Philosophy Now Forum

Blaggard wrote:It's a good question but one that logically leads to what use is there to try and understand nature, no?

Leading to the point of life etc.
Questioning is understanding

Perceiving exists. wrote:

Blaggard wrote:It's a good question but one that logically leads to what use is there to try and understand nature, no?

Leading to the point of life etc.
Questioning is understanding

Hmmm I think we have gone full circle in this circularity. I do thank you for pi though it was nice, tasted like chicken though..?

Yeah I know very bad joke.

Badum.. yeah never mind.

Everything is a circle if you go far enough

Perceiving exists. wrote:Badum.. yeah never mind.

Everything is a circle if you go far enough

Lol nice chatting with you perceiving, livened up a dull hour.

Blaggard wrote:Lol nice chatting with you perceiving, livened up a dull hour.

Likewise, rarely i turn down an opportunity to debate any form of claimed logic

I'll leave it here, maybe others would like to share their logic too..

Perceiving exists. wrote:

Blaggard wrote:Lol nice chatting with you perceiving, livened up a dull hour.

Likewise, rarely i turn down an opportunity to debate any form of claimed logic

Logic my ass.

I can assure you at least that my ass is at least rotund if not perfectly round.

Blaggard wrote:So if logic is perfectly true, where does that leave rationality? Is logic a part of intelligence or is it a part of rationality, in having both terms and holding them as pragmatic do we deny logic? And hence is truth just an incorrigible illusion amongst irrational people to hold everyone back?

This is pure nonens, they thought the same in the 70'ies, and made the print card stupidities to calculate the best path for humans, but all aspects of life can't be calculated as they are very relative and subjective, like taste and aestethics is very abstract and can't be calculated to fit humans, and we end up with things with abhore or just can't get used to.

There's a reason why we have very expensive CEO's for big companies, if we could just replace them with computers calculating everything it would lead to a Nobel Price.

OP glaringly ignorent about what the subject really is.

HexHammer wrote:

Blaggard wrote:So if logic is perfectly true, where does that leave rationality? Is logic a part of intelligence or is it a part of rationality, in having both terms and holding them as pragmatic do we deny logic? And hence is truth just an incorrigible illusion amongst irrational people to hold everyone back?

This is pure nonens, they thought the same in the 70'ies, and made the print card stupidities to calculate the best path for humans, but all aspects of life can't be calculated as they are very relative and subjective, like taste and aestethics is very abstract and can't be calculated to fit humans, and we end up with things with abhore or just can't get used to.

There's a reason why we have very expensive CEO's for big companies, if we could just replace them with computers calculating everything it would lead to a Nobel Price.

OP glaringly ignorent about what the subject really is.

Yes that's pretty much what it is saying by implication that truth in absolute terms is a comfortable illusion of the incorrigible.

Blaggard wrote:So if logic is perfectly true, where does that leave rationality? Is logic a part of intelligence or is it a part of rationality, in having both terms and holding them as pragmatic do we deny logic? And hence is truth just an incorrigible illusion amongst irrational people to hold everyone back?

I thought the more intelligent you are the more rational you are.
Isn't rationale the mind at work upon the conditions of logic?
A rational thought the result of an intelligent mind analysing multiple sets of logical conditions?

attofishpi wrote:I thought the more intelligent you are the more rational you are.
Isn't rationale the mind at work upon the conditions of logic?
A rational thought the result of an intelligent mind analysing multiple sets of logical conditions?

No, some completely barking mad people may have high rationale within 1 or more field of their intellect, but no rationale in others.

If you have seen the movie "Rain Man" you see a retarded person being able to memorize entire phone books, have super math abilities, etc, but he has no overall rationale, thus he can't solve very simple everyday things. Does not comprehend value of things, like the cost of groccary and a car which he deem as being worth a 100$.

I havn't studied the area intensly but I think it was back in the Vietnam days that egg heads examined war casualties who had sufferd brain damage, and found that we had about 9 main intelligences and some could work together and some independantly, like someone could play piano perfectly, but not put 2+2 together, thus concluding math and motor skills was 2 independant intelligences.

Read up on intelligences and neurology.

HexHammer wrote:

attofishpi wrote:I thought the more intelligent you are the more rational you are.
Isn't rationale the mind at work upon the conditions of logic?
A rational thought the result of an intelligent mind analysing multiple sets of logical conditions?

No, some completely barking mad people may have high rationale within 1 or more field of their intellect, but no rationale in others.

If you have seen the movie "Rain Man" you see a retarded person being able to memorize entire phone books, have super math abilities, etc, but he has no overall rationale, thus he can't solve very simple everyday things. Does not comprehend value of things, like the cost of groccary and a car which he deem as being worth a 100$.

I havn't studied the area intensly but I think it was back in the Vietnam days that egg heads examined war casualties who had sufferd brain damage, and found that we had about 9 main intelligences and some could work together and some independantly, like someone could play piano perfectly, but not put 2+2 together, thus concluding math and motor skills was 2 independant intelligences.

Read up on intelligences and neurology.

I stand corrected, didn't consider those crazy geniuses!

attofishpi wrote:I stand corrected, didn't consider those crazy geniuses!

reconsider yourself

Blaggard wrote:So if logic is perfectly true, where does that leave rationality? Is logic a part of intelligence or is it a part of rationality, in having both terms and holding them as pragmatic do we deny logic? And hence is truth just an incorrigible illusion amongst irrational people to hold everyone back?

what do you mean by 'logic being true'?

there are many different logical systems

formal logic as taught in universities is a self contained system where certain things are true by definition

but is it true in any larger sense

Kayla wrote:

Blaggard wrote:So if logic is perfectly true, where does that leave rationality? Is logic a part of intelligence or is it a part of rationality, in having both terms and holding them as pragmatic do we deny logic? And hence is truth just an incorrigible illusion amongst irrational people to hold everyone back?

what do you mean by 'logic being true'?

there are many different logical systems

formal logic as taught in universities is a self contained system where certain things are true by definition

but is it true in any larger sense

must it not be true too in the larger sense, to be true in the smaller sense? I mean, it may not be complete, the truth of the smaller sense that is, but the truth of the smaller sense cannot be true, and at the same be not true in the bigger sense? (it may be imcomplete, but i'm starting to repeat myself here now)

Logic being true, means i think, logic must confirm reality in such way that reality is truth, either in the smaller subjective or the larger objective sense?
Logic cannot be logic, and be not true, thus contradicting reality in the logic way, regardless of it being in the absolute, bigger, or incomplete, smaller perspective?

LOGIC

CI GOL

See i goal

That is God...shaping us like a finished product as the slag is chipped away.

http://www.androcies.com

or it could be...and is

LOG_I_C

An ongoing log of our actions...'he' sees

Of course...im now just a theist nut job