The Power And Validity Of Logic

[scameter]

This is a topic regarding the philosophical position on logic; particularly, it's power, and it's truth validity. Here are my views regarding this, and I, obviously, welcome everyone else to pose their views and for the discussion of all views regarding logic:

It's power
To me, logic's power is the power to both understand and, accordingly, manipulate and have power over physical existence. I think that logic is a form of expression of the mental characteristic of reason, which I believe to be our ability to see into the spiritual nature of existence and to affirm truth, however much our abilities with this are limited.

It's validity
I think that because it is related and from reason, it is very valid, when, of course, done purely, without the alteration of it's findings to suit the personal agenda of the one using it. I think, however, that it's validity is only towards it's only expressive arena, that of the physical realm, and should not be seen as an alternative to reason for explaining and thinking about spirituality. I also think that logic's inspiration to be used is not simply because it is logic, or because it is the son of reason; I think the reason it is used is because of emotion, and one of it's facets, passion, in particularly, which inspires us to use it in certain ways; but this is simply because of it's solely-physical nature. It is a son of reason, and a brother of emotion.

[sahyo]

smeter ever eat a hothotchillipepper?

[scameter]

:D Nope.

[sahyo]

hehe

maybe explore?

would be interested you then comment the post
you opened the thread with



:D

[scameter]

...

[sahyo]

aha


posting

"..."

must've not eatten

chillipepper



;)

[Noway2Zero]

errmm as a teenager i ate a whole can of peppers at once (on a dare) ...

almost instant gag reflex i felt so ill <_<

[sahyo]

whole can



:o



reflex



yes

:D

[scameter]

Umm... so... logic anyone? lol

[Starry_Canopy]

Logic is a tool for reasoning, nothing less, nothing more. It can lead to understanding as well as mislead.

Osho gave this example:

A chick in a hen coop was appreciating the freshness of the morning when she suddenly heard a loud and frightening noise and ran away from it. from a corner of the coop she spied a monstrous fist enter the coop, scatter something inside and withdraw, followed by the clanging sound again. For sometime she cowered in the corner, but then, seeing no new developments, ventured to investigate what that fist had left behind. She pecked at it, found it tastey and soon pecked at a whole lot of the feed and ate them.

The next morning, too, there was this same loud, clanging noise. The chick again ran to her corner and the same things repeated.

This happened day after day and soon the chick stopped fearing the hand. In fact she started looking upon it as a friend.

By and by, the chick had become a hen. By now she had started loving the hand and looking forward to the noise that announced its arrival.

One morning, as usual, the noise happened and the hen ran towards her friend, the hand. But this time, the hand caught hold of her and wrung her neck.

Did the chicken/ hen do something illogical when she ran towards the hand?

[scameter]

A good parable/example my friend, as is usual from Osho. Of course, my answer would be that non-humans don't have the power of reason beyond it's physical attribute, which is logic; they aren't capable of anitipating either, or foresightedness. Humans, however, are. But, more importantly, we are capable of objectivity, to a certain extent, which lets us examine a situation beyond our own needs or viewpoints.

[Taeguk]

Hi!

scameter, you said:

.... of course, my answer would be that non-humans don't have the power of reason beyond it's physical attribute, which is logic; they aren't capable of anitipating either, or foresightedness. Humans, however, are. But, more importantly, we are capable of objectivity, to a certain extent, which lets us examine a situation beyond our own needs or viewpoints.

Which is an insightful observation! However, I don't think the example was meant to illustrate the differences between human minds and animal minds.

It seems like the example that Starry gave here was more about the limitation of logic!

I think a statement can be logically valid without being true, without describing actual reality or existence. The trouble is, we are quick to mistake logical validity for truth!

Take the famous syllogism:


All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

This is a logically valid statement, and it also happens to be true: all men really do die. However, the actual truth of that statement has no bearing on its formal validity as a logical syllogism.

I'm sure you can see the problem! Philosophers may find themselves entangled in abstract difficulties having nothing to do with actual truth! Formal Logic is an immensely helpful tool, but one shouldn't lose sight of existence because of it! :lol:

I think maybe the intention of this thread wasn't so much to discuss formal logic as much as it was reason in general. To go back to Starry Canopy's story, I think the theme of this story is that we often act in a way that we would deem "reasonable":

Given premise x (when the hand comes down, there is food), it naturally follows that I should y (run over to the hand), z (wait for the food), and s (eat the food).

I think a lot of people live their lives concerned about the particulars or the logistics of y, z, and s, never stopping to consider that maybe their original premise is wrong in the first place!

And often, I don't think the original premise is something that can be proven wrong by conventional ways of thinking (or, sometimes, maybe by thinking at all).

[scameter]

It seems like the example that Starry gave here was more about the limitation of logic!

Well yes. I was simply observing; hence my use of the phrase, "of course", to denote an added note. :)

I think a statement can be logically valid without being true, without describing actual reality or existence. The trouble is, we are quick to mistake logical validity for truth!

True. Nor is all truth physical.

I think maybe the intention of this thread wasn't so much to discuss formal logic as much as it was reason in general. To go back to Starry Canopy's story, I think the theme of this story is that we often act in a way that we would deem "reasonable"

Logically reasonable yes. But, no, my intention was simply to discuss logic.

I think a lot of people live their lives concerned about the particulars or the logistics of y, z, and s, never stopping to consider that maybe their original premise is wrong in the first place!

A very astute observation, and I very true one I think too. Most people, as Colin Wilson said, "go through life with blinders on"; they aren't aware of the larger picture, and simply life for the next moment.