Welcome to Gaia! ::

You speak of logic as if it was a virtue in and of itself. You admit that logic can pull us in any direction, if that is the case then that direction is arbitrary. Through logic we do not move into Truth, we just move into more logic. By making a logical argument I can only prove that I have made a logical argument, not that my argument is True. I'm sorry, but that sounds like Chaos to me.
In the words of the clown from Twilight Zone, "We're here because we're here because we're here..."

The "system", as you put it, is flawed if its only end is confirming that system. This is what Baudrillard spoke of when described the horrors of hyperreality.

Why is it flawed? Because........I'm not following this at all. So it's flawed why? Because it doesn't answer some of the questions people have? If a system is universally used in order to answer any question, just because the roads may appear to be traveling in different directions does not mean that they are. You forget we percieve things in four dimensions and not only one. You assume any singular direction is an acceptable direction but it is not. No singular two dimensional coordinates system is valid either.

If a system succeeds in giving us one truth, and that is that it itself is a sound system then.......isn't that some form of truth you are looking for?

It sounds to me like you just so desperately want the world to be chaotic and so you hear everything as though it is chaos. A system is not at all flawed if it's final findings are....that the system itself was correct, but that it did not give the answer we had hoped for.

That sounds like science. An experiment in science does not "fail" it can "fail to produce the results we expected" but that can also be looked at as "the system worked perfectly, we just found that what we thought was true wasn't" Or "What we discovered was true, and we discovered we need a new hypothesis"

Proving truth is impossible, even pure logicians know this, as no matter what proof you have another proof would be necessary to prove that proof. The only thing we can hope to do is prove things incorrect. If it is false then it is false, but we could never know something was false if the system was flawed.

We could quite literally know....no....thing. But we do know things. We do not know what is true.....but we certainly know a few things that are not true. How is this Chaos?

That is because you are thinking about it the wrong way. Your biblical arguement is actually one I use to piss off my classmates in college (I got to a Christian University)

But your logical argument is quite simply incorrect.

Logic is true, because......you quite simply cannot possibly think any other way.

We call this a priori. It exists as you way of cognition and learning behavior before experiencing the world. Logic doesn't prove itself, it just simply is because it is the only way it COULD be.

If you can think of another way the world could work....as in one that is not casual in any way, or illogical or irrational then please by all means, let me have it. I'd bet you can't though. People have been trying for thousands of years and no one has ever been able to. Thus, logic simply is. The system doesn't give us much accept a bunch of inference rules, which aren't very informative but it does one thing that you cannot deny.....gives us a system by which to think about everything else.

As for the rest of what you said, I quote wittgenstein:

"For doubt can exist only where a question exists and a question exists only where an answer exists, and an answer only when something CAN be said.

We see that even when all POSSIBLE scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched. Of course there are then no questions left, and this itself is the answer.

The solution of the problem of life is seen in the vanishing of the problem. (Is not this the reason why those who have found after a long period of doubt that the sense of life became clear to them have then been unable to say what constituted that sense?)

There are indeed things that cannot be put into words. They make themselves manifest. They are what is mystical.

The correct method in Philosophy would really be the following: To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. propositions of natural science- i.e. something that has nothing to do with Philosophy- and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions. Although it would not be satisfying to the other person-he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy-this method would be the only strictly correct one.

My propositions serve as elucidations in the following way: anyone who understands me eventually recognizes them as nonsensical, when he has used them-as steps- to climb up beyond them. (He must, so to speak, throw away the ladder after he has climbed up it.) He must transcend these propositions, and then he will see the world aright.

What we cannot speak about we pass over in silence."


Thats the end of his Tractatus. I can't tell you exactly what he meant, but in there, there are mirrors of what you seek. Truth does exist, but it is a metaphysical principle....those questions that cannot be asked because they have no empirical answer. Since you cannot give an empirical answer then you cannot ask the question.

That, however, does not mean there are not things out there that you could never possible describe. That is what people who have found it laugh about when asked what they've found. They cannot answer because the answer is indescribable.

Personally I have come to the conclusion that while we as philosophers seek knowledge, I have discovered that the only things we can know for certain are those things which are NOT the case, and if there are things that are not...in fact....the case, then there are not infinite possibilities. Now I am quite aware that this is not satisfactory to you perhaps, but for me, I've realized what is going on in Philosophy is much like what goes on in the world of science, we may not be able to find a perfect Infallible Truth, but we can certainly make our best attempt to weed out those things which are quite clearly false to give us a more accurate vision of what might actually be the case.

So, can I give you Truth? No. But one thing I have learned is that learning which questions cannot be answered without some kind of faith, having that faith, and knowing it very could well be wrong....is perfectly ok.

Am I ok with uncertainty about these things? Yes, because that uncertainty grants me one other definitive Truth that cannot be denied. I know for certain at least one thing.....I know that I am not certain...and I'm ok with that.