Re: Logic: Where Correct Thought and Correct Sense Contradict
Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2023 7:18 pm
Facepalm.Age wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 1:53 amOF COURSE your point stands, but to you ALONE.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 11:11 pmYou contradict the argument I provided. My argument occurs through the senses, as it must be typed and read (physical reality is formed through it), and your abstractions do not align with it. My point stands.Age wrote: ↑Mon Jun 12, 2023 2:04 am
But not all actual existing forms are relative.
So not so-called 'all logic' is relative.
Therefore the rest is moot.
Will you provide actual examples?
If no, then why not?
Also, what does the word 'logic' even mean to you?
And, according to you OWN 'logic' here "eodhnoj7" what you just CLAIMED here is NOT universally true. Therefore, this means that what you say and claim here is just your OWN truth ONLY, or in other words is true to you ONLY. Which upon further examination WILL BE SEEN to be the ACTUAL UNIVERSAL Truth.
AGAIN, this is 'true' to you ONLY, but False in ACTUAL ACTUALITY.
False AGAIN. But, AGAIN, NOT to you, ALONE.
Absolutely NO one here, besides you, is agreeing with you. And this is for the very simple fact that your so-called 'argument' is NOT sound and valid.
Now, you might BELIEVE that there are "others" who agree with you and/or are accepting your argument but I challenge you to name any of them.
Or, if ANY one would like to come forward and say that you agree with "eodhnoj7" here, then please feel free to come forward and make "yourself" known.
If all logic is dependent upon forms and forms are relative then all logic is relative. If logic is relative then it is true under some contexts but not in others. These prior statements are logical forms, i.e. 'if a is b and b is c then a is c' and 'if a then b', thus the statements are not universally true as they are relative. A self-contradiction occurs as the statement is true under certain contexts, false in other contexts, but both true and false in light of all contexts.
The problem occurs as the statements 'logic is dependent upon forms' and 'forms are relative' are true statements universally as they can be repeatably verified empirically (i.e. we can see forms in all logic and we can also see that forms are relative as they compare and contrast to other forms).
Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.
This is the thread ^^^.
Now I will break it down.
1. Logic requires forms, it cannot exist except through forms thus it is synonymous to them.
2. Forms are relative and that which is relative is true under certain contexts but not true under others.
3. Logic is true under certain contexts but not true under others.
4. The above is the use of logic thus is true or false dependent upon context. This is the result of self-referentiality.
Part II:
1. The statement that logic is dependent upon forms is empirically verified as it occurs through the senses. We can sense that logic requires forms through the simple act of writing out a logical thought and seeing both the form of the logic and the forms the logic contains (i.e. the variables being used).
2. This is a correct observation as the progressive use of logic is the progressive observation of forms. No matter the angle of observation we cannot seperate logic from forms thus "logic=form" cannot be negated...it is unchanging. Logic being form is thus an absolute truth as, said before, it is unchanging.
Part III:
1. Correct abstractions can be relative. Correct empirical observations can be absolute. Relativity and Absolute truth are opposites thus a contradiction occurs.