is to be a mechanic. The mechanic creates a new car from scrap and/or alters the old....etc. ...
They are still plants and cars and in these cases its matter changing matter.
They are still plants and car, but different degrees have been altered through conciousness. The consciousness is in turn effected by these changes in degrees. (Like/dislike change, etc.)

If I want to take the strict approach of matter changing matter, it is still circular.
The quantum physicist observes a particle. The particle changes its behavior. The physicist changes his observation of the particle...etc.
This is still just a model and given detectors can apparently do the same consciousness doesn't seem to necessarily be involved.
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.
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 »

I have to say you speak in an odd way that's very hard for me to understand. It sort of feels like you're trying to explain something really complex that I'm just not understanding, but ultimately I think it's just the words you're using and the way you explain things that's making it sound far more complicated than it actually is.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:47 pmHow can anything be proved except through definition? What is proof but definition?
You mean that every word we use has to have a meaning behind it in order to communicate an idea? I don't really see how this is relevant, besides being extremely obvious to any discussion.
(as argued in: "the bible says it is true therefore it is true. The bible says X therefore X is true. Source Y say x is false; therefore the bible and Source Y disagree.")

Circular reasoning is a higher degree of "definition" than "linear reasoning" and "in these respects" it constitutes "proof" as a degree of proof. It is in the ability for the circular argument to both reflect upon itself and further reflect other arguments that it maintains this definition as a form of unification between axioms.
I don't see why it doesn't necessarily requires anymore than 2 propositions. My example was intentionally this simple to make a point, you can't prove a conclusion with a premise that requires an acceptance of the conclusion.
Actually both of us are following it, and if I am not then neither are you, considering your form is similiar to mine.
I meant by your logical formulations. The method is not typically associated with logically symbolized formulations like that.
One circular argument reflects another circular argument and in turn another circular argument is formed. Strict linearism is impossible considering it requires axioms, in both beginning and ending, that must be circular. (Agree or disagree?)
Well no, I don't see why that has to be the case. If it's a circular argument, it's a circular argument. It doesn't need to follow another argument that reaches back to the beginning proposition of the first argument in order to be circular.
Reflect:
I hope you realize you gave me multiple definitions, that mean different things?
That applies to the bible example where the circular proposition, considering it is composed of reflecting axioms (bible, truth, says, is...etc. are all "axioms" forming further axioms), must reflect current approximate axioms.
Alright, you've just about lost me at this point. I've never heard of single words being referred to as "axioms" in and of themselves. That's not really what they are.
Arguments are definition reflecting definition, like what we are doing right now. You present an Argument. I present an argument. The arguments reflect and in doing so reflect another argument.
I would tell you that's not the case, but I'm not completely sure what that even means.

As I explained, not every statement is meant to act as an argument; "Wellington is in New Zealand. Therefore, Wellington is in New Zealand" is not an argument, however "The bible is true, because the bible says it is" is an argument.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

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

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie »

Circular logic is not a contradiction, just a lack of evidence.
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: Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:18 am I have to say you speak in an odd way that's very hard for me to understand. It sort of feels like you're trying to explain something really complex that I'm just not understanding, but ultimately I think it's just the words you're using and the way you explain things that's making it sound far more complicated than it actually is.

I would have to agree.
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:47 pmHow can anything be proved except through definition? What is proof but definition?
You mean that every word we use has to have a meaning behind it in order to communicate an idea? I don't really see how this is relevant, besides being extremely obvious to any discussion.

A problem is strictly a deficiency in knowledge. By observing solution, what we are doing is observing or giving definition to the deficiency.

Take for example 2+2 =? This is a problem because it is deficient in observable structure. The solution "4" is the observing definition of the problem. A problem, or contradiction if you want to extend it further, is a deficiency in structure. This deficiency exists as a result of lack of "definition" or "order". What is definition other than observing "what is" and "what is not"?

(as argued in: "the bible says it is true therefore it is true. The bible says X therefore X is true. Source Y say x is false; therefore the bible and Source Y disagree.")

Circular reasoning is a higher degree of "definition" than "linear reasoning" and "in these respects" it constitutes "proof" as a degree of proof. It is in the ability for the circular argument to both reflect upon itself and further reflect other arguments that it maintains this definition as a form of unification between axioms.
I don't see why it doesn't necessarily requires anymore than 2 propositions. My example was intentionally this simple to make a point, you can't prove a conclusion with a premise that requires an acceptance of the conclusion.

That is probably where we disagree as 2 propositions alone results in a polarity between axioms. "The bible says it is true; therefore the Bible is true" is fundamentally 2 propositions that "generally" rotate continually between eachother as it is "one proposition" versuses "the other". The proposition, in this case equates to "Says" therefore "is".

In simpler terms a polarity is form when you have 2 propositions, and the circular reasoning resulting from this polarity inevitable is stabilized by the argument reflecting further. There is no argument, or set of propositions that exists on their own terms without some form of further definition they must relate to.

Its like looking at an electron. Would one be able to define it one its own terms or must it relate to a proton, neutron, etc. in order to be observed as an electron? Logic follows this same form as "particulate".

All arguments must continually relate in order to maintain any form of definition, just as one problem/solution leads to another problem solution.

Actually both of us are following it, and if I am not then neither are you, considering your form is similiar to mine.
I meant by your logical formulations. The method is not typically associated with logically symbolized formulations like that.
Symbolic logic... It adds another visual dimension to the argument. You can ignore it if you wish.
One circular argument reflects another circular argument and in turn another circular argument is formed. Strict linearism is impossible considering it requires axioms, in both beginning and ending, that must be circular. (Agree or disagree?)
Well no, I don't see why that has to be the case. If it's a circular argument, it's a circular argument. It doesn't need to follow another argument that reaches back to the beginning proposition of the first argument in order to be circular.

Considering all arguments are acts of definition, what we observe in the words composing the arguments are circular definition. Take for example the word "mass". Look it up in a dictionary and you will see a multitude of definition, with one being "matter". Now look up "matter", you will see a multitude of definitions including "mass". Each definition circulates through the other and in turn reflects other definitions that in turn circle.

Try it out, look up a definition and then look up the definition of that definition.

Reflect:
I hope you realize you gave me multiple definitions, that mean different things?

Yes, because all apply to in a different degree:

(of a surface or body) throw back (heat, light, or sound) without absorbing it:
****** All A reflects B and B reflects A. A and B are defined by their ability to be approximates of eachother. When we see something "reflect", in this case certain Logistics A and B, what we are observing is their approximate nature through a cause and effect chain, which I can address later if you wish.

think deeply or carefully about
*****All acts of logic are acts of thought period, and in this respect they reflect back to the observer as an axiom or self-evidence.
****
That applies to the bible example where the circular proposition, considering it is composed of reflecting axioms (bible, truth, says, is...etc. are all "axioms" forming further axioms), must reflect current approximate axioms.
Alright, you've just about lost me at this point. I've never heard of single words being referred to as "axioms" in and of themselves. That's not really what they are.
Arguments are definition reflecting definition, like what we are doing right now. You present an Argument. I present an argument. The arguments reflect and in doing so reflect another argument.
I would tell you that's not the case, but I'm not completely sure what that even means.

I give definition to what is self-evident to me. You give definition to what is self-evident to you. In turn a new set of axioms for both you and I can be observed.
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 »

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:48 pm Circular logic is not a contradiction, just a lack of evidence.
Evidence is strictly and observation of symmetry and proportions that manifest as definition. If something is evident, it is defined. In these respects, circular logic is the most symmetrical as it is inherently self-reflective and inter-reflective of further "evidence".
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: Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:39 pmA problem is strictly a deficiency in knowledge. By observing solution, what we are doing is observing or giving definition to the deficiency.
I would say that's a very odd way of putting it; I actually wouldn't even say that all problems are due to a deficiency in understanding them, but whatever. I don't see what it has to do with anything here.
Take for example 2+2 =? This is a problem because it is deficient in observable structure. The solution "4" is the observing definition of the problem. A problem, or contradiction if you want to extend it further, is a deficiency in structure. This deficiency exists as a result of lack of "definition" or "order". What is definition other than observing "what is" and "what is not"?
I mean, if you make any sort of statement, you sort of have to make some basic assumptions that it's following the basic rules of your language. I don't really see what you're getting to, because what you're saying is just extremely obvious to anyone. It's not that it's being neglected in the use of logical sequences, it's just not the goal of them to teach you what words mean what. Linguistics have nothing to do with the demonstration of a basic logical sequence. Often times, what a word or thing actually means in a logical formula doesn't even matter, because it's just demonstrating a basic understanding of how things work. Case in point, it literally did not matter what the definition of 'bible' meant as a variable in my bible example because I literally could have used any book (or any word at all) and be left with the same fallacious result.

A "contradiction" isn't a exactly a "deficiency in structure" as a result of a "result of lack of definition", as you so garrulously put it. The title of this thread leads me to believe you're using 'contradiction' interchangeably with any form of fallacious reasoning, which isn't the case.
That is probably where we disagree as 2 propositions alone results in a polarity between axioms.
There are plenty of 2 proposition arguments in philosophy.
In simpler terms a polarity is form when you have 2 propositions, and the circular reasoning resulting from this polarity inevitable is stabilized by the argument reflecting further. There is no argument, or set of propositions that exists on their own terms without some form of further definition they must relate to.
There is absolutely no way to "stabilize" proving a conclusion with a premise that requires a belief in the conclusion, no matter how much you expand.
Its like looking at an electron. Would one be able to define it one its own terms or must it relate to a proton, neutron, etc. in order to be observed as an electron? Logic follows this same form as "particulate".
None of that is applicable here. We don't need to have every page of the bible memorized in order to implant it into a logical sequence. Hell, we don't even need to know what the word "bible" means. I also don't see how this idea would ever justify a use of circular reasoning.
Yes, because all apply to in a different degree:
Not really, but okay.
I give definition to what is self-evident to me. You give definition to what is self-evident to you. In turn a new set of axioms for both you and I can be observed.
The words you're choosing to use.... Anyway, no, not everything is an argument. The 'Wellington in New Zealand' thing is still not an argument because its purpose is not trying to present new information. It's distinctly different from the bible example for a reason. They both do need to follow a basic language with meaning behind each of their words of course, but that has nothing to do with the subject of logical consequence. That's already assumed when you choose to use the method.
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: Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:39 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:39 pmA problem is strictly a deficiency in knowledge. By observing solution, what we are doing is observing or giving definition to the deficiency.
I would say that's a very odd way of putting it; I actually wouldn't even say that all problems are due to a deficiency in understanding them, but whatever. I don't see what it has to do with anything here.

All problems are base in ignorance. If you knew the answer would it be a problem?
Take for example 2+2 =? This is a problem because it is deficient in observable structure. The solution "4" is the observing definition of the problem. A problem, or contradiction if you want to extend it further, is a deficiency in structure. This deficiency exists as a result of lack of "definition" or "order". What is definition other than observing "what is" and "what is not"?
I mean, if you make any sort of statement, you sort of have to make some basic assumptions that it's following the basic rules of your language. I don't really see what you're getting to, because what you're saying is just extremely obvious to anyone. It's not that it's being neglected in the use of logical sequences, it's just not the goal of them to teach you what words mean what. Linguistics have nothing to do with the demonstration of a basic logical sequence. Often times, what a word or thing actually means in a logical formula doesn't even matter, because it's just demonstrating a basic understanding of how things work.

And the basic understanding of how words work is "circulation".


Case in point, it literally did not matter what the definition of 'bible' meant as a variable in my bible example because I literally could have used any book (or any word at all) and be left with the same fallacious result.

You say I am wrong; therefore I am wrong...it is still the same structural formula.

A "contradiction" isn't a exactly a "deficiency in structure" as a result of a "result of lack of definition", as you so garrulously put it. The title of this thread leads me to believe you're using 'contradiction' interchangeably with any form of fallacious reasoning, which isn't the case.

Definition is a contrast between "being" and "non-being" and in this respect is an extension of structure for what "being" exists without structure?
That is probably where we disagree as 2 propositions alone results in a polarity between axioms.
There are plenty of 2 proposition arguments in philosophy.

And that is why philosophy is dying as it is in a continual state of "fluxing knowledge"...ie "opinion"
In simpler terms a polarity is form when you have 2 propositions, and the circular reasoning resulting from this polarity inevitable is stabilized by the argument reflecting further. There is no argument, or set of propositions that exists on their own terms without some form of further definition they must relate to.
There is absolutely no way to "stabilize" proving a conclusion with a premise that requires a belief in the conclusion, no matter how much you expand.

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.

The conclusion exists if and only if their is a premise and in this respect is an extension of the premise. Linear reasoning (as 1 dimensiona) exists if and only if their are two points. These points exist as divisions of the line and in this respect are zero dimension. The premise and conclusion are not things within themselves but are particles that exist if and only if they relate. However they must continual relate as they are "not-whole". In this respect linear reasoning must continue as it is continual divided by premise and conclusion.

Its like looking at an electron. Would one be able to define it one its own terms or must it relate to a proton, neutron, etc. in order to be observed as an electron? Logic follows this same form as "particulate".
None of that is applicable here. We don't need to have every page of the bible memorized in order to implant it into a logical sequence. Hell, we don't even need to know what the word "bible" means. I also don't see how this idea would ever justify a use of circular reasoning.

So the words do not have to meanings as long as the argument is "linear"? Do I understand that correctly? 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.
Yes, because all apply to in a different degree:
Not really, but okay.

You disagree....good...present an argument why.
I give definition to what is self-evident to me. You give definition to what is self-evident to you. In turn a new set of axioms for both you and I can be observed.
The words you're choosing to use.... Anyway, no, not everything is an argument. The 'Wellington in New Zealand' thing is still not an argument because its purpose is not trying to present new information.
It's distinctly different from the bible example for a reason.
Any application of "therefore" is an argument.

They both do need to follow a basic language with meaning behind each of their words of course, but that has nothing to do with the subject of logical consequence.
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.

That's already assumed when you choose to use the method.
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: 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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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"?

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.
Post Reply