Welcome to Gaia! ::

The Willow Of Darkness
Reality is actually logic(X is true). The problem, which logical positivism tries to avoid(and in doing so misses a whole lot of very important things about reality), is that reality can be hidden, often by what is considered "logical."


I disagree that reality is logic. Or, at least, I disagree with how you're phrasing it. Saying "X is true" is different from saying that reality itself is based within the rules of logic. As I see it, logic is a tool that we've created and utilize in order to try and make sense of the world. However, as logic tends to be the tool that we use to measure things, it becomes of a problem once we stop and think about how we can evaluate logic itself. Logic is a system. Even if we make a system internally consistent, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily externally consistent. So that we have rules of logic does not mean that these are actually the "rules" of "reality". Yes, we can try and assure ourselves of this but if we press on, we find that logic lies on a series of axioms that we take as-is.

Once we question these axioms, it is hardly satisfying to say "we shall simply assume them" if we're mounting a serious inquiry into the nature of reality itself.
Le Pere Duchesne's avatar

Beloved Prophet

Kiumaru
The Willow Of Darkness
Reality is actually logic(X is true). The problem, which logical positivism tries to avoid(and in doing so misses a whole lot of very important things about reality), is that reality can be hidden, often by what is considered "logical."


I disagree that reality is logic. Or, at least, I disagree with how you're phrasing it. Saying "X is true" is different from saying that reality itself is based within the rules of logic. As I see it, logic is a tool that we've created and utilize in order to try and make sense of the world. However, as logic tends to be the tool that we use to measure things, it becomes of a problem once we stop and think about how we can evaluate logic itself. Logic is a system. Even if we make a system internally consistent, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily externally consistent. So that we have rules of logic does not mean that these are actually the "rules" of "reality". Yes, we can try and assure ourselves of this but if we press on, we find that logic lies on a series of axioms that we take as-is.

Once we question these axioms, it is hardly satisfying to say "we shall simply assume them" if we're mounting a serious inquiry into the nature of reality itself.

Well that's the thing, reality certainly has its own logic, the question is 'do we currently grasp it?' I think this simple declaration (that reality has its own logic) is all that she's saying. In fact it is such a basic and banal statement that pretty much anyone who doesn't declare that every cause and every effect is separated, and in reality the result of the actions of a creator or some extra-real animating force (which is just a fancy way of saying god).
Le Pere Duchesne
Kiumaru
The Willow Of Darkness
Reality is actually logic(X is true). The problem, which logical positivism tries to avoid(and in doing so misses a whole lot of very important things about reality), is that reality can be hidden, often by what is considered "logical."


I disagree that reality is logic. Or, at least, I disagree with how you're phrasing it. Saying "X is true" is different from saying that reality itself is based within the rules of logic. As I see it, logic is a tool that we've created and utilize in order to try and make sense of the world. However, as logic tends to be the tool that we use to measure things, it becomes of a problem once we stop and think about how we can evaluate logic itself. Logic is a system. Even if we make a system internally consistent, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily externally consistent. So that we have rules of logic does not mean that these are actually the "rules" of "reality". Yes, we can try and assure ourselves of this but if we press on, we find that logic lies on a series of axioms that we take as-is.

Once we question these axioms, it is hardly satisfying to say "we shall simply assume them" if we're mounting a serious inquiry into the nature of reality itself.

Well that's the thing, reality certainly has its own logic, the question is 'do we currently grasp it?' I think this simple declaration (that reality has its own logic) is all that she's saying. In fact it is such a basic and banal statement that pretty much anyone who doesn't declare that every cause and every effect is separated, and in reality the result of the actions of a creator or some extra-real animating force (which is just a fancy way of saying god).


It is a lot stronger than that. There is much we must currently grasp, else what we know and understand could not exist. Indeed, we must grasp it if we are to be aware of it and for it to be of any meaning.

No, people who do that still use it. Else it couldn't be that cause and effect, as such a thing is ring said to be true, is controlled by such a being rather than how we observed it happening.
Le Pere Duchesne's avatar

Beloved Prophet

The Willow Of Darkness
Le Pere Duchesne
Kiumaru
The Willow Of Darkness
Reality is actually logic(X is true). The problem, which logical positivism tries to avoid(and in doing so misses a whole lot of very important things about reality), is that reality can be hidden, often by what is considered "logical."


I disagree that reality is logic. Or, at least, I disagree with how you're phrasing it. Saying "X is true" is different from saying that reality itself is based within the rules of logic. As I see it, logic is a tool that we've created and utilize in order to try and make sense of the world. However, as logic tends to be the tool that we use to measure things, it becomes of a problem once we stop and think about how we can evaluate logic itself. Logic is a system. Even if we make a system internally consistent, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily externally consistent. So that we have rules of logic does not mean that these are actually the "rules" of "reality". Yes, we can try and assure ourselves of this but if we press on, we find that logic lies on a series of axioms that we take as-is.

Once we question these axioms, it is hardly satisfying to say "we shall simply assume them" if we're mounting a serious inquiry into the nature of reality itself.

Well that's the thing, reality certainly has its own logic, the question is 'do we currently grasp it?' I think this simple declaration (that reality has its own logic) is all that she's saying. In fact it is such a basic and banal statement that pretty much anyone who doesn't declare that every cause and every effect is separated, and in reality the result of the actions of a creator or some extra-real animating force (which is just a fancy way of saying god).


It is a lot stronger than that. There is much we must currently grasp, else what we know and understand could not exist. Indeed, we must grasp it if we are to be aware of it and for it to be of any meaning.

No, people who do that still use it. Else it couldn't be that cause and effect, as such a thing is ring said to be true, is controlled by such a being rather than how we observed it happening.

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the logic of the universe has been grasped by humans, no in the sense that this logic is not the dominant form of logic. Formal logic, that can trace its lineage back to Aristotle, that preaches a=a, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle, this simply does not correspond to reality. The old question of 'if, over time, we replace the planks of a ship, so that eventually not a single part of the ship is original, is it the same ship' shows the limitation of this principle of identy. Yet dialectic logic, which sees things in their motion, says that unlike aristotelian logic which says that a=a and a=/=b, in short, that something cannot be both itself and something else, says just that: things can be, and in fact are both themselves and something else, because that's precisely what change is... Well dialectic logic is denied, declared to be word games, and dismissed by the vast majority of logicians.
Le Pere Duchesne
The Willow Of Darkness
Le Pere Duchesne
Kiumaru
The Willow Of Darkness
Reality is actually logic(X is true). The problem, which logical positivism tries to avoid(and in doing so misses a whole lot of very important things about reality), is that reality can be hidden, often by what is considered "logical."


I disagree that reality is logic. Or, at least, I disagree with how you're phrasing it. Saying "X is true" is different from saying that reality itself is based within the rules of logic. As I see it, logic is a tool that we've created and utilize in order to try and make sense of the world. However, as logic tends to be the tool that we use to measure things, it becomes of a problem once we stop and think about how we can evaluate logic itself. Logic is a system. Even if we make a system internally consistent, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily externally consistent. So that we have rules of logic does not mean that these are actually the "rules" of "reality". Yes, we can try and assure ourselves of this but if we press on, we find that logic lies on a series of axioms that we take as-is.

Once we question these axioms, it is hardly satisfying to say "we shall simply assume them" if we're mounting a serious inquiry into the nature of reality itself.

Well that's the thing, reality certainly has its own logic, the question is 'do we currently grasp it?' I think this simple declaration (that reality has its own logic) is all that she's saying. In fact it is such a basic and banal statement that pretty much anyone who doesn't declare that every cause and every effect is separated, and in reality the result of the actions of a creator or some extra-real animating force (which is just a fancy way of saying god).


It is a lot stronger than that. There is much we must currently grasp, else what we know and understand could not exist. Indeed, we must grasp it if we are to be aware of it and for it to be of any meaning.

No, people who do that still use it. Else it couldn't be that cause and effect, as such a thing is ring said to be true, is controlled by such a being rather than how we observed it happening.

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the logic of the universe has been grasped by humans, no in the sense that this logic is not the dominant form of logic. Formal logic, that can trace its lineage back to Aristotle, that preaches a=a, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle, this simply does not correspond to reality. The old question of 'if, over time, we replace the planks of a ship, so that eventually not a single part of the ship is original, is it the same ship' shows the limitation of this principle of identy. Yet dialectic logic, which sees things in their motion, says that unlike aristotelian logic which says that a=a and a=/=b, in short, that something cannot be both itself and something else, says just that: things can be, and in fact are both themselves and something else, because that's precisely what change is... Well dialectic logic is denied, declared to be word games, and dismissed by the vast majority of logicians.


That example doesn't show a limitation of the principles of identity at all. All the original parts of the ship have simply been removed and replaced by different ones. Whether this is consider the same "ship" is entirely a question of whether of value.

The reason being is that it doesn't work. In its very definition it breaks itself. For it is saying that it is true that a=a and a=/b doesn't apply(a=a), as opposed to applying(a=/=b. a=a and a=/=b is integral. Simply saying that there is something, even if you leave its nature undefined, requires a=a(something is there) and a=/=b(it is not precisely defined as opposed to being precisely).
Le Pere Duchesne's avatar

Beloved Prophet

The Willow Of Darkness
Le Pere Duchesne
The Willow Of Darkness
Le Pere Duchesne
Kiumaru
The Willow Of Darkness
Reality is actually logic(X is true). The problem, which logical positivism tries to avoid(and in doing so misses a whole lot of very important things about reality), is that reality can be hidden, often by what is considered "logical."


I disagree that reality is logic. Or, at least, I disagree with how you're phrasing it. Saying "X is true" is different from saying that reality itself is based within the rules of logic. As I see it, logic is a tool that we've created and utilize in order to try and make sense of the world. However, as logic tends to be the tool that we use to measure things, it becomes of a problem once we stop and think about how we can evaluate logic itself. Logic is a system. Even if we make a system internally consistent, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily externally consistent. So that we have rules of logic does not mean that these are actually the "rules" of "reality". Yes, we can try and assure ourselves of this but if we press on, we find that logic lies on a series of axioms that we take as-is.

Once we question these axioms, it is hardly satisfying to say "we shall simply assume them" if we're mounting a serious inquiry into the nature of reality itself.

Well that's the thing, reality certainly has its own logic, the question is 'do we currently grasp it?' I think this simple declaration (that reality has its own logic) is all that she's saying. In fact it is such a basic and banal statement that pretty much anyone who doesn't declare that every cause and every effect is separated, and in reality the result of the actions of a creator or some extra-real animating force (which is just a fancy way of saying god).


It is a lot stronger than that. There is much we must currently grasp, else what we know and understand could not exist. Indeed, we must grasp it if we are to be aware of it and for it to be of any meaning.

No, people who do that still use it. Else it couldn't be that cause and effect, as such a thing is ring said to be true, is controlled by such a being rather than how we observed it happening.

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the logic of the universe has been grasped by humans, no in the sense that this logic is not the dominant form of logic. Formal logic, that can trace its lineage back to Aristotle, that preaches a=a, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle, this simply does not correspond to reality. The old question of 'if, over time, we replace the planks of a ship, so that eventually not a single part of the ship is original, is it the same ship' shows the limitation of this principle of identy. Yet dialectic logic, which sees things in their motion, says that unlike aristotelian logic which says that a=a and a=/=b, in short, that something cannot be both itself and something else, says just that: things can be, and in fact are both themselves and something else, because that's precisely what change is... Well dialectic logic is denied, declared to be word games, and dismissed by the vast majority of logicians.


That example doesn't show a limitation of the principles of identity at all. All the original parts of the ship have simply been removed and replaced by different ones. Whether this is consider the same "ship" is entirely a question of whether of value.

The reason being is that it doesn't work. In its very definition it breaks itself. For it is saying that it is true that a=a and a=/b doesn't apply(a=a), as opposed to applying(a=/=b. a=a and a=/=b is integral. Simply saying that there is something, even if you leave its nature undefined, requires a=a(something is there) and a=/=b(it is not precisely defined as opposed to being precisely).
The problem with that, though, is that it is only valid if one views things and concepts as frozen and static, but that's not the way the world is. Movement is being somewhere and being somewhere else at the same time. Growth is being something and being something at the same time. After the growth, is the creature the same, or different, since it contains not an atom it had when born, nor an atom which was around when the last of those atoms was around?

To dismiss it as a value judgement is kinda silly, as these are questions which Aristotelian logic has wracked hundreds and thousands of minds over, over the centuries.
Le Pere Duchesne
The Willow Of Darkness
Le Pere Duchesne
The Willow Of Darkness
Le Pere Duchesne

Well that's the thing, reality certainly has its own logic, the question is 'do we currently grasp it?' I think this simple declaration (that reality has its own logic) is all that she's saying. In fact it is such a basic and banal statement that pretty much anyone who doesn't declare that every cause and every effect is separated, and in reality the result of the actions of a creator or some extra-real animating force (which is just a fancy way of saying god).


It is a lot stronger than that. There is much we must currently grasp, else what we know and understand could not exist. Indeed, we must grasp it if we are to be aware of it and for it to be of any meaning.

No, people who do that still use it. Else it couldn't be that cause and effect, as such a thing is ring said to be true, is controlled by such a being rather than how we observed it happening.

Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that the logic of the universe has been grasped by humans, no in the sense that this logic is not the dominant form of logic. Formal logic, that can trace its lineage back to Aristotle, that preaches a=a, non-contradiction, and the excluded middle, this simply does not correspond to reality. The old question of 'if, over time, we replace the planks of a ship, so that eventually not a single part of the ship is original, is it the same ship' shows the limitation of this principle of identy. Yet dialectic logic, which sees things in their motion, says that unlike aristotelian logic which says that a=a and a=/=b, in short, that something cannot be both itself and something else, says just that: things can be, and in fact are both themselves and something else, because that's precisely what change is... Well dialectic logic is denied, declared to be word games, and dismissed by the vast majority of logicians.


That example doesn't show a limitation of the principles of identity at all. All the original parts of the ship have simply been removed and replaced by different ones. Whether this is consider the same "ship" is entirely a question of whether of value.

The reason being is that it doesn't work. In its very definition it breaks itself. For it is saying that it is true that a=a and a=/b doesn't apply(a=a), as opposed to applying(a=/=b. a=a and a=/=b is integral. Simply saying that there is something, even if you leave its nature undefined, requires a=a(something is there) and a=/=b(it is not precisely defined as opposed to being precisely).
The problem with that, though, is that it is only valid if one views things and concepts as frozen and static, but that's not the way the world is. Movement is being somewhere and being somewhere else at the same time. Growth is being something and being something at the same time. After the growth, is the creature the same, or different, since it contains not an atom it had when born, nor an atom which was around when the last of those atoms was around?

To dismiss it as a value judgement is kinda silly, as these are questions which Aristotelian logic has wracked hundreds and thousands of minds over, over the centuries.


No, it isn't. If you view things as undefined and changing, it is also true. As things are undefined and changing(a=a) as opposed to being static(b which is not a).

It is both different(made up of different parts) and the same(the new parts still make up a ship). The value judgment I am referring to whether the ship of the old parts and the ship of the new parts are considered to of the same ship or two separate ships that are almost completely similar(i.e. like having two marbles with the same kind of green stripe, identical but not the same object). It isn't silly to identify it as a rule judgement: that is what it is. A classing of an object based on how it should be valued. On whether or not the object in a new state can be considered to share the history or place of the old one.
Rinn Lothron's avatar

Tricky Lunatic

Ray Cest
Although, philosophy is notoriously hard to define I think a good definition of modern philosophy would be a critical method and inquiry into things outside of science and not based on faith or internal revelation like religion. But most people that its basically just arm chair speculation and wide sage aphorisms ignoring the rigorous critical thinking involved. I think that because of this too many people are dismissive of philosophy.


Three things. One, awesome hair. Two, Yay! a new word, Aphorism! And one I like too. :3

Three, this thread just prevented me from making a thread condemning all of recorded history and its convoluted construction, demolition, and reconstruction of arbitrary concepts, and how having to sift through all that individualistic bio-matter is what makes modern-day ideals irrevocably polluted with references to "he said" or "she said" or "that idiot said" or "Freud wants moar sexytiemz" and so on and so on, etc. etc. please remove all items and substances capable of being weaponized from the premises.


In short, GRRARGLESHARFFILLEATYOUANDYOURFAMILY scream

In any case, Aphorism! I love it! *huggles new word like a baby bunny-rabbit* ~ heart

If you can't understand what I mean by my significant lack of adoration for what is clearly anything and everything mankind has shat out of their brains ever since they learned how to forever impose their ideas on the coming generations, by mostly causing disputes, disagreements, and idiotic lifestyles, then I will restate my opinion in what is subjectively viewed in a less abrasive manner:

What I despise about humanity, is not the journey of discovery and exploration of thought, ideals, existence, (yada yada yada). What I despise is the toxic waste left behind when they fail to clean up after their dog-brains have thoroughly processed, digested, and removed all value from the concept, and left only crap.

I say we enforce a "Bag it or Tag it" ideal where you either man up the pooper scooper, or you get thrown into the pit of fire and brimstone, along with said poop.
Rinn Lothron's avatar

Tricky Lunatic

.........crap. I just killed this thread, didn't I?

gonk


I apologize for the intensity of my insanely beefed-up notions. There is a certain amount of unchecked passion in my words that people can at times view as having a bomb explode in you face.

As funny as that is, I didn't expect there to be a grenade in that custard pie I was given to throw. sweatdrop
Rinn Lothron's avatar

Tricky Lunatic

Lol, I'm too used to being ignored. xd
whateverfloats's avatar

Dapper Conversationalist

oh thanks I don't usually listen to philosophy podcasts or anything
Ray Cest
Although, philosophy is notoriously hard to define I think a good definition of modern philosophy would be a critical method and inquiry into things outside of science and not based on faith or internal revelation like religion. But most people that its basically just arm chair speculation and wide sage aphorisms ignoring the rigorous critical thinking involved. I think that because of this too many people are dismissive of philosophy.
*contemporary philosophy. Modern philosophy is used by us academic philosophers to usually refer to the time period of Descaretes, Locke, Hume, etc... Also, we do rely on what some might regard as "internal revelation" since we tend to use our intuitions about things as support in favor of claims....and it may actually turn out that all beliefs rely on faith, since it's not clear we can rely on our rational facilities without presupposing their reliability (although I'm sure many philosophers would disagree with my skeptical inclinations).
Crescelius's avatar

Mewling Man-Lover

Philosophy is another word for "What I believe" or "What I think of".

I don't see how this can be misunderstood.
Lykeios Orizontas's avatar

Aged Poster

5,000 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Contributor 150
  • Popular Thread 100
Kiumaru

I wouldn't say that modern philosophy inquires things necessarily outside of science. There are plenty of philosophers who try to base their philosophies upon science and the empirical method.


Agreed. I'm not a "philosopher" per se, but my philosophy is (to a marginal degree) based on scientific thinking.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games