Logic is perfect

[Blaggard]

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?

[Perceiving exists.]

i think logic describes a lot, logically..
yet the opposite or absence of logic cant be, without some logic?

[Blaggard]

i think logic describes a lot, logically..
yet the opposite or absence of logic cant be, without some logic?

The opposite of logic is logical that seems inconsistent?

[Perceiving exists.]

i think logic describes a lot, logically..
yet the opposite or absence of logic cant be, without some logic?

The opposite of logic is logical that seems inconsistent?

So logic is an expectation?
Can you have expectations with out having formed some logic?

[Blaggard]

i think logic describes a lot, logically..
yet the opposite or absence of logic cant be, without some logic?

The opposite of logic is logical that seems inconsistent?

So logic is an expectation?
Can you have expectations with out having formed some logic?

That's a straw man I did not say I have expectations only that logic is a natural result of a priori assumptions.

[Perceiving exists.]

That's a straw man I did not say I have expectations only that logic is a natural result of a priori assumptions.

Must logic not be perceived and thus be expected, based on a natural result and its cause, to be either logic or not?
How can logic be on its own?

[Blaggard]

That's a straw man I did not say I have expectations only that logic is a natural result of a priori assumptions.

Must logic not be perceived and thus be expected, based on a natural result and its cause, to be either logic or not?
How can logic be on its own?

How indeed, but how would you substantiate logic if it was not as you ascribe lonely?

[Perceiving exists.]

That's a straw man I did not say I have expectations only that logic is a natural result of a priori assumptions.

Must logic not be perceived and thus be expected, based on a natural result and its cause, to be either logic or not?
How can logic be on its own?

How indeed, but how would you substantiate logic if it was not as you ascribe lonely?

I think its the same as math;
Math is always right, else it isn't math.
Logic is always perfect, else it isn't logic.

If the logic is anticipated by an expectation, the logic isn't perfect anymore, due to the inconsistency, and thus a 'new logic' regarding those events comes into existence?
This is only regarding perceived logic, and not actual logic, but how can objective logic be perceived?

[Blaggard]

I think its the same as math;
math is always right, else it isn't math.
Logic is always perfect, else it isn't logic.

If the logic is anticipated by and expectation, the logic isn't perfect anymore, due to the expectation, and thus a 'new logic' regarding those events comes into existence?

Hmm it's a weak justification for both maths and logic though isn't it, if it only relies on its own axioms, but I do take your point.

A new logic is based on a weak justification for a poorer logic, that seems somewhat inconsequential if not illogical and consequentially: new logic is based on incorrigibly poor logic. I think you can see where the series fails logically, and is a house of cards. But I do take your point. Maths is of course based on axioms such as ZFC and so on but should logic be so prone to such axioms or..?

[Perceiving exists.]

A new logic is based on a weak justification for a poorer logic, that seems somewhat inconsequential if not illogical and consequentially new logic is based on incorrigibly poor logic. I think you can see where the series fails logically, and is a house of cards. But I do take your point.

I added;
This is only regarding perceived logic, and not actual logic, but how can objective logic be perceived with out doubt?

[Blaggard]

A new logic is based on a weak justification for a poorer logic, that seems somewhat inconsequential if not illogical and consequentially new logic is based on incorrigibly poor logic. I think you can see where the series fails logically, and is a house of cards. But I do take your point.

I added;
This is only regarding perceived logic, and not actual logic, but how can objective logic be perceived with out doubt?

Ah ok so what is truth is your solution to logic? Not being flippant genuine question..?

I edited too btw sorry about that, sometimes really interesting discussion goes a little faster than you would like.

[Perceiving exists.]

A new logic is based on a weak justification for a poorer logic, that seems somewhat inconsequential if not illogical and consequentially new logic is based on incorrigibly poor logic. I think you can see where the series fails logically, and is a house of cards. But I do take your point.

I added;
This is only regarding perceived logic, and not actual logic, but how can objective logic be perceived with out doubt?

Ah ok so what is truth is your solution to logic? Not being flippant genuine question..?

I edited too btw sorry about that, sometimes really interesting discussion goes a little faster than you would like.

There are two different things, actual logic of nature and our ability to understand and anticipate that logic.
Our abilities seem to fail us from time to time, compared to the logic of nature, because nature doesn't care about logic?
The different views are endless when only saying, logic is perfect..? it's like saying logic is logic?

[Blaggard]

There are two different things, actual logic of nature and our ability to understand that logic.
Our abilities seem to fail us from time to time, compared to the logic of nature, because nature doesn't care about logic?

I think are in some sort of agreement that at least nature is the final arbiter on us and hence logic. But logic is still problematic nonetheless. Natural law dictates how we perceive things and hence denotes what logic we have but it is a circular argument to say we are defined by bad circular circularity, if you catch my drift.

Saying logic is anything is like saying what I think is true, or even an absolute truth, something that I can nor ever will be able to prove given nature; nature is based on what I think?

[Perceiving exists.]

I think another question must be asked first;
Nature has some logic for its ways, but what is the point of trying to understanding logic?

Saying logic is anything is like saying what I think is true, or even an absolute truth, something that I can nor ever will be able to prove given nature; nature is based on what I think?

What you hold to be true is always your own subjective absolute truth, despite the possibility of being in contradiction to the actual absolute truth

[Blaggard]

I think another question must be asked first;
Nature has some logic for its ways, but what is the point of trying to understanding logic?

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