Posted on 05/23/2003 3:59:51 PM PDT by unspun
Well it seems to me that it has a fairly timeless quality of thoroughgoing untruth. ;-) That, since there are so many contradictions out there.
It seems to be what separates us from other animals, doesn't it?
Remember the old ditty:
Fish gotta swim;
Bird gotta fly;
Man gotta sit,
and ask himself "why, why, why."
Logic and reason is one of the ways we ask why, applicable only to those things that can be answered, "because…"
In other words, it applies only to causal, conditional knowing. But, man has never limited himself to this, and long ago found that, in a true learning quest, logic becomes a long string of becauses, ending only with something taken as a given, an axiom, or "self-evident." I.e. something not known using the tool of logic (less we wish to add another because, another link in an endless chain and face the same logical wall a step further away.)
Here we see the limit of logic as a tool, not to be confused with "our limit of our ability ot learn, to gather…"
Once we have that axiom, that non-proven self-evident beginning, logic is a marvelous tool for so much more knowing and acting. But to act at all, we must start with something logic cannot be used to teach us.
Thanks for your reply.
Hahahahahaha!!!! I love it, tpaine! I can see you're enjoying this post every bit as much as I am. :^)
unspun, I do a little thinking every now and then, but not once -- not a single time -- have I ever become aware of what I was doing as a succession of "t-states."
Of what value is grammar in thinking about how to avoid being eaten by shark coming at you rapidly?
I offer the suggestion that grammatical, symbolic thinking is a comparatively sparse attempt by the rational side of your brain to put what the visceral side of your brain is putting out continuously into cute little cubby holes. And that, in fact, most of your thinking energy is spent in dreamland, making a movie, and comparing it to old movies you have in your memory banks, rather than in rational-language-land, making up syllogisms.
Not surprising, if that "word" had not been in your consciousness. ;-` How about a succession of applications of the mind to thought then (with or without engaging your thoughts having to do specifically with words)?
And how do you like what Roscoe has had to say here?
Animals can do simple logic processing, unlike democratic voters. My dog processes an iff clause every time I tell him to heel.
This is not a compelling logical requirement. You are assuming that only those who can explain can think. You are assuming what you wish to prove.
I do not agree that an insane person can use logic perfectly. They might use logic correctly in some specific area of cognition. If they were completely logical about everything, of cousrse, they would make no mistakes, and would be perfectly sane.
Two big other factors could be missing and the person qualify as insane:
First, perception, an accurate sense instrument. If I see and feel snakes crawling inside me eating their way to my heart - and no one believed me or would help, cutting open my body to get them out, save myself, would be perfectly a pefectly logical deduction: I'm being killed, only I can stop them, I must stop them to survive…
Still I'm insane, psychotic. Not by a broken instrument of reasoning, but by a broken instrument of perception.
Second, you neglect value-knowledge. If I know that my personal sense pleasure is the highest and only value, then rape, drugs, stealing, killing… become logical actions - if they are the best or necessary means to accomplish my value goals.
You might not call this second case "insane," but I don't think either of us would put them in the category of someone who would "make no mistakes."
Logic rests on something, it has to start somewhere. If your value is world domination and "elimination of inferior races" then Zyklon B gas chambers are perfectly logical steps.
But then, though our logic was not at fault, something would be amiss in our sanity or at least in our knowledge, our wisdom and certainly our "perfection."
I think it is a mistake to use the word "know" for that which we are only conscious of. I understand it is a common use of the word, but in an epistemological sense, we only know what we have conceptually non-contradictorily identified and integrated with everything else we know.
You've identified the nexus here, epistemology. How we know and what we can know. your view is that it must be "conceptual" in order to qualify. A concept is a subset by definition. It abstracts something from the thing itself. Perhaps we would both agree, this necessary limits "knowable" reality to a subset.
We probably disagree in that I think it obvious we have a great deal of non-conceptual knowledge. Simple examples: We can, and early on do, know that the sun warms us - without knowing the word or concept for sun or warm. We can know what being cleansed is without knowing the word or concept for water. To me, the requirement of a concept for this is like saying if I use "agua" and you say "water," we're don't know the same thing. We know by direct personal experience, whether we conceptualize the experience or not.
These are simple sense examples, and they don't rise to the level of knowing we're addressing.
So, I'd like to ask a few obviously loaded questions: Does absolute truth exist (in reality)? Can you know of one? Can you use logic to know it, i.e., prove it is an absolute truth using the tool of logic alone?
Previously, I said: You brought up the phrase I AM which God gives to Moses as a "nickname" for Himself. It is a profound sentence and a most excellent way to begin meditation and worship - to enter the domain of thought where language fails. to which you replied Right on. That's where it begins.
Thank you for your agreement! I made a subtle misstatement but upon a reread, it was more accurate so I left it in. First I referred to I AM as a “phrase” which is the way God gave it to Moses, a nickname for Himself. In the second usage, I called it a “sentence” which it is. Moreover, it is the relevant sentence and that very completeness is what begins the meditation or worship!
There is no “before” in the big bang or any such model: multiverse, ekpyrotic cosmology, etc. The point of inception of ”all that there is” is outside of all physical laws including space and time.
The second disagreement is in the meaning of reality. In physics, “realism” refers to the idea that a particle has properties that exist even before they are measured. Here is a good description of the measurement problem.
There is much dispute over that which exists not only in metaphysics but also in physics. So reality is not definitive, or as Einstein said, Reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
With regard to your assertion that He necessarily must have created Himself - if you are truly interested in the subject, you might want to explore the concept of Ayn Sof which roughly means infinite and nothing. It is a Hebrew term used by Jewish Kabbalists to describe God at creation. The number zero is a parallel concept in math, infinite and yet nothing. Likewise a singularity is a parallel concept in physics, infinite and yet nothing.
Are you like this all the time?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.