Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Logic Self Defeats

JP_Hatecraft
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?
Common Sense is not so Common
-Voltaire
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 3:57:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

A few problems with this. First, "there is no reason to use logic" is vague. A nihilist can reject objective morality while still believing that logic is valid. So although this could invalidate assertion like "You should use logic", it cannot be used to refute logic itself. As long as one's goal is truth, the utility of logic is obvious.

Second, although the purpose of existence cannot necessarily be known through logic alone, in principle one could use logic to show that existence must have a purpose, and deduce the specifics of that purpose by parsing the structure of reality. In other words, if there exists an objective morality, then part of our purpose would be invested in uncovering what that purpose is, and logic is obviously required for that.
JP_Hatecraft
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 4:06:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Thanks for the quick response, and both were interesting points.

To your first point, what I'm trying to say isn't that logic isn't valid, but that there isn't any purpose to it. Or if there is, it is arbitrarily defined (Such as a nihilist's ideas).

As for your second, I don't see how the existence of an objective morality or truth could be proven logically. But if there is a way then you are right, and this falls.
Common Sense is not so Common
-Voltaire
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 4:19:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 4:06:58 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Thanks for the quick response, and both were interesting points.

To your first point, what I'm trying to say isn't that logic isn't valid, but that there isn't any purpose to it. Or if there is, it is arbitrarily defined (Such as a nihilist's ideas).

The title of this thread was "Logic self defeats". Normally, this would mean that logic can be shown to invalidate itself. I.e., that if logic is true, then it is false. I just want to make sure that when you say "There is no reason to use logic", you aren't saying that logic is not useful for establishing truth.

As for your second, I don't see how the existence of an objective morality or truth could be proven logically. But if there is a way then you are right, and this falls.

By showing that reality must provide itself with a reason to exist. http://www.debate.org...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 4:19:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

I agree that "logically" there is no reason to use logic because as you already stated... logic takes over from a set of premises. Logic alone cannot get you to any conclusion, including the conclusion that you have a reason to use it.

P1. I want the things I believe to be true
P2. Logic is the best tool we have to distinguish what is likely true from what is likely false.
[Logic now comes into use]
C. I have good reason to use logic.

Now of course one can argue that I have not demonstrated P2, but I don't need to because it is self-attesting. Any attempt to argue against it requires one to presuppose its validity by using it to make that argument.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 4:29:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 4:19:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic alone cannot get you to any conclusion, including the conclusion that you have a reason to use it.


Logic is the set of rules that tells us how to avoid contradiction. Since contradictions violate two-valued logic, which is required to distinguish real from non-real, they are rightly forbidden from our conception of reality. Therefore, reality must conform to logical structure and to any implications thereof. So when you say that no conclusions can be reached from logic alone, you are assuming that no facts about reality can be deduced from the fact that it must conform to logical structure. You have to actually prove that.
JP_Hatecraft
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 4:31:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
@dylancatlow
Sorry about the confusion then. You are of course correct, I named the thread incorrectly.
Common Sense is not so Common
-Voltaire
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 4:32:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 4:31:02 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
@dylancatlow
Sorry about the confusion then. You are of course correct, I named the thread incorrectly.

It's okay. By the way, when you're replying to someone, it's best to use the "reply and quote" option so that they are notified of your response.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 4:49:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Logic is one of the fundamental axioms of our lives. Without logic we cannot even function, I would go as far as to say that we cannot possibly live without logic.

So, no, one cannot prove the veracity of logic without appealing to logic and therefore begging the question, but this is where intuition comes in. Through intuition we can embrace unverifiable axioms such as the veracity of logic, the reality of our existence, the similarity of other minds etc...

Which is why I am an intuitionist - without intuition we cannot ground our specific beliefs because specific beliefs are grounded on basic beliefs, which in turn reach a level that they cannot be justified without begging the question. Hence we need intuition to have as a basis.
JP_Hatecraft
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 5:00:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 4:49:10 PM, Philocat wrote:
Logic is one of the fundamental axioms of our lives. Without logic we cannot even function, I would go as far as to say that we cannot possibly live without logic.

So, no, one cannot prove the veracity of logic without appealing to logic and therefore begging the question, but this is where intuition comes in. Through intuition we can embrace unverifiable axioms such as the veracity of logic, the reality of our existence, the similarity of other minds etc...

Which is why I am an intuitionist - without intuition we cannot ground our specific beliefs because specific beliefs are grounded on basic beliefs, which in turn reach a level that they cannot be justified without begging the question. Hence we need intuition to have as a basis.

All I'm saying is that the reason to use logic is arbitrary. I'm not talking about whether it has a basis in intuition. While interesting, it doesn't effect the arbitrariness (If that's not a word it should be) of it. Personally I think that it doesn't necessarily require intuition, just a premise. If what I call the premise is your intuition, then I completely agree with you.
Common Sense is not so Common
-Voltaire
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 5:21:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 4:29:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2015 4:19:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic alone cannot get you to any conclusion, including the conclusion that you have a reason to use it.


Logic is the set of rules that tells us how to avoid contradiction. Since contradictions violate two-valued logic, which is required to distinguish real from non-real, they are rightly forbidden from our conception of reality. Therefore, reality must conform to logical structure and to any implications thereof. So when you say that no conclusions can be reached from logic alone, you are assuming that no facts about reality can be deduced from the fact that it must conform to logical structure. You have to actually prove that.

I don't need to prove a strawman. My argument states that logic requires a premise in order for any conclusion to be reached. Your response inserts a premise then asks me to prove that no conclusion can be reached from it.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 5:32:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

You have not found a problem with logic here. The problem if anything is insufficient data.

Also you assume that existence has a "purpose" to it. I assume here by purpose you mean an outcome which is the result of intent. Which may not be the case.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 5:40:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 5:21:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 4:29:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2015 4:19:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic alone cannot get you to any conclusion, including the conclusion that you have a reason to use it.


Logic is the set of rules that tells us how to avoid contradiction. Since contradictions violate two-valued logic, which is required to distinguish real from non-real, they are rightly forbidden from our conception of reality. Therefore, reality must conform to logical structure and to any implications thereof. So when you say that no conclusions can be reached from logic alone, you are assuming that no facts about reality can be deduced from the fact that it must conform to logical structure. You have to actually prove that.

I don't need to prove a strawman. My argument states that logic requires a premise in order for any conclusion to be reached. Your response inserts a premise then asks me to prove that no conclusion can be reached from it.

One can use logic to examine a premise for internal contradictions. However, logic itself consists of "premises" which are tautological in nature. In principle, one could logically extract implications from logical principles to deduce facts about reality.
JP_Hatecraft
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 7:00:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 5:32:46 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

You have not found a problem with logic here. The problem if anything is insufficient data.

Also you assume that existence has a "purpose" to it. I assume here by purpose you mean an outcome which is the result of intent. Which may not be the case.

The purpose of this is not to invalidate logic. Rather it attempts to show that logically there is no reason to, in part because of the insufficient data.

I am not assuming that life has a purpose, I am saying that there is no way to know and therefore there effectively is not any.
Common Sense is not so Common
-Voltaire
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 7:07:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2015 5:21:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 4:29:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2015 4:19:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic alone cannot get you to any conclusion, including the conclusion that you have a reason to use it.


Logic is the set of rules that tells us how to avoid contradiction. Since contradictions violate two-valued logic, which is required to distinguish real from non-real, they are rightly forbidden from our conception of reality. Therefore, reality must conform to logical structure and to any implications thereof. So when you say that no conclusions can be reached from logic alone, you are assuming that no facts about reality can be deduced from the fact that it must conform to logical structure. You have to actually prove that.

I don't need to prove a strawman. My argument states that logic requires a premise in order for any conclusion to be reached. Your response inserts a premise then asks me to prove that no conclusion can be reached from it.

One can use logic to examine a premise for internal contradictions. However, logic itself consists of "premises" which are tautological in nature. In principle, one could logically extract implications from logical principles to deduce facts about reality.

Tautological premises within logic only serve to tell us about logic. We cannot deduce anything about reality from them until we examine reality and determine that those premises apply.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 7:12:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

What tool did you use to come to that conclusion?
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 7:28:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 7:07:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2015 5:21:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 4:29:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2015 4:19:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic alone cannot get you to any conclusion, including the conclusion that you have a reason to use it.


Logic is the set of rules that tells us how to avoid contradiction. Since contradictions violate two-valued logic, which is required to distinguish real from non-real, they are rightly forbidden from our conception of reality. Therefore, reality must conform to logical structure and to any implications thereof. So when you say that no conclusions can be reached from logic alone, you are assuming that no facts about reality can be deduced from the fact that it must conform to logical structure. You have to actually prove that.

I don't need to prove a strawman. My argument states that logic requires a premise in order for any conclusion to be reached. Your response inserts a premise then asks me to prove that no conclusion can be reached from it.

One can use logic to examine a premise for internal contradictions. However, logic itself consists of "premises" which are tautological in nature. In principle, one could logically extract implications from logical principles to deduce facts about reality.

Tautological premises within logic only serve to tell us about logic. We cannot deduce anything about reality from them until we examine reality and determine that those premises apply.

This amounts to the assertion that reality doesn't have to conform to logical structure, which is unjustifiable.
JP_Hatecraft
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 7:28:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 7:12:06 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

What tool did you use to come to that conclusion?

What do you mean what tool?
Common Sense is not so Common
-Voltaire
Bennett91
Posts: 4,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 7:35:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

You shoehorned morality into logical goal. Also purpose of existence has nothing to do with using logic to achieve short term goals using logic. Just because you suck at logic doesn't mean it's useless.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 7:40:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 7:28:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:07:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2015 5:21:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 4:29:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2015 4:19:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic alone cannot get you to any conclusion, including the conclusion that you have a reason to use it.


Logic is the set of rules that tells us how to avoid contradiction. Since contradictions violate two-valued logic, which is required to distinguish real from non-real, they are rightly forbidden from our conception of reality. Therefore, reality must conform to logical structure and to any implications thereof. So when you say that no conclusions can be reached from logic alone, you are assuming that no facts about reality can be deduced from the fact that it must conform to logical structure. You have to actually prove that.

I don't need to prove a strawman. My argument states that logic requires a premise in order for any conclusion to be reached. Your response inserts a premise then asks me to prove that no conclusion can be reached from it.

One can use logic to examine a premise for internal contradictions. However, logic itself consists of "premises" which are tautological in nature. In principle, one could logically extract implications from logical principles to deduce facts about reality.

Tautological premises within logic only serve to tell us about logic. We cannot deduce anything about reality from them until we examine reality and determine that those premises apply.

This amounts to the assertion that reality doesn't have to conform to logical structure, which is unjustifiable.

It's unjustifiable because we already have an understanding of reality.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 7:43:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 7:28:41 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:12:06 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

What tool did you use to come to that conclusion?

What do you mean what tool?

The point is that you're trying to logically refute logic. If you're right, then your argument loses all force. If anything, it's your argument that's self-defeating.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 7:49:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 7:40:26 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:28:34 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:07:22 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 5:40:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2015 5:21:40 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 4:29:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/8/2015 4:19:38 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic alone cannot get you to any conclusion, including the conclusion that you have a reason to use it.


Logic is the set of rules that tells us how to avoid contradiction. Since contradictions violate two-valued logic, which is required to distinguish real from non-real, they are rightly forbidden from our conception of reality. Therefore, reality must conform to logical structure and to any implications thereof. So when you say that no conclusions can be reached from logic alone, you are assuming that no facts about reality can be deduced from the fact that it must conform to logical structure. You have to actually prove that.

I don't need to prove a strawman. My argument states that logic requires a premise in order for any conclusion to be reached. Your response inserts a premise then asks me to prove that no conclusion can be reached from it.

One can use logic to examine a premise for internal contradictions. However, logic itself consists of "premises" which are tautological in nature. In principle, one could logically extract implications from logical principles to deduce facts about reality.

Tautological premises within logic only serve to tell us about logic. We cannot deduce anything about reality from them until we examine reality and determine that those premises apply.

This amounts to the assertion that reality doesn't have to conform to logical structure, which is unjustifiable.

It's unjustifiable because we already have an understanding of reality.

It's unjustifiable in any case.

It's easy to show that reality conforms to logical structure. By definition, reality includes all and only that which is real. Thus, reality =/= unreality, which means it incorporates the identity property on which logic is tautologically based.
JP_Hatecraft
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 8:28:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 7:43:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:28:41 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:12:06 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

What tool did you use to come to that conclusion?

What do you mean what tool?

The point is that you're trying to logically refute logic. If you're right, then your argument loses all force. If anything, it's your argument that's self-defeating.

All this proves is that there is no purely logical reason to use logic. It does not attempt to disprove logic, only point out how arbitrary it is.
Common Sense is not so Common
-Voltaire
JP_Hatecraft
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 8:32:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 7:35:04 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

You shoehorned morality into logical goal. Also purpose of existence has nothing to do with using logic to achieve short term goals using logic. Just because you suck at logic doesn't mean it's useless.

What I'm saying is that there is no logical morality, because there is no way to get one logically. I didn't shoehorn anything. Pure logic is used the same way regardless of the scale of the issue. So it doesn't matter whether you're questioning the purpose of life or something less consequential, it applies in exactly the same way.
Common Sense is not so Common
-Voltaire
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 8:35:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 8:28:24 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:43:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:28:41 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:12:06 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

What tool did you use to come to that conclusion?

What do you mean what tool?

The point is that you're trying to logically refute logic. If you're right, then your argument loses all force. If anything, it's your argument that's self-defeating.

All this proves is that there is no purely logical reason to use logic. It does not attempt to disprove logic, only point out how arbitrary it is.

You can't "prove" something by invalidating all proofs. You're pulling the rug out from under yourself. There's no reason to believe that your argument points out anything if you yourself admits that your argument is arbitrary.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
JP_Hatecraft
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 8:44:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 8:35:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/8/2015 8:28:24 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:43:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:28:41 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:12:06 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

What tool did you use to come to that conclusion?

What do you mean what tool?

The point is that you're trying to logically refute logic. If you're right, then your argument loses all force. If anything, it's your argument that's self-defeating.

All this proves is that there is no purely logical reason to use logic. It does not attempt to disprove logic, only point out how arbitrary it is.

You can't "prove" something by invalidating all proofs. You're pulling the rug out from under yourself. There's no reason to believe that your argument points out anything if you yourself admits that your argument is arbitrary.

I am not invalidating anything. Something being logical or arbitrary has no impact on its reality. And whether or not an argument is arbitrary has no impact in its truth.
Common Sense is not so Common
-Voltaire
Bennett91
Posts: 4,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 8:45:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 8:32:33 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:35:04 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

You shoehorned morality into logical goal. Also purpose of existence has nothing to do with using logic to achieve short term goals using logic. Just because you suck at logic doesn't mean it's useless.

What I'm saying is that there is no logical morality, because there is no way to get one logically. I didn't shoehorn anything. Pure logic is used the same way regardless of the scale of the issue. So it doesn't matter whether you're questioning the purpose of life or something less consequential, it applies in exactly the same way.

What do you mean by logical morality????? No way to get one what logically???

Given that your whole premise is because we cant know everything logic is useless the scale of the issue does matter because we can know enough to act with smaller issues because there is less to know.
JP_Hatecraft
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 8:51:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 8:45:33 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/8/2015 8:32:33 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:35:04 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

You shoehorned morality into logical goal. Also purpose of existence has nothing to do with using logic to achieve short term goals using logic. Just because you suck at logic doesn't mean it's useless.

What I'm saying is that there is no logical morality, because there is no way to get one logically. I didn't shoehorn anything. Pure logic is used the same way regardless of the scale of the issue. So it doesn't matter whether you're questioning the purpose of life or something less consequential, it applies in exactly the same way.

What do you mean by logical morality????? No way to get one what logically???

Given that your whole premise is because we cant know everything logic is useless the scale of the issue does matter because we can know enough to act with smaller issues because there is less to know.

There is no way to logically create a system of morality. Every decision made is because of their morality. Whether it is the survival instinct (I am worth more then others), or metaphysics every decision is caused by morals. But there is no way to logically achieve these. Why should we prioritize our lives? There is no purely logical, factual answer but all moralities are based on tradition and psychology.

Scale matters about whether we can use it or not, but not how it would be used.
Common Sense is not so Common
-Voltaire
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 8:56:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 8:44:28 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
At 3/8/2015 8:35:01 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/8/2015 8:28:24 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:43:56 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:28:41 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:12:06 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

What tool did you use to come to that conclusion?

What do you mean what tool?

The point is that you're trying to logically refute logic. If you're right, then your argument loses all force. If anything, it's your argument that's self-defeating.

All this proves is that there is no purely logical reason to use logic. It does not attempt to disprove logic, only point out how arbitrary it is.

You can't "prove" something by invalidating all proofs. You're pulling the rug out from under yourself. There's no reason to believe that your argument points out anything if you yourself admits that your argument is arbitrary.

I am not invalidating anything. Something being logical or arbitrary has no impact on its reality. And whether or not an argument is arbitrary has no impact in its truth.

""It"s logical, but logic has nothing to do with reality." Logic is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification. Logic has a single law, the Law of Identity, and its various corollaries. If logic has nothing to do with reality, it means that the Law of Identity is inapplicable to reality. If so, then: a. things are not what they are; b. things can be and not be at the same time, in the same respect, i.e., reality is made up of contradictions. If so, by what means did anyone discover it? By illogical means. (This last is for sure.) The purpose of that notion is crudely obvious. Its actual meaning is not: "Logic has nothing to do with reality," but: "I, the speaker, have nothing to do with logic (or with reality)." When people use that catch phrase, they mean either: "It"s logical, but I don"t choose to be logical" or: "It"s logical, but people are not logical, they don"t think"and I intend to pander to their irrationality.""

~Ayn Rand
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Bennett91
Posts: 4,209
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2015 8:59:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/8/2015 8:51:44 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
At 3/8/2015 8:45:33 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/8/2015 8:32:33 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
At 3/8/2015 7:35:04 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 3/8/2015 3:33:05 PM, JP_Hatecraft wrote:
Logic is used in order to find the truth of a matter or most efficient way to achieve something with a set of given premises.
There is not enough given information to logically find the purpose of existence.
Therefore it is impossible to have a logical goal/morality.
Therefore logically, there is no reason to use logic.

Thoughts?

You shoehorned morality into logical goal. Also purpose of existence has nothing to do with using logic to achieve short term goals using logic. Just because you suck at logic doesn't mean it's useless.

What I'm saying is that there is no logical morality, because there is no way to get one logically. I didn't shoehorn anything. Pure logic is used the same way regardless of the scale of the issue. So it doesn't matter whether you're questioning the purpose of life or something less consequential, it applies in exactly the same way.

What do you mean by logical morality????? No way to get one what logically???

Given that your whole premise is because we cant know everything logic is useless the scale of the issue does matter because we can know enough to act with smaller issues because there is less to know.

There is no way to logically create a system of morality. Every decision made is because of their morality. Whether it is the survival instinct (I am worth more then others), or metaphysics every decision is caused by morals. But there is no way to logically achieve these. Why should we prioritize our lives? There is no purely logical, factual answer but all moralities are based on tradition and psychology.

I think the flaw in your rationality is assuming that 'pure logic' would be something desirable in the first place. Humans have bias. And it would be logical not to be purely logical, we aren't robots. Just because there isn't an ultimate answer doesn't mean we can't have our own answers.

You say there is no logical way to achieve morality, this is nonsense. People have logical axioms that underpin their morality. Those axioms may be biased and subjective, but there is still a logic in their application in forming a moral compass.

Scale matters about whether we can use it or not, but not how it would be used.

So? Then you acknowledge it has a use.