What are the achievements of Logic?

What is the basis for reason? And mathematics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:44 pm

wtf wrote:
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.
It is not just the forum or political discourse, it is everyday life.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:46 pm

Lacewing wrote:
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.
No offense lacewing, but you back out when someone (specifically "I"), disagree with you. I want to know, and this is not a test or anything, but what exactly is "logic" to you? What is logic?

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 6:51 pm

Eod: That I definitely true; however, this forum is supposed to be a philosophy forum, and in philosophy, personal attacks are considered to be a fallacy, as a person's argument may be valid, even if the person has some moral failing. Yet, there are certain users on this forum who resort to childish personal insults and who mistake those insults for a cogent argument. Why this conduct is being tolerated here, I have no idea. It seems inconsistent with the intended purpose of this group, which is to promote philosophical thinking.

If I remember correctly, my very first post in this group was a post in applied ethics regarding taxation. At least two people came on that post and immediately began personally insulting me, one of whom stated he would continue to personally insult me until I left the group. Neither person addressed the merits of my argument, and I doubt to this day that they could have come up with a rational argument against my position in that post. That was my initial experience with this group, and one of the main reasons why I left for about 6 months ---- I was tired of the childishness. I'm still experiencing such childish attacks from people, and I really wish it would stop. It detracts from any meaningful discussion of topics.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:55 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:14 pm
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.
I, too, try to zero in (at first) on valuable substance to discuss... or questions to be asked. Sometimes it's easy to get snarky when it seems absurd that we even have to debate a particularly simple or obvious idea/circumstance because the person is being defensive, dishonest, or insane, rather than courageous and truthful. :D I am naturally a respectful person... however, HERE I do tend to try to push people off of their pedestals, because I don't think they'll be real and connect otherwise... and I want to get to the "truth"... shared with the person, if possible. If someone (including myself) is being a bit thick... but genuinely trying to see and be honest... I can be very compassionate and gentle. Otherwise, I might start cursing and cracking my whip. It's just fun trying to do the best creatively with each situation.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:13 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:46 pm
No offense lacewing, but you back out when someone (specifically "I"), disagree with you.
No, I don't "back out" because you disagree with me (although you may like to think that's the reason :twisted: ), I back out because you seem to go on a head trip that I'm not interested in going on with you. Like when you went off making all of your projections about how people are, and the way you see the world. Why should I hang around and argue that with you? I don't think anything is absolute... so your "absolutes" and projections are not of interest to me. Now if you were to approach the discussion more openly... like we're trying to discover and clarify something... rather than convoluting it with noisy claims that we have to trudge through... then I'd be more interested in sticking around. :)
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:46 pm
I want to know, and this is not a test or anything, but what exactly is "logic" to you? What is logic?
To me, logic is being aware of what makes sense with the factors being considered. If someone says/does something that goes against other obvious factors, that's not logical. And some people, instead of answering questions that would reveal better logic and truth about the things they say, choose to avoid the questions by stirring up more illogical noise.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:22 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:51 pm
Eod: That I definitely true; however, this forum is supposed to be a philosophy forum, and in philosophy, personal attacks are considered to be a fallacy, as a person's argument may be valid, even if the person has some moral failing. Yet, there are certain users on this forum who resort to childish personal insults and who mistake those insults for a cogent argument. Why this conduct is being tolerated here, I have no idea. It seems inconsistent with the intended purpose of this group, which is to promote philosophical thinking.

I agree with how you feel, but the degree of freedom this forum promotes does allow for various ideas (which would not otherwise be posted) to occur. Just look at the math section here, half of the front page is covered in my posts. I asked the mods if I posted to much, and should cut it short, but they replied as long as the material was related to the thread I could continue. Excessive posting on other sites would fall under a form of "abuse through repetition", I agree with the methodology they promote here because of the inherent intellectual freedom it promotes.

The thing with freedom, is that is always faces opposition, but I believe this opposition must be embraced. Someone who hates what I have to say, will always be there to jump on top and exploit any weakness I have...some who agrees with me would not do this. Freedom in these respects is struggle.


If I remember correctly, my very first post in this group was a post in applied ethics regarding taxation. At least two people came on that post and immediately began personally insulting me, one of whom stated he would continue to personally insult me until I left the group. Neither person addressed the merits of my argument, and I doubt to this day that they could have come up with a rational argument against my position in that post. That was my initial experience with this group, and one of the main reasons why I left for about 6 months ---- I was tired of the childishness. I'm still experiencing such childish attacks from people, and I really wish it would stop. It detracts from any meaningful discussion of topics.
I just dish it back when I feel like it...the only moral system I believe in is one based on a "time and place for everything under the sun" embodied through the golden rule.

The same applies for academia, except insults they cast you out entirely.

I have learned from personal experience, that ideology is the purest exhibition of force which exists because it cuts down to the fabric which manifests the individual for who he or she is....philosophical differences cause more struggles than pay check differences.

This often reminds me:

There were a few poems in Norse Mythology about the god of wisdom "Odin" and his pursuit of understanding (now we are viewing this from the perspective of a psychological metaphor, not literal interpretation)

In one of the poem's he approached a well which would offer him the wisdom and understanding he sought...the cost however was one of his eyes. So he tore the eye out and achieved greater wisdom. He originally saw the world from each eye, and it was reduced to one eye...he lost all depth perception and things appeared less separated. What was once deep became shallow.

In another poem he sought the source of this wisdom, so he fasted for nine days, hung himself from the world tree (hung himself from what constitutes reality, the hanging-man concept of philosophy), and pierce himself in the side with a spear.

He sought to destroy everything which constituted who he was, so to perceive a greater degree of truth past himself...hence he found the "runes" as the origin of reality (one could argue equivalent to a linguistic version of the platonic forms). After all of his suffering, he grasped these "forms" which constitute reality, and what did they do? In their purity they burned him and he "shreaked" and "screamed" from the horrific pain.

But all those things eventually faded.

Philosophy today, the pursuit of understanding, is composed of an ocean of ever-changing opinion and is often times violent...it is the equivalent to a pyramid formed of people climbing over each other to reach the same thing...a simple point of light.


User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:29 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:13 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:46 pm
No offense lacewing, but you back out when someone (specifically "I"), disagree with you.
No, I don't "back out" because you disagree with me (although you may like to think that's the reason :twisted: ), I back out because you seem to go on a head trip that I'm not interested in going on with you. Like when you went off making all of your projections about how people are, and the way you see the world. Why should I hang around and argue that with you? I don't think anything is absolute... so your "absolutes" and projections are not of interest to me. Now if you were to approach the discussion more openly... like we're trying to discover and clarify something... rather than convoluting it with noisy claims that we have to trudge through... then I'd be more interested in sticking around. :)

You believe there are no absolutes, hence the underline just justifies it further.

I don't understand what you mean by "open"...could you explain that to me further?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:46 pm
I want to know, and this is not a test or anything, but what exactly is "logic" to you? What is logic?
To me, logic is being aware of what makes sense with the factors being considered. If someone says/does something that goes against other obvious factors, that's not logical.
But change is premised on continual opposition...is it not? If one factor goes against another, but both factors exist, and one must embrace everything (which I believe is what you are implying) why not embrace the continual change?

My point, if I may be clearer on the issue, is that you claim everything continually changes, however certain things you will not accept...but this makes no sense considering if you embrace change you must embrace view points which change (or differ) from yours....is there something I am not looking at in its entirety?


And some people, instead of answering questions that would reveal better logic and truth about the things they say, choose to avoid the questions by stirring up more illogical noise.

But you admit, in the above, to do the same thing?

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 7:49 pm

Lace: I hear what you are saying, and understand your position. The thing is I was definitely not referring to you as one of the users on this forum who rely on personal insults for their arguments. I was referring mainly to VT and Henry, both of whom, yesterday, engaged in the following irrational arguments against me:

I stated that races do not exist among humans. That was my argument, and I never stated that white people were racists or that black people could not be racists. So, what did they both do after I stated that races do not exist? They claimed I was being racist for claiming blacks are never racist. What was that other than an unfounded personal attack, including a classic strawman fallacy? Henry stated that the NAACP, a well-known civil rights organization in the USA, was racist, and I disagreed. I then asked for proof that NAACP was racist. What was the response? Henry produced no such evidence, and neither did VT, but VT stated that since I asked for proof for their position, I had lost the debate. Now, how Orwellian was that? Someone who asks for evidence in support of an opponent's argument has conceded to losing the debate? Since when? That was entirely absurd, and yet, that's the kind of crap I get on here, day after day, and I'm tired of it. I'm sure some members of the NAACP are racist, and the NAACP may have on occasion made some mistakes, I wouldn't be surprised if both these things were true since the NAACP has been around for decades and has a lot of members. However, as far as its official policy? It promotes equality and is against discrimination of black people, which is not in any way an endorsement of racism. That's why neither Henry nor VT could come up with any evidence that the NAACP was a racist organization, because its official position is and always has been for the equal treatment of blacks, not that blacks are superior.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:58 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:49 pm
Lace: I hear what you are saying, and understand your position. The thing is I was definitely not referring to you as one of the users on this forum who rely on personal insults for their arguments. I was referring mainly to VT and Henry, both of whom, yesterday, engaged in the following irrational arguments against me:

I stated that races do not exist among humans. That was my argument, and I never stated that white people were racists or that black people could not be racists. So, what did they both do after I stated that races do not exist? They claimed I was being racist for claiming blacks are never racist. What was that other than an unfounded personal attack, including a classic strawman fallacy? Henry stated that the NAACP, a well-known civil rights organization in the USA, was racist, and I disagreed. I then asked for proof that NAACP was racist. What was the response? Henry produced no such evidence, and neither did VT, but VT stated that since I asked for proof for their position, I had lost the debate. Now, how Orwellian was that? Someone who asks for evidence in support of an opponent's argument has conceded to losing the debate? Since when? That was entirely absurd, and yet, that's the kind of crap I get on here, day after day, and I'm tired of it. I'm sure some members of the NAACP are racist, and the NAACP may have on occasion made some mistakes, I wouldn't be surprised if both these things were true since the NAACP has been around for decades and has a lot of members. However, as far as its official policy? It promotes equality and is against discrimination of black people, which is not in any way an endorsement of racism. That's why neither Henry nor VT could come up with any evidence that the NAACP was a racist organization, because its official position is and always has been for the equal treatment of blacks, not that blacks are superior.
VT, is a sterile angry old-maid, either ignore her or insult her back...she only understands abuse...I dealt with her a lot during my time here....a lot do.

Henry...I don't remember him at all.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:30 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:29 pm
you claim everything continually changes, however certain things you will not accept...but this makes no sense considering if you embrace change you must embrace view points which change (or differ) from yours....is there something I am not looking at in its entirety?
Seriously, are you on drugs? :lol:

Yes, I embrace change and different viewpoints (as far as seems reasonable) -- No, I don't have to embrace everything, nor what appears stupid or wasteful. I make a reasonable effort and then let it go. If I wait long enough, the stupid and wasteful might sort itself out without more of my energy. :)

Your responses seem extreme, as if trying to blanket everything without any consideration for context and applicability. What agenda causes such a thing? If there's something that truly needs clarification, I love seeking clarity! But you convolute far too much for me to address for clarity's sake. You've got to have some clarity and comprehension on your own, you know?!

Also, I find the format of your posts annoying to read. Sometimes you respond within another person's quote... sometimes you respond outside of the quote... sometimes you add underlines to another's text, and sometimes you use multiple colors. It takes more effort to follow... and I simply don't like the extra effort you require. :)
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:29 pm
Lacewing wrote:And some people, instead of answering questions that would reveal better logic and truth about the things they say, choose to avoid the questions by stirring up more illogical noise.
But you admit, in the above, to do the same thing?
No, I put a lot of energy into answering questions (as far as seems reasonable). So put your blanket away... you're smothering all the life out of this discussion. :D

Some people just don't speak enough of the same language to converse in an understandable way... and that appears to be the case with us. That's okay! Bye now.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:37 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:30 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:29 pm
you claim everything continually changes, however certain things you will not accept...but this makes no sense considering if you embrace change you must embrace view points which change (or differ) from yours....is there something I am not looking at in its entirety?
Seriously, are you on drugs? :lol:
No, but there is no wrong in it according to you, so would it matter?

Yes, I embrace change and different viewpoints (as far as seems reasonable) -- No, I don't have to embrace everything, nor what appears stupid or wasteful. I make a reasonable effort and then let it go. If I wait long enough, the stupid and wasteful might sort itself out without more of my energy. :)
So there are things that are "wasteful" and things that are "not wasteful"?

Your responses seem extreme, as if trying to blanket everything without any consideration for context and applicability. What agenda causes such a thing? If there's something that truly needs clarification, I love seeking clarity! But you convolute far too much for me to address for clarity's sake. You've got to have some clarity and comprehension on your own, you know?!

Also, I find the format of your posts annoying to read. Sometimes you respond within another person's quote... sometimes you respond outside of the quote... sometimes you add underlines to another's text, and sometimes you use multiple colors. It takes more effort to follow... and I simply don't like the extra effort you require. :)
And that cannot change?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:29 pm
Lacewing wrote:And some people, instead of answering questions that would reveal better logic and truth about the things they say, choose to avoid the questions by stirring up more illogical noise.
But you admit, in the above, to do the same thing?
No, I put a lot of effort into answering questions (as far as seems reasonable). So put your blanket away... you're smothering all the life out of this discussion. :D

Some people just don't speak enough of the same language to converse in an understandable way... and that appears to be the case with us. Bye now.
Here I will summarize this conversation so the point becomes clear, you claim everything changes....all people change, physical realities change, etc.

But when a question is posed, that either requires a form of change in thinking on your part (and you claim change is inevitable in all things), you cease to do it....hence there are certain constants.

You also claim to "embrace" everything there is in the human experience, but seem "uncomfortable" (at least that is how it appears to me), walking down certain experiences.

To sum up these arguments, it appears the philosophy you are espousing does not appear to work for you, hence why argue it to others?


This is just an exercise in the practical aspect of thinking and self-reflection, take it for what it is.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:46 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:49 pm
Lace: I hear what you are saying, and understand your position. The thing is I was definitely not referring to you as one of the users on this forum who rely on personal insults for their arguments. I was referring mainly to...
I understand. And I didn't think you were referring to me, although I wouldn't have been surprised if you were, because people have varying views of me... AND, I do let loose and bash people at times if it seems timely and appropriate. :)

There are definitely some crazy things that are said on this forum. Sometimes it's unfathomable how people could come up with such things. The way I've evolved to accept and understand it is to be amazed and amused at the creative potential. Sometimes it's easier than other times... but the more you do it, the easier it gets... and I've gotten pretty good at it. :D

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5039
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:51 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:46 pm
Science Fan wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:49 pm
Lace: I hear what you are saying, and understand your position. The thing is I was definitely not referring to you as one of the users on this forum who rely on personal insults for their arguments. I was referring mainly to...
I understand. And I didn't think you were referring to me, although I wouldn't have been surprised if you were, because people have varying views of me... AND, I do let loose and bash people at times if it seems timely and appropriate. :)

There are definitely some crazy things that are said on this forum. Sometimes it's unfathomable how people could come up with such things. The way I've evolved to accept and understand it is to be amazed and amused at the creative potential. Sometimes it's easier than other times... but the more you do it, the easier it gets... and I've gotten pretty good at it. :D
Good then maybe you could explain your philosophy to me then...considering you claim I don't understand it.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:09 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:37 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:30 pm
Seriously, are you on drugs? :lol:
No, but there is no wrong in it according to you, so would it matter?
It would simply help explain your weird communication. :lol:
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:37 pm
So there are things that are "wasteful" and things that are "not wasteful"?
Sure, in the context of what I want to invest my energy on at any given time.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:37 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:30 pm
I simply don't like the extra effort you require. :)
And that cannot change?
Sure it can. So? Why do I need to invest any more in it until it does?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:29 pm
Here I will summarize this conversation so the point becomes clear, you claim everything changes....all people change, physical realities change, etc.
Yes, it appears to me that all things change with time and/or circumstances.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:29 pm
But when a question is posed, that either requires a form of change in thinking on your part (and you claim change is inevitable in all things), you cease to do it....hence there are certain constants.
In the moment, and depending on the circumstance, a change in thinking may not be logical.

What is this problem you have with accepting multiple things as being true? Are you so jacked up to have a set of solid, unmovable, absolute answers -- to such a degree that you can't even function or adapt or flow? Or do you just like to argue?
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:29 pm
You also claim to "embrace" everything there is in the human experience, but seem "uncomfortable" (at least that is how it appears to me), walking down certain experiences.
Yes, both true. I do try to embrace everything in the human experience, but some things (like your stupid questions) are uncomfortable to continually wade through over and over, droning on and on, seemingly without end. Still, look at the effort I've made! :D
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:29 pm
To sum up these arguments, it appears the philosophy you are espousing does not appear to work for you, hence why argue it to others?
Yeh, whatever. You clearly don't understand half of what I say... so I'm not real surprised by your conclusion.
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:29 pm
This is just an exercise in the practical aspect of thinking and self-reflection, take it for what it is.
I did. Are we done here?

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: What are the achievements of Logic?

Post by Lacewing » Tue Feb 27, 2018 9:21 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:51 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Feb 27, 2018 8:46 pm
There are definitely some crazy things that are said on this forum. Sometimes it's unfathomable how people could come up with such things. The way I've evolved to accept and understand it is to be amazed and amused at the creative potential. Sometimes it's easier than other times... but the more you do it, the easier it gets... and I've gotten pretty good at it. :D
Good then maybe you could explain your philosophy to me then...considering you claim I don't understand it.
As usual, you don't follow... What I've gotten good at is accepting and understanding the insane ramblings of people like you, by evolving to be amazed and amused at the creative potential.

Now, I'm done explaining obvious things to you. My energy is better used elsewhere.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests