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

Idealism and Physicalism

Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 9:11:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

Why would the be the same for a pragmatist to begin with?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Epica
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 9:16:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

What does pragmatism have to do with anything? The truth of idealism and physicalism are different from their definitions.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 9:20:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

What kind of pragmatism are we talking about? More like James? More like Dewey? Pierce?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 10:33:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 9:11:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

Why would the be the same for a pragmatist to begin with?

To me, saying that everything is physical or everything is mental doesn't really create anything predictable. What is the difference to my observations of reality if reality is mental as opposed to physical, and vice versa?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2015 11:08:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 10:33:13 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:11:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

Why would the be the same for a pragmatist to begin with?

To me, saying that everything is physical or everything is mental doesn't really create anything predictable. What is the difference to my observations of reality if reality is mental as opposed to physical, and vice versa?

I'm still not quite sure how this relates to pragmatism. Hypothetically a physicalist and an idealist world might look exactly the same. It was the positivist's claim, not the pragmatist's, that therefore physicalists and idealists actually talk about the same thing, they are just confused about language. It's more of an ontological rather than an epistemological question.
James would say you have to look at the context and decide which belief would be beneficial to hold. Peirce would say you should belief what is unequivocally agreed upon after our inquiry has come to an end.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 12:23:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 11:08:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 10:33:13 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:11:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

Why would the be the same for a pragmatist to begin with?

To me, saying that everything is physical or everything is mental doesn't really create anything predictable. What is the difference to my observations of reality if reality is mental as opposed to physical, and vice versa?

I'm still not quite sure how this relates to pragmatism. Hypothetically a physicalist and an idealist world might look exactly the same. It was the positivist's claim, not the pragmatist's, that therefore physicalists and idealists actually talk about the same thing, they are just confused about language. It's more of an ontological rather than an epistemological question.
James would say you have to look at the context and decide which belief would be beneficial to hold. Peirce would say you should belief what is unequivocally agreed upon after our inquiry has come to an end.

Then I messed up my terminology. That being said, the same question remains.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 12:44:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 11:08:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 10:33:13 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:11:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

Why would the be the same for a pragmatist to begin with?

To me, saying that everything is physical or everything is mental doesn't really create anything predictable. What is the difference to my observations of reality if reality is mental as opposed to physical, and vice versa?

I'm still not quite sure how this relates to pragmatism. Hypothetically a physicalist and an idealist world might look exactly the same. It was the positivist's claim, not the pragmatist's, that therefore physicalists and idealists actually talk about the same thing, they are just confused about language. It's more of an ontological rather than an epistemological question.
James would say you have to look at the context and decide which belief would be beneficial to hold. Peirce would say you should belief what is unequivocally agreed upon after our inquiry has come to an end.

Your first quote in red at the bottom of your posts is a questionable cause fallacy, doesn't fair well in philosophy to promote or give the impression you concur with illogical bull.
Epica
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 1:26:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 12:23:25 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 11:08:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 10:33:13 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:11:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

Why would the be the same for a pragmatist to begin with?

To me, saying that everything is physical or everything is mental doesn't really create anything predictable. What is the difference to my observations of reality if reality is mental as opposed to physical, and vice versa?

I'm still not quite sure how this relates to pragmatism. Hypothetically a physicalist and an idealist world might look exactly the same. It was the positivist's claim, not the pragmatist's, that therefore physicalists and idealists actually talk about the same thing, they are just confused about language. It's more of an ontological rather than an epistemological question.
James would say you have to look at the context and decide which belief would be beneficial to hold. Peirce would say you should belief what is unequivocally agreed upon after our inquiry has come to an end.

Then I messed up my terminology. That being said, the same question remains.

Your question is now what's the difference under a positivist's ideology? Doesn't really matter because even the developers of positivism have abandoned it, but I think positivists would deny both idealism and physicalism because they don't seem to make any difference when it comes to observing reality. IIRC, most positivists were metaphysical behaviorists for this very reason.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 4:38:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 1:26:55 AM, Epica wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:23:25 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 11:08:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 10:33:13 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:11:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

Why would the be the same for a pragmatist to begin with?

To me, saying that everything is physical or everything is mental doesn't really create anything predictable. What is the difference to my observations of reality if reality is mental as opposed to physical, and vice versa?

I'm still not quite sure how this relates to pragmatism. Hypothetically a physicalist and an idealist world might look exactly the same. It was the positivist's claim, not the pragmatist's, that therefore physicalists and idealists actually talk about the same thing, they are just confused about language. It's more of an ontological rather than an epistemological question.
James would say you have to look at the context and decide which belief would be beneficial to hold. Peirce would say you should belief what is unequivocally agreed upon after our inquiry has come to an end.

Then I messed up my terminology. That being said, the same question remains.

Your question is now what's the difference under a positivist's ideology? Doesn't really matter because even the developers of positivism have abandoned it, but I think positivists would deny both idealism and physicalism because they don't seem to make any difference when it comes to observing reality. IIRC, most positivists were metaphysical behaviorists for this very reason.

That's not what I meant. I'm asking for a meaningful distinction between the two at all.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 7:48:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 12:44:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Your first quote in red at the bottom of your posts is a questionable cause fallacy, doesn't fair well in philosophy to promote or give the impression you concur with illogical bull.

Right, the people in the philosophy forum must think I'm an idiot, because I walk around with a Derek Parfit quote lol.
First of all, questionable cause is an informal fallacy. Thus it is not "illogical bull", if anything it is contrary to reason.
Secondly, questionable cause is to conclude one thing causes another because they are associated on a regular basis. How do you conclude that Parfit committed this fallacy? Are you familiar with the entire text passage I took it from? Do you have strong evidence contrary to the quote? Tell me.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 7:52:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 4:38:44 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/30/2015 1:26:55 AM, Epica wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:23:25 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 11:08:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 10:33:13 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:11:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

Why would the be the same for a pragmatist to begin with?

To me, saying that everything is physical or everything is mental doesn't really create anything predictable. What is the difference to my observations of reality if reality is mental as opposed to physical, and vice versa?

I'm still not quite sure how this relates to pragmatism. Hypothetically a physicalist and an idealist world might look exactly the same. It was the positivist's claim, not the pragmatist's, that therefore physicalists and idealists actually talk about the same thing, they are just confused about language. It's more of an ontological rather than an epistemological question.
James would say you have to look at the context and decide which belief would be beneficial to hold. Peirce would say you should belief what is unequivocally agreed upon after our inquiry has come to an end.

Then I messed up my terminology. That being said, the same question remains.

Your question is now what's the difference under a positivist's ideology? Doesn't really matter because even the developers of positivism have abandoned it, but I think positivists would deny both idealism and physicalism because they don't seem to make any difference when it comes to observing reality. IIRC, most positivists were metaphysical behaviorists for this very reason.

That's not what I meant. I'm asking for a meaningful distinction between the two at all.

There is hardly one you could test for in a lab. Are you asking for a characterization of 'mental' and 'physical'?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 1:53:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 7:48:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:44:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Your first quote in red at the bottom of your posts is a questionable cause fallacy, doesn't fair well in philosophy to promote or give the impression you concur with illogical bull.

Right, the people in the philosophy forum must think I'm an idiot, because I walk around with a Derek Parfit quote lol.
First of all, questionable cause is an informal fallacy. Thus it is not "illogical bull", if anything it is contrary to reason.
Secondly, questionable cause is to conclude one thing causes another because they are associated on a regular basis. How do you conclude that Parfit committed this fallacy? Are you familiar with the entire text passage I took it from? Do you have strong evidence contrary to the quote? Tell me.
I do not have to prove that a sequence of events that are learned results in the claimed conclusion. The offered relationship of what constitutes moral reasoning is subjective, to claim something was the result of the lack of achieving it one must know from which someone else's mind has determined said thing. He cannot know others mind and how they comprehend things,
Websters
il"log"i"cal
i(l)G2;l"jək(ə)l/
adjective
lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
Your right, illogical doesn't mean contrary to reason. Oh wait Webster's ....nvm I forget lacking sound reasoning doesn't mean contrary to reason....am I lost?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 2:18:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 1:53:40 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/30/2015 7:48:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:44:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Your first quote in red at the bottom of your posts is a questionable cause fallacy, doesn't fair well in philosophy to promote or give the impression you concur with illogical bull.

Right, the people in the philosophy forum must think I'm an idiot, because I walk around with a Derek Parfit quote lol.
First of all, questionable cause is an informal fallacy. Thus it is not "illogical bull", if anything it is contrary to reason.
Secondly, questionable cause is to conclude one thing causes another because they are associated on a regular basis. How do you conclude that Parfit committed this fallacy? Are you familiar with the entire text passage I took it from? Do you have strong evidence contrary to the quote? Tell me.
I do not have to prove that a sequence of events that are learned results in the claimed conclusion. The offered relationship of what constitutes moral reasoning is subjective, to claim something was the result of the lack of achieving it one must know from which someone else's mind has determined said thing. He cannot know others mind and how they comprehend things,
Exactly, because causal reasoning is impossible.

Websters
il"log"i"cal
i(l)G2;l"jək(ə)l/
adjective
lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
Your right, illogical doesn't mean contrary to reason. Oh wait Webster's ....nvm I forget lacking sound reasoning doesn't mean contrary to reason....am I lost?

I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me, but I suspect it's that you don't understand the difference between informal and formal fallacies. Do you think that deduction is the only form of reasoning?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Epica
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 4:30:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 4:38:44 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/30/2015 1:26:55 AM, Epica wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:23:25 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 11:08:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 10:33:13 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:11:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

Why would the be the same for a pragmatist to begin with?

To me, saying that everything is physical or everything is mental doesn't really create anything predictable. What is the difference to my observations of reality if reality is mental as opposed to physical, and vice versa?

I'm still not quite sure how this relates to pragmatism. Hypothetically a physicalist and an idealist world might look exactly the same. It was the positivist's claim, not the pragmatist's, that therefore physicalists and idealists actually talk about the same thing, they are just confused about language. It's more of an ontological rather than an epistemological question.
James would say you have to look at the context and decide which belief would be beneficial to hold. Peirce would say you should belief what is unequivocally agreed upon after our inquiry has come to an end.

Then I messed up my terminology. That being said, the same question remains.

Your question is now what's the difference under a positivist's ideology? Doesn't really matter because even the developers of positivism have abandoned it, but I think positivists would deny both idealism and physicalism because they don't seem to make any difference when it comes to observing reality. IIRC, most positivists were metaphysical behaviorists for this very reason.

That's not what I meant. I'm asking for a meaningful distinction between the two at all.

One states that the physical is based on the mental and one says the opposite. Does that answer it?
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 6:52:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 4:30:17 PM, Epica wrote:
At 8/30/2015 4:38:44 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/30/2015 1:26:55 AM, Epica wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:23:25 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 11:08:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 10:33:13 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:11:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

Why would the be the same for a pragmatist to begin with?

To me, saying that everything is physical or everything is mental doesn't really create anything predictable. What is the difference to my observations of reality if reality is mental as opposed to physical, and vice versa?

I'm still not quite sure how this relates to pragmatism. Hypothetically a physicalist and an idealist world might look exactly the same. It was the positivist's claim, not the pragmatist's, that therefore physicalists and idealists actually talk about the same thing, they are just confused about language. It's more of an ontological rather than an epistemological question.
James would say you have to look at the context and decide which belief would be beneficial to hold. Peirce would say you should belief what is unequivocally agreed upon after our inquiry has come to an end.

Then I messed up my terminology. That being said, the same question remains.

Your question is now what's the difference under a positivist's ideology? Doesn't really matter because even the developers of positivism have abandoned it, but I think positivists would deny both idealism and physicalism because they don't seem to make any difference when it comes to observing reality. IIRC, most positivists were metaphysical behaviorists for this very reason.

That's not what I meant. I'm asking for a meaningful distinction between the two at all.

One states that the physical is based on the mental and one says the opposite. Does that answer it?

But how does that differ in any meaningful way?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 6:53:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 7:52:06 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/30/2015 4:38:44 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/30/2015 1:26:55 AM, Epica wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:23:25 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 11:08:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 10:33:13 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:11:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

Why would the be the same for a pragmatist to begin with?

To me, saying that everything is physical or everything is mental doesn't really create anything predictable. What is the difference to my observations of reality if reality is mental as opposed to physical, and vice versa?

I'm still not quite sure how this relates to pragmatism. Hypothetically a physicalist and an idealist world might look exactly the same. It was the positivist's claim, not the pragmatist's, that therefore physicalists and idealists actually talk about the same thing, they are just confused about language. It's more of an ontological rather than an epistemological question.
James would say you have to look at the context and decide which belief would be beneficial to hold. Peirce would say you should belief what is unequivocally agreed upon after our inquiry has come to an end.

Then I messed up my terminology. That being said, the same question remains.

Your question is now what's the difference under a positivist's ideology? Doesn't really matter because even the developers of positivism have abandoned it, but I think positivists would deny both idealism and physicalism because they don't seem to make any difference when it comes to observing reality. IIRC, most positivists were metaphysical behaviorists for this very reason.

That's not what I meant. I'm asking for a meaningful distinction between the two at all.

There is hardly one you could test for in a lab. Are you asking for a characterization of 'mental' and 'physical'?

That would certainly help.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 8:34:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 6:53:09 PM, Surrealism wrote:
There is hardly one you could test for in a lab. Are you asking for a characterization of 'mental' and 'physical'?

That would certainly help.

Now that's a substantial question. And a hard one to answer. There are no unequivocally agreed upon definitions.
For Descartes the physical exhibits modes of extension, spatial form, etc., while the mental exhibits modes of thought, the feeling of seeing the color green, regular thoughts, etc. One does not share any properties with the other, they are two entirely different substances.
For Berkley, all that exist are our ideas, the mental. He has a pretty wide understanding of the term, it includes thoughts, qualia, etc. The non-mental is that what is not perceived, but according to him, that would be incoherent, thus only the mental exists.
I don't agree with either of them, but they are the only definitions I am aware of.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Epica
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2015 9:35:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 6:52:15 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/30/2015 4:30:17 PM, Epica wrote:
At 8/30/2015 4:38:44 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/30/2015 1:26:55 AM, Epica wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:23:25 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 11:08:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 10:33:13 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:11:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

Why would the be the same for a pragmatist to begin with?

To me, saying that everything is physical or everything is mental doesn't really create anything predictable. What is the difference to my observations of reality if reality is mental as opposed to physical, and vice versa?

I'm still not quite sure how this relates to pragmatism. Hypothetically a physicalist and an idealist world might look exactly the same. It was the positivist's claim, not the pragmatist's, that therefore physicalists and idealists actually talk about the same thing, they are just confused about language. It's more of an ontological rather than an epistemological question.
James would say you have to look at the context and decide which belief would be beneficial to hold. Peirce would say you should belief what is unequivocally agreed upon after our inquiry has come to an end.

Then I messed up my terminology. That being said, the same question remains.

Your question is now what's the difference under a positivist's ideology? Doesn't really matter because even the developers of positivism have abandoned it, but I think positivists would deny both idealism and physicalism because they don't seem to make any difference when it comes to observing reality. IIRC, most positivists were metaphysical behaviorists for this very reason.

That's not what I meant. I'm asking for a meaningful distinction between the two at all.

One states that the physical is based on the mental and one says the opposite. Does that answer it?

But how does that differ in any meaningful way?

One claims the physical is primary, the other the mind is primary. One presumes actual objects exist apart from the experience of such objects, the other states the opposite. How are they remotely the same?
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 12:12:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 9:35:27 PM, Epica wrote:
At 8/30/2015 6:52:15 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/30/2015 4:30:17 PM, Epica wrote:
At 8/30/2015 4:38:44 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/30/2015 1:26:55 AM, Epica wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:23:25 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 11:08:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 10:33:13 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:11:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

Why would the be the same for a pragmatist to begin with?

To me, saying that everything is physical or everything is mental doesn't really create anything predictable. What is the difference to my observations of reality if reality is mental as opposed to physical, and vice versa?

I'm still not quite sure how this relates to pragmatism. Hypothetically a physicalist and an idealist world might look exactly the same. It was the positivist's claim, not the pragmatist's, that therefore physicalists and idealists actually talk about the same thing, they are just confused about language. It's more of an ontological rather than an epistemological question.
James would say you have to look at the context and decide which belief would be beneficial to hold. Peirce would say you should belief what is unequivocally agreed upon after our inquiry has come to an end.

Then I messed up my terminology. That being said, the same question remains.

Your question is now what's the difference under a positivist's ideology? Doesn't really matter because even the developers of positivism have abandoned it, but I think positivists would deny both idealism and physicalism because they don't seem to make any difference when it comes to observing reality. IIRC, most positivists were metaphysical behaviorists for this very reason.

That's not what I meant. I'm asking for a meaningful distinction between the two at all.

One states that the physical is based on the mental and one says the opposite. Does that answer it?

But how does that differ in any meaningful way?

One claims the physical is primary, the other the mind is primary. One presumes actual objects exist apart from the experience of such objects, the other states the opposite. How are they remotely the same?

Because they result in the same observations of reality. That's the whole point I made at the beginning. One says "the objects we observe are made of something called "physical", and so are our perceptions." The other says "our perceptions are made of something called "mental", and so are the objects we observe."

But the difference between these labels is hardly clear. If I say everything in set A is flerbly, and so is set B, and someone else says everything in set B is glerbly and so is set A, are we saying anything effectively different?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Surrealism
Posts: 265
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 12:15:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 8:34:00 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/30/2015 6:53:09 PM, Surrealism wrote:
There is hardly one you could test for in a lab. Are you asking for a characterization of 'mental' and 'physical'?

That would certainly help.

Now that's a substantial question. And a hard one to answer. There are no unequivocally agreed upon definitions.
For Descartes the physical exhibits modes of extension, spatial form, etc., while the mental exhibits modes of thought, the feeling of seeing the color green, regular thoughts, etc. One does not share any properties with the other, they are two entirely different substances.
For Berkley, all that exist are our ideas, the mental. He has a pretty wide understanding of the term, it includes thoughts, qualia, etc. The non-mental is that what is not perceived, but according to him, that would be incoherent, thus only the mental exists.
I don't agree with either of them, but they are the only definitions I am aware of.

Sure, but that doesn't really help. It's not as though we can objectively observe spatial form outside of our own perceptions. So how can we differentiate between physical and mental characterizations of our own perceptions? Are we supposed to be able to observe our own minds?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 12:23:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "given my pragmatist epistemology", but if you are asking how "Idealism and Physicalism are different" in terms of observation and measurement, they aren't. Unlike Physical frameworks, Metaphysical frameworks are not constrained or verified by observation and measurement, which goes to why the "meta" is in metaphysics.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Epica
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 2:05:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 12:12:27 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/30/2015 9:35:27 PM, Epica wrote:
At 8/30/2015 6:52:15 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/30/2015 4:30:17 PM, Epica wrote:
At 8/30/2015 4:38:44 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/30/2015 1:26:55 AM, Epica wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:23:25 AM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 11:08:42 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 10:33:13 PM, Surrealism wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:11:59 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/29/2015 9:04:28 PM, Surrealism wrote:
Convince me, given my pragmatist epistemology, that Idealism and Physicalism are different at all.

Why would the be the same for a pragmatist to begin with?

To me, saying that everything is physical or everything is mental doesn't really create anything predictable. What is the difference to my observations of reality if reality is mental as opposed to physical, and vice versa?

I'm still not quite sure how this relates to pragmatism. Hypothetically a physicalist and an idealist world might look exactly the same. It was the positivist's claim, not the pragmatist's, that therefore physicalists and idealists actually talk about the same thing, they are just confused about language. It's more of an ontological rather than an epistemological question.
James would say you have to look at the context and decide which belief would be beneficial to hold. Peirce would say you should belief what is unequivocally agreed upon after our inquiry has come to an end.

Then I messed up my terminology. That being said, the same question remains.

Your question is now what's the difference under a positivist's ideology? Doesn't really matter because even the developers of positivism have abandoned it, but I think positivists would deny both idealism and physicalism because they don't seem to make any difference when it comes to observing reality. IIRC, most positivists were metaphysical behaviorists for this very reason.

That's not what I meant. I'm asking for a meaningful distinction between the two at all.

One states that the physical is based on the mental and one says the opposite. Does that answer it?

But how does that differ in any meaningful way?

One claims the physical is primary, the other the mind is primary. One presumes actual objects exist apart from the experience of such objects, the other states the opposite. How are they remotely the same?

Because they result in the same observations of reality. That's the whole point I made at the beginning. One says "the objects we observe are made of something called "physical", and so are our perceptions." The other says "our perceptions are made of something called "mental", and so are the objects we observe."

But the difference between these labels is hardly clear. If I say everything in set A is flerbly, and so is set B, and someone else says everything in set B is glerbly and so is set A, are we saying anything effectively different?

They may be empirically they same, but that doesn't entail the are literally the same. Unless you're a positivist, which I've already answered. I think the positivist would hold both are meaningless.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 11:04:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/30/2015 2:18:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/30/2015 1:53:40 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/30/2015 7:48:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:44:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Your first quote in red at the bottom of your posts is a questionable cause fallacy, doesn't fair well in philosophy to promote or give the impression you concur with illogical bull.

Right, the people in the philosophy forum must think I'm an idiot, because I walk around with a Derek Parfit quote lol.
First of all, questionable cause is an informal fallacy. Thus it is not "illogical bull", if anything it is contrary to reason.
Secondly, questionable cause is to conclude one thing causes another because they are associated on a regular basis. How do you conclude that Parfit committed this fallacy? Are you familiar with the entire text passage I took it from? Do you have strong evidence contrary to the quote? Tell me.
I do not have to prove that a sequence of events that are learned results in the claimed conclusion. The offered relationship of what constitutes moral reasoning is subjective, to claim something was the result of the lack of achieving it one must know from which someone else's mind has determined said thing. He cannot know others mind and how they comprehend things,
Exactly, because causal reasoning is impossible.


Websters
il"log"i"cal
i(l)G2;l"jək(ə)l/
adjective
lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
Your right, illogical doesn't mean contrary to reason. Oh wait Webster's ....nvm I forget lacking sound reasoning doesn't mean contrary to reason....am I lost?

I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me, but I suspect it's that you don't understand the difference between informal and formal fallacies. Do you think that deduction is the only form of reasoning?

You said that the quote was not illogical, instead it was contrary to reason. The definition of illogical is contrary to reason , I.e. unreasoned is synonymous. Is not unreasonable contrary to reason?
Or is it your contention that incorrect "reasoning" is a form of reason? If so then I agree, incorrectly skydiving without a parachute is nonetheless skydiving, or sky dying actually.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 2:23:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 11:04:17 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/30/2015 2:18:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/30/2015 1:53:40 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/30/2015 7:48:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:44:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Your first quote in red at the bottom of your posts is a questionable cause fallacy, doesn't fair well in philosophy to promote or give the impression you concur with illogical bull.

Right, the people in the philosophy forum must think I'm an idiot, because I walk around with a Derek Parfit quote lol.
First of all, questionable cause is an informal fallacy. Thus it is not "illogical bull", if anything it is contrary to reason.
Secondly, questionable cause is to conclude one thing causes another because they are associated on a regular basis. How do you conclude that Parfit committed this fallacy? Are you familiar with the entire text passage I took it from? Do you have strong evidence contrary to the quote? Tell me.
I do not have to prove that a sequence of events that are learned results in the claimed conclusion. The offered relationship of what constitutes moral reasoning is subjective, to claim something was the result of the lack of achieving it one must know from which someone else's mind has determined said thing. He cannot know others mind and how they comprehend things,
Exactly, because causal reasoning is impossible.


Websters
il"log"i"cal
i(l)G2;l"jək(ə)l/
adjective
lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
Your right, illogical doesn't mean contrary to reason. Oh wait Webster's ....nvm I forget lacking sound reasoning doesn't mean contrary to reason....am I lost?

I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me, but I suspect it's that you don't understand the difference between informal and formal fallacies. Do you think that deduction is the only form of reasoning?

You said that the quote was not illogical, instead it was contrary to reason.
No, I did not say that. You claimed it is "illogical bull". I said that even if Parfit commits questionable cause, which he doesn't, then that would be an informal fallacy, not a formal fallacy as you would have it.

The definition of illogical is contrary to reason , I.e. unreasoned is synonymous. Is not unreasonable contrary to reason?
I just love it when people look up philosophical vocabulary on Merriam Webster and think they are now the arbiter of meaning.

Or is it your contention that incorrect "reasoning" is a form of reason? If so then I agree, incorrectly skydiving without a parachute is nonetheless skydiving, or sky dying actually.
No.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 2:34:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 2:23:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/31/2015 11:04:17 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/30/2015 2:18:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/30/2015 1:53:40 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/30/2015 7:48:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:44:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Your first quote in red at the bottom of your posts is a questionable cause fallacy, doesn't fair well in philosophy to promote or give the impression you concur with illogical bull.

Right, the people in the philosophy forum must think I'm an idiot, because I walk around with a Derek Parfit quote lol.
First of all, questionable cause is an informal fallacy. Thus it is not "illogical bull", if anything it is contrary to reason.
Secondly, questionable cause is to conclude one thing causes another because they are associated on a regular basis. How do you conclude that Parfit committed this fallacy? Are you familiar with the entire text passage I took it from? Do you have strong evidence contrary to the quote? Tell me.
I do not have to prove that a sequence of events that are learned results in the claimed conclusion. The offered relationship of what constitutes moral reasoning is subjective, to claim something was the result of the lack of achieving it one must know from which someone else's mind has determined said thing. He cannot know others mind and how they comprehend things,
Exactly, because causal reasoning is impossible.


Websters
il"log"i"cal
i(l)G2;l"jək(ə)l/
adjective
lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
Your right, illogical doesn't mean contrary to reason. Oh wait Webster's ....nvm I forget lacking sound reasoning doesn't mean contrary to reason....am I lost?

I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me, but I suspect it's that you don't understand the difference between informal and formal fallacies. Do you think that deduction is the only form of reasoning?

You said that the quote was not illogical, instead it was contrary to reason.
No, I did not say that. You claimed it is "illogical bull". I said that even if Parfit commits questionable cause, which he doesn't, then that would be an informal fallacy, not a formal fallacy as you would have it.

The definition of illogical is contrary to reason , I.e. unreasoned is synonymous. Is not unreasonable contrary to reason?
I just love it when people look up philosophical vocabulary on Merriam Webster and think they are now the arbiter of meaning.

Or is it your contention that incorrect "reasoning" is a form of reason? If so then I agree, incorrectly skydiving without a parachute is nonetheless skydiving, or sky dying actually.
No.

For Christs sake read your own garbage before you claim I don't know what I'm talking about. You, verbatim

"Right, the people in the philosophy forum must think I'm an idiot, because I walk around with a Derek Parfit quote lol.
First of all, questionable cause is an informal fallacy.--------- Thus it is not "illogical bull", if anything it is contrary to reason.----------
Secondly, questionable cause is to conclude one thing causes another because they are associated on a regular basis. How do you conclude that Parfit committed this fallacy? Are you familiar with the entire text passage I took it from? Do you have strong evidence contrary to the quote? Tell me."

Now, would You like to discuss again whether or not you said it is not illogical Bull if anything it is contrary to reason? Seriously, get off your high horse and focus on memory.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 2:38:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 2:34:12 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/31/2015 2:23:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/31/2015 11:04:17 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/30/2015 2:18:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/30/2015 1:53:40 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/30/2015 7:48:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:44:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Your first quote in red at the bottom of your posts is a questionable cause fallacy, doesn't fair well in philosophy to promote or give the impression you concur with illogical bull.

Right, the people in the philosophy forum must think I'm an idiot, because I walk around with a Derek Parfit quote lol.
First of all, questionable cause is an informal fallacy. Thus it is not "illogical bull", if anything it is contrary to reason.
Secondly, questionable cause is to conclude one thing causes another because they are associated on a regular basis. How do you conclude that Parfit committed this fallacy? Are you familiar with the entire text passage I took it from? Do you have strong evidence contrary to the quote? Tell me.
I do not have to prove that a sequence of events that are learned results in the claimed conclusion. The offered relationship of what constitutes moral reasoning is subjective, to claim something was the result of the lack of achieving it one must know from which someone else's mind has determined said thing. He cannot know others mind and how they comprehend things,
Exactly, because causal reasoning is impossible.


Websters
il"log"i"cal
i(l)G2;l"jək(ə)l/
adjective
lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
Your right, illogical doesn't mean contrary to reason. Oh wait Webster's ....nvm I forget lacking sound reasoning doesn't mean contrary to reason....am I lost?

I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me, but I suspect it's that you don't understand the difference between informal and formal fallacies. Do you think that deduction is the only form of reasoning?

You said that the quote was not illogical, instead it was contrary to reason.
No, I did not say that. You claimed it is "illogical bull". I said that even if Parfit commits questionable cause, which he doesn't, then that would be an informal fallacy, not a formal fallacy as you would have it.

The definition of illogical is contrary to reason , I.e. unreasoned is synonymous. Is not unreasonable contrary to reason?
I just love it when people look up philosophical vocabulary on Merriam Webster and think they are now the arbiter of meaning.

Or is it your contention that incorrect "reasoning" is a form of reason? If so then I agree, incorrectly skydiving without a parachute is nonetheless skydiving, or sky dying actually.
No.

For Christs sake read your own garbage before you claim I don't know what I'm talking about. You, verbatim


"Right, the people in the philosophy forum must think I'm an idiot, because I walk around with a Derek Parfit quote lol.
First of all, questionable cause is an informal fallacy.--------- Thus it is not "illogical bull", if anything it is contrary to reason.----------
Secondly, questionable cause is to conclude one thing causes another because they are associated on a regular basis. How do you conclude that Parfit committed this fallacy? Are you familiar with the entire text passage I took it from? Do you have strong evidence contrary to the quote? Tell me."


Now, would You like to discuss again whether or not you said it is not illogical Bull if anything it is contrary to reason? Seriously, get off your high horse and focus on memory.
You said:
"You said that the quote was not illogical, instead it was contrary to reason"
The first part is correct, but the latter is not. I did not say that. I never said that the quote is contrary to reason.
Think about what you write and how someone with minimal awareness will respond before you claim memory insufficiencies on my part.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 2:43:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 2:38:15 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/31/2015 2:34:12 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/31/2015 2:23:55 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/31/2015 11:04:17 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/30/2015 2:18:14 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/30/2015 1:53:40 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 8/30/2015 7:48:55 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/30/2015 12:44:09 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:

Your first quote in red at the bottom of your posts is a questionable cause fallacy, doesn't fair well in philosophy to promote or give the impression you concur with illogical bull.

Right, the people in the philosophy forum must think I'm an idiot, because I walk around with a Derek Parfit quote lol.
First of all, questionable cause is an informal fallacy. Thus it is not "illogical bull", if anything it is contrary to reason.
Secondly, questionable cause is to conclude one thing causes another because they are associated on a regular basis. How do you conclude that Parfit committed this fallacy? Are you familiar with the entire text passage I took it from? Do you have strong evidence contrary to the quote? Tell me.
I do not have to prove that a sequence of events that are learned results in the claimed conclusion. The offered relationship of what constitutes moral reasoning is subjective, to claim something was the result of the lack of achieving it one must know from which someone else's mind has determined said thing. He cannot know others mind and how they comprehend things,
Exactly, because causal reasoning is impossible.


Websters
il"log"i"cal
i(l)G2;l"jək(ə)l/
adjective
lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning.
Your right, illogical doesn't mean contrary to reason. Oh wait Webster's ....nvm I forget lacking sound reasoning doesn't mean contrary to reason....am I lost?

I'm not sure what you are trying to tell me, but I suspect it's that you don't understand the difference between informal and formal fallacies. Do you think that deduction is the only form of reasoning?

You said that the quote was not illogical, instead it was contrary to reason.
No, I did not say that. You claimed it is "illogical bull". I said that even if Parfit commits questionable cause, which he doesn't, then that would be an informal fallacy, not a formal fallacy as you would have it.

The definition of illogical is contrary to reason , I.e. unreasoned is synonymous. Is not unreasonable contrary to reason?
I just love it when people look up philosophical vocabulary on Merriam Webster and think they are now the arbiter of meaning.

Or is it your contention that incorrect "reasoning" is a form of reason? If so then I agree, incorrectly skydiving without a parachute is nonetheless skydiving, or sky dying actually.
No.

For Christs sake read your own garbage before you claim I don't know what I'm talking about. You, verbatim


"Right, the people in the philosophy forum must think I'm an idiot, because I walk around with a Derek Parfit quote lol.
First of all, questionable cause is an informal fallacy.--------- Thus it is not "illogical bull", if anything it is contrary to reason.----------
Secondly, questionable cause is to conclude one thing causes another because they are associated on a regular basis. How do you conclude that Parfit committed this fallacy? Are you familiar with the entire text passage I took it from? Do you have strong evidence contrary to the quote? Tell me."


Now, would You like to discuss again whether or not you said it is not illogical Bull if anything it is contrary to reason? Seriously, get off your high horse and focus on memory.
You said:
"You said that the quote was not illogical, instead it was contrary to reason"
The first part is correct, but the latter is not. I did not say that. I never said that the quote is contrary to reason.
Think about what you write and how someone with minimal awareness will respond before you claim memory insufficiencies on my part.

Dude seriously, this is a copy and paste of your first response to me referencing your red quotes. geez, are you that committed to being a contrarian?

Right, the people in the philosophy forum must think I'm an idiot, because I walk around with a Derek Parfit quote lol.
First of all, questionable cause is an informal fallacy. Thus it is not "illogical bull", if anything it is contrary to reason.
Secondly, questionable cause is to conclude one thing causes another because they are associated on a regular basis. How do you conclude that Parfit committed this fallacy? Are you familiar with the entire text passage I took it from? Do you have strong evidence contrary to the quote? Tell me.

Once again, you said thus it is not illogical Bull, if anything it is contrary to reason.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 2:51:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 2:43:59 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
You said:
"You said that the quote was not illogical, instead it was contrary to reason"
The first part is correct, but the latter is not. I did not say that. I never said that the quote is contrary to reason.
Think about what you write and how someone with minimal awareness will respond before you claim memory insufficiencies on my part.


Dude seriously, this is a copy and paste of your first response to me referencing your red quotes. geez, are you that committed to being a contrarian?

Right, the people in the philosophy forum must think I'm an idiot, because I walk around with a Derek Parfit quote lol.
First of all, questionable cause is an informal fallacy. Thus it is not "illogical bull", if anything it is contrary to reason.
Secondly, questionable cause is to conclude one thing causes another because they are associated on a regular basis. How do you conclude that Parfit committed this fallacy? Are you familiar with the entire text passage I took it from? Do you have strong evidence contrary to the quote? Tell me.

Once again, you said thus it is not illogical Bull, if anything it is contrary to reason.
Yes, that I have said. Do you not see the difference between "it is not illogical bull, it is contrary to reason" and "it is not illogical bull, if anything it is contrary to reason"?
Holy cow.
How stupid do you think one would have to be to agree to the former?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2015 3:02:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/31/2015 2:51:41 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/31/2015 2:43:59 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
You said:
"You said that the quote was not illogical, instead it was contrary to reason"
The first part is correct, but the latter is not. I did not say that. I never said that the quote is contrary to reason.
Think about what you write and how someone with minimal awareness will respond before you claim memory insufficiencies on my part.


Dude seriously, this is a copy and paste of your first response to me referencing your red quotes. geez, are you that committed to being a contrarian?

Right, the people in the philosophy forum must think I'm an idiot, because I walk around with a Derek Parfit quote lol.
First of all, questionable cause is an informal fallacy. Thus it is not "illogical bull", if anything it is contrary to reason.
Secondly, questionable cause is to conclude one thing causes another because they are associated on a regular basis. How do you conclude that Parfit committed this fallacy? Are you familiar with the entire text passage I took it from? Do you have strong evidence contrary to the quote? Tell me.

Once again, you said thus it is not illogical Bull, if anything it is contrary to reason.
Yes, that I have said. Do you not see the difference between "it is not illogical bull, it is contrary to reason" and "it is not illogical bull, if anything it is contrary to reason"?
Holy cow.
How stupid do you think one would have to be to agree to the former?
Ok, lets go with that. Please explain how something can not be illogical, but it can be contrary to reason if the definition of illogical is lacking reason. What exactly are you saying "contrary to reason means"? Are you now saying the word illogical has a different meaning In logic? If so, tell me what illogical means in logic. Once again the definition of illogical since you believe the phrase, "if anything" negates the phrase "contrary to reason" being different than illogical.
illogical Translate Button
[ih-loj-i-kuh l]
Spell Syllables
adjective
1.
not logical; contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic; unreasoning:
an illogical reply.