What are the achievements of Logic?

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2512
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:43 pm

A_Seagull wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:01 pm
Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:24 pm
A_Seagull wrote:...
If one is going to apply rigorous logic to a statement then the elements of that statement need to be rigorously defined. If they are not, then proper logic cannot be applied and all that one is left with is a sort of hand-waving argument and a claim that this is 'obvious' or perhaps 'normative'. But that is not logic.
Given that rigorous Logic applies to variable symbols that stand for any proposition what is to be defined in the elements of the statement that they stand for?
It is possible apply a mapping between formal logic and arbitrary statements and conditionals. And this may well be useful for solving puzzles based on a quasi-reality.
But such a mapping hasa not shown itself to be useful in the domain of real philosophy and so can be ignored or dismissed. In fact it should be ignored as it can lead to the illusion of certainty, which while acceptable for an individual has no place in philosophy where it can be regarded as a delusion. And delusions need to be avoided in philosophy.
Are you certain of this?

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by A_Seagull » Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:15 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:43 pm
A_Seagull wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:01 pm
Arising_uk wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:24 pm
Given that rigorous Logic applies to variable symbols that stand for any proposition what is to be defined in the elements of the statement that they stand for?
It is possible apply a mapping between formal logic and arbitrary statements and conditionals. And this may well be useful for solving puzzles based on a quasi-reality.
But such a mapping hasa not shown itself to be useful in the domain of real philosophy and so can be ignored or dismissed. In fact it should be ignored as it can lead to the illusion of certainty, which while acceptable for an individual has no place in philosophy where it can be regarded as a delusion. And delusions need to be avoided in philosophy.
Are you certain of this?
Unless and until evidence to the contrary comes along, yes.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2512
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:25 pm

A_Seagull wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2018 8:15 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:43 pm
A_Seagull wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:01 pm


It is possible apply a mapping between formal logic and arbitrary statements and conditionals. And this may well be useful for solving puzzles based on a quasi-reality.
But such a mapping hasa not shown itself to be useful in the domain of real philosophy and so can be ignored or dismissed. In fact it should be ignored as it can lead to the illusion of certainty, which while acceptable for an individual has no place in philosophy where it can be regarded as a delusion. And delusions need to be avoided in philosophy.
Are you certain of this?
Unless and until evidence to the contrary comes along, yes.

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Science Fan » Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:17 pm

If you go past computational math courses and start doing non-computational math subjects, then the first thing you typically learn is logic, and how mathematics is based on a foundation of logic.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2512
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:28 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 6:17 pm
If you go past computational math courses and start doing non-computational math subjects, then the first thing you typically learn is logic, and how mathematics is based on a foundation of logic.
True, I have found, strictly speaking for me only, that the viewing and understanding of linquistic logic actually provides a better foundation for math. And vice versa. Learning one helps one learn the other at a quicker pace.

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Science Fan » Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:10 pm

Eod: That's also true. They blend together. I think it's really unfortunate that students are not exposed to the actual logical foundations of mathematics in grade school, as it would definitely assist students in thinking critically, about virtually any subject that they have to deal with. I'm studying these subjects now, on my own, which is difficult because many of the textbooks in these non-computational subjects don't have answers to the exercises. These books aren't exactly self-study friendly.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2512
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:03 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:10 pm
Eod: That's also true. They blend together. I think it's really unfortunate that students are not exposed to the actual logical foundations of mathematics in grade school, as it would definitely assist students in thinking critically, about virtually any subject that they have to deal with. I'm studying these subjects now, on my own, which is difficult because many of the textbooks in these non-computational subjects don't have answers to the exercises. These books aren't exactly self-study friendly.
Been there, and still there at times. In all truth, I think most of those books are quite literally gibberish, I still read them from time because intellectually I am open to everything, at least that is what I pretend to tell myself.

Everything I have learn so far observes that logic is quite simply perception of order, nothing more, and the men who right these books are no different than the crazy artist who paints a painting...some people see order and other's disorder...then groups of people get together and form cults around it....some people would say logic has no real origin of truth because of this argument I make...however logic is strictly the perception of order so subjectivity often times becomes objective and vice versa.

In these respects I found logic to provide both subjective and objective answers for many of the questions I ask myself.




When I would pursue a goal, intellectual or athletic, I always stuck with the basics until I mastered them to such a high level, that the basics actually overcame the complicated.

For example, "circular reasoning". If I can observe the circular nature of an argument, whether mine or another's I can quickly observe whether the form of the conclusion contradicts the function of the premise. I have learned that all arguments, without intending to be, have a circular structure...so where "Y" person thinks they made an impenetrably complex and deep argument, I can find the loop holes in literally half a read.

Just observing the geometric nature of the argument, helped not only simply things, but has given a massive degree of clarity I don't know if I would have otherwise.

Another example of sticking to the basics, was in sports. When I was in highschool, I did martial arts...and lost a hell of a lot of times. So in college I decided I would train myself, and literally would practice mastering 1-3 very simple moves. I came back to that same school a few years later, and for all the "in depth" knowledge they gave the illusion of giving, I was wiping the floor with these men of "knowledge", they actually were getting pissed.

I do the same when I am working in construction, eventually I get fired because my mastering the basics equates to me "working to hard"...and I am labeled the asshole and cast into a financial abyss once more.

In short, it is about mastering the simple things everyone thinks are "worthless". In these respects, I believe logic as the observation of structure is inseparable from a value system in itself....and it all very simple at the end of the day.
We have more similarities than you realize...I agree 100% about the linguistic nature of logic not being taught in schools as a detriment. An abstract reality has no value to the student unless it can be practically applied, and the practical application is rooted in everyday language...this is considering the premise of how we deal with reality is dependent upon communication.

If you look at the tests applied to the generation from the 20-40's there tests were completely different then ours, they had a fusion of language and number, and they were less separate than they are today. I think a lot of kids, and adults, suffering because of the fractation we deal with today. Hell, even physics courses are mostly math, and they suffer in turn with serious problem in logical metaphysical concepts. I have learned, that if I want to learn something it breaks down to three things...for me at least:

1) Hard work....I have to think about a problem from every conceivable angle.
2) Debate...getting another person angry with you will motivate them to find weakness in your own viewpoints...I have learned more from people "hating" me than trying to be friend.
3)Reading everything in front of me, whether it is a scientific article or some wack-job conspiracy nut...if it exists at the conceptual level, then there must be some concept which forms it.

When I was in school, I frankly did not care about math at all, I would study linguistic logic (at the practical level) considering the successes I seen with it in dealing with people and answering personal questions. I did well in math, don't get me wrong, but I never bothered, at the time, even considering anything past college algebra and statistics. My teachers told me I was good and should considering pursuing math further, but frankly at the time I could not observe the link to the practical everyday nature of it.

What really got my interest in logic going was ironically a metaphysics course, I disagreed with my professor at the time over the concept of "nothingness" and had to delve into it further from a personal perspective. Looking back at the time, the logical problems I experience then, seem like nothing like the one's I deal with now...however I remember so clearly at the time it was like a "whole new world" opened up to me.

I never really cared about many of my other courses, I could barely learn Spanish because I cared so little. I got a tutor for it, and spent the whole time thinking about her naked just to get through the boring subject. Towards the end of college, I didn't even study at all, because I didn't believe in any of it, I just argued with my teachers, made jokes and caused general chaos. The education system today is joke, I learned more from a library than I ever did in my four years in school.

I am looking for going back to get a master's...eventually....but I will probably spend the whole time arguing with everyone because quite frankly I don't believe in anything anyone's says unless I can see it.

Learning the paradoxes of logic also really helped at the less serious "joking with your friends" level...I had a lot of good laughs thanks to my study in logic.

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Science Fan » Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Eodn: I was basically interested in relearning physics that I used to know, so I had to start with reviewing mathematics first. Then, because of time-constraints related to work, I realized about the only thing I will have time for is mathematics, with a small amount of science added to the mix, because the math alone is taking a long time to go through. I can only learn a little at a time, because I can't spend hours going through a theorem and learning how to apply it, like I could as a college student.

I then saw the connection between math and philosophy, as both are disciplines that requires coming up with arguments, as a mathematical proof is simply an argument. I find both disciplines help me to think better, and help to take up most of the free-time that I do have. I also consider these two subjects broad enough that they touch on almost everything.

As far as learning from arguing with people, that's a good observation on your part. It's certainly true that someone else can expose an error in one's own argument often better than we can alone. It's also why I get disappointed when people on a philosophy forum don't address substantive points with an actual argument, but resort to personal insults instead ---- I can't learn anything from the insults and they end up being a needless distraction. Besides which, people who rely on personal insults have numerous places to go to on the web where such tactics are appreciated.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2512
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:31 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 10:21 pm
Eodn: I was basically interested in relearning physics that I used to know, so I had to start with reviewing mathematics first. Then, because of time-constraints related to work, I realized about the only thing I will have time for is mathematics, with a small amount of science added to the mix, because the math alone is taking a long time to go through. I can only learn a little at a time, because I can't spend hours going through a theorem and learning how to apply it, like I could as a college student.

I then saw the connection between math and philosophy, as both are disciplines that requires coming up with arguments, as a mathematical proof is simply an argument. I find both disciplines help me to think better, and help to take up most of the free-time that I do have. I also consider these two subjects broad enough that they touch on almost everything.

As far as learning from arguing with people, that's a good observation on your part. It's certainly true that someone else can expose an error in one's own argument often better than we can alone. It's also why I get disappointed when people on a philosophy forum don't address substantive points with an actual argument, but resort to personal insults instead ---- I can't learn anything from the insults and they end up being a needless distraction. Besides which, people who rely on personal insults have numerous places to go to on the web where such tactics are appreciated.
Agree with all of the above.

In regards to the learning I have learned a few principles, from practical experience (which I founded existed in ancient philosophy without my knowing) that may speed up the process for you.

1) Principle of Polarity. When learning something, whether a specific idea/argument/subject/science, research and learn its exact polar opposite. The tension between the two states will not only allow you gain insight into both subjects (as one goes against the other) but allow you to synthesize an original understanding of both while developing a new viewpoint. The problem of objectivity, as observed by Nietzsche, is that it is dependent upon a subjective nature. The problem of subjectivity is that it can be objectified into a phenomena in itself. The axiom, as a point of understanding, must be both not one or the other.

2) Principle of Frequency. This one you should already know. The only way we perceive reality is through repetition of that specific viewpoint, with this repetition maintaining itself as a constant across time and space. If I want to get good at memorizing, I must repeat it. If I want to gain a skill at either objective arguments or subjective insults (which contrary to popular belief I find important in philosophy), I must repeat it with frequency. But the most important skill, at least from what I have observed (speaking strictly subjectively), is the frequency of observation. When observing, it is best to look at a subject from all angles...the thing of it is (while it may come naturally for some) it is actually a disciplined skill that can be learned through practice. The principle of frequency, in these respects, may be argued as similar (but not equal to) "discipline".

3) Rotation of Passive and Active Observation. We observe and interact with both ourselves and the environment around us whether we perceive it or not...The question is whether we do it actively or passively. It I actively do it, by focusing myself into it, I create a simultaneous passive space of observation. For instance, I study hard for a work or school project. During this course of study I am applying my mind. However passively my body is not interacting with the environment. And vice versa with heavy labor or an athletic event. My body may be applied, however the level of abstract awareness may be diminished. Both manners of "focus" provide the potential passive space for the other. I work hard mentally so my body can rest from heavy physical exertion. I work hard physically, so my mind can rest from heavy intellectual labor. I used one active means of focus to give rest to another means by allowing it to be passive. I take the passive means and turn it active to allow the prior active means to become passive.

In this manner I am always "aware" without really being fully aware, while in a separate manner being subjectively involved in an objective activity so that "I" am always present.

These three principles fundamentally are summated as three different forms of alternation, hence understanding can be premised as a rotation of axioms through axioms as axioms. If I cannot rotate either my viewpoint, or another's, not only to different degrees but invert it completely, then I say to myself I do not understand it fully. In a separate respect if I am arguing with someone else and I can rotate the argument in such a manner where its foundations become unstable, I can figuratively, "shake it for contradictions". Understanding exists through rotation fundamentally, with rotation being composed of multiple linear constructs that alternate.

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Science Fan » Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:32 pm

From my experience dealing with many people on this forum, I think there is a large group of people here who are convinced that the following is a principle of logic: "Personally insult anyone who disagrees with you and who asks for evidence or a coherent argument to justify your position. The more personal insults you type, the more logical your argument is."
Last edited by Science Fan on Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

wtf
Posts: 622
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by wtf » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:16 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:32 pm
From my experience dealing with many people on this forum, I think there is large group of people here who are convinced that the following is a principle of logic: "Personally insult anyone who disagrees with you and who asks for evidence or a coherent argument to justify your position. The more personal insults you type, the more logical your argument is."
It's worse than just this forum, and it's worse than all Internet forums. Our public political discourse has become infected.

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Science Fan » Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:12 am

WTF: Absolutely spot on!

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 2811
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:46 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:32 pm
From my experience dealing with many people on this forum, I think there is a large group of people here who are convinced that the following is a principle of logic: "Personally insult anyone who disagrees with you and who asks for evidence or a coherent argument to justify your position. The more personal insults you type, the more logical your argument is."
From my experience with some posters, it appears that logic is actually not even considered/welcomed much of the time, and that they don’t even care whether they are being logical or not. They just want to believe and say whatever they want to believe and say. There doesn’t seem to be a desire to see beyond that, to learn/grow further, or improve upon one’s views, when one has settled themselves comfortably atop an imaginary heap and dared everyone else to prove them wrong.

Such a thing OBVIOUSLY doesn’t seem truthful or resilient, so it's strange to see people sustain it. For an ever-changing/expanding world -– which has always proven that there are new things to discover and embrace -– it doesn’t make any sense to be so utterly ignorant/dismissive of logic. Yet, some people seem willing to act insane in order to control/maintain their reality bubble the way they want it.

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Science Fan » Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:14 pm

Lace: That's absolutely true. I've also been accused at times of being a "hypocrite," precisely because I have changed my positions on various topics, as I consider different arguments or come across additional information. So, I get called both a hypocrite, for changing my opinions honestly, and a person who "never admits to being wrong" because I do not concede a point, which I find unjustified. So, no matter what I do, I find myself on the receiving end of hurtful personal attacks.

I do try my best to address the actual arguments being made as opposed to personally attacking the person making them. I realize I do not always live up to this goal, and I am far from perfect in this regard, but I do seriously feel that there are far too many people in this forum who aren't even trying to avoid personal insults, and who believe that behaving childishly is how one wins a debate.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 2512
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:41 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 8:32 pm
From my experience dealing with many people on this forum, I think there is a large group of people here who are convinced that the following is a principle of logic: "Personally insult anyone who disagrees with you and who asks for evidence or a coherent argument to justify your position. The more personal insults you type, the more logical your argument is."
Haha, true... this reminds me of something I learned....now I am not presenting an argument but merely a set of subjective experiences. This addresses your point however....

I raise or raised various animals on a farm: rabbits, pigs, chickens, sheep, etc. The majority of the time, the animals would respect eachother if given enough space. The pigs would get along with the pigs, sheep with sheep, rabbits with rabbits and so on and so forth. The problem would occur that some animals simply just had a dominating streak in them. Take for example one of the rabbits I had, as a matter of fact this was a problem I faced this morning when I woke up.

I would put it in the pen to breed with the other rabbits, however it would aggressively beat them up in the process, etc. Sometimes the rabbit is under stress from a new environment so either you find ways to release the stress (move it back to the pen, feed it more, extra hay, etc.) or let time figure it out. However the best way to deal with the animal is through love and patience, you try to find ways to make it comfortable and happy. Nine times out of ten it works, however it does not always work. The animals behavior does not change, no matter how many times or manners you try to find a common point with it.

So to get on with the story, the rabbit I moved into the pen beat up all the other rabbits. It literrally tore the ones ear open, the other's would not eat because of the stress involved from this "abusive" rabbit. Now there was nothing I could do, within a considerable means to find some common ground where this rabbit would get along with the other rabbits...it would not stop plain and simple...no matter what I did. So I took the rabbit out and bashed his head off a tree, then threw him in the woods for the coyotes to eat. I then proceeded to apologize to the other rabbits for all the pain they had to tolerate, even though they are rabbits and didn't understand a word I said, the rabbits suffered because I tolerated the other's rabbit's abusive behavior.


So after this long, over drawn story, in real-life a line has to be drawn with certain people's behaviors....on the internet, although I do not believe in "banning" anyone, I do believe if they want to make ad-hominums a competive sport...than who am I to judge? They want witty retorts and insults...okay.

In philosophy, now a days, you have to be good at both conceptual thinking and standard ad-hominums.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests