Point of Logic

[Zarathustra]

Is Logic useful for Philosophy in practical way? If yes, in what way logic is practical and useful in real life and for philosophy?
Or is it just for the sake of the interest of the logicians and students who learns the subjects for purely learnings sake?

[Impenitent]

logic is useful when you ignore the fallacy of induction

-Imp

[nemos]

If you think of logic as the making of logical judgements, it is hard to see how you could do without it. Although even if we exclude reasoning and leave only instincts, the response to environmental incentives should still be logical.
But if you think of logic as a discipline, together with methods and mathematics, then it all depends on what you study and how interested you are in learning it.

In fact, you can try to come out the other way round, to think what things might look like if you ignore logic.

[alan1000]

If you think of logic as the making of logical judgements, it is hard to see how you could do without it. Although even if we exclude reasoning and leave only instincts, the response to environmental incentives should still be logical.
But if you think of logic as a discipline, together with methods and mathematics, then it all depends on what you study and how interested you are in learning it.

In fact, you can try to come out the other way round, to think what things might look like if you ignore logic.

I think this is exactly right, with reservations about the final sentence, because I'm not sure what point Nemos is making there.

But even the Neandertals, 100K years ago, must have understood as a general principle: "if A, then B; if ~A, then (at least probably) ~B".

[Zarathustra]

But even the Neandertals, 100K years ago, must have understood as a general principle: "if A, then B; if ~A, then (at least probably) ~B".

But could they have known, ~B, therefore ~A?

[godelian]

Is Logic useful for Philosophy in practical way? If yes, in what way logic is practical and useful in real life and for philosophy?
Or is it just for the sake of the interest of the logicians and students who learns the subjects for purely learnings sake?

Logic establishes the boundaries and limitations of rationality.

Philosophy cannot transcend rationality.

The requirement of logic also implicitly introduces the requirement of language, which is yet another boundary of philosophy.

Philosophy cannot transcend language.

Human understanding can actually somewhat moderately transcend language and deal with the ineffable. It can also somewhat moderately transcend rationality, and deal with spirituality. However, in that case, the instrument of choice will not be philosophy.

[ThinkOfOne]

Is Logic useful for Philosophy in practical way? If yes, in what way logic is practical and useful in real life and for philosophy?
Or is it just for the sake of the interest of the logicians and students who learns the subjects for purely learnings sake?

Sound reasoning requires solid critical thinkings skills and solid conceptual thinking skills. Learning formal logic can be useful for developing those skills. That said, it's far from a cure-all.

In my experience, most do not have solid critical thinking skills. Even fewer have solid conceptual thinking skills. Seems like a very high percentage way overestimate their own abilities in that regard. Especially in this day and age. Of them, seems like most, if not all, don't even understand enough to understand how poor their skills are.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is Logic useful for Philosophy in practical way? If yes, in what way logic is practical and useful in real life and for philosophy?
Or is it just for the sake of the interest of the logicians and students who learns the subjects for purely learnings sake?

Logic establishes the boundaries and limitations of rationality.

Philosophy cannot transcend rationality.

The requirement of logic also implicitly introduces the requirement of language, which is yet another boundary of philosophy.

Philosophy cannot transcend language.

Human understanding can actually somewhat moderately transcend language and deal with the ineffable. It can also somewhat moderately transcend rationality, and deal with spirituality. However, in that case, the instrument of choice will not be philosophy.

Actually philosophy can and must transcend rationality other wise it is just an ever expanding loop. It transcends rationality through paradox.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is Logic useful for Philosophy in practical way? If yes, in what way logic is practical and useful in real life and for philosophy?
Or is it just for the sake of the interest of the logicians and students who learns the subjects for purely learnings sake?

It is grounded in distinction and distinction is the simultaneous connection and seperation of occurences, this dual simultaneous nature is a paradox.

As paradoxical you need to be disciplined in the awareness of logic and throw it all out the window at the same time.

For practical purposes look up the munchausseen trilemma as this "issue", if you want to call it that, applies to logic as well.

[godelian]

Actually philosophy can and must transcend rationality other wise it is just an ever expanding loop. It transcends rationality through paradox.

Some paradoxes can still be solved, simply by extending logic itself.

For example, while Aristotelian-boolean logic recognizes the truth values false and true, the Catuskoti, i.e. the Buddhist tetralemma also accepts the truth values both true and false and not true and not false.

That is enough to solve, for example, Russell's paradox.

Does the set that contains all sets that do not contain themselves, contain itself?

- Yes --> not possible, because in that case it is not a set that does not contain itself.
- No --> in that case it should contain itself, because it is a set that does not contain itself.

So, the answer is not true and not false. That result is a problem in Aristotelian-boolean two-valued logic and therefore deemed a paradox. However, this result is fine and perfectly supported in Buddhist logic.

Hence, a paradox may transcend a particularly simplified system of logic but may be not paradoxical at all in a more flexible system of logic.

It is therefore not about transcending rationality but more about lifting particular limitations. The resulting, more flexible system, such as Buddhist logic, is still perfectly rational.

Of course, this does not mean that there always exists an extension to basic logic that will allow for the solution of a paradox. If no such extension is possible, then we have simply reached the limits of rationality. Not all problems are solvable. In fact, most are not.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually philosophy can and must transcend rationality other wise it is just an ever expanding loop. It transcends rationality through paradox.

Some paradoxes can still be solved, simply by extending logic itself.

For example, while Aristotelian-boolean logic recognizes the truth values false and true, the Catuskoti, i.e. the Buddhist tetralemma also accepts the truth values both true and false and not true and not false.

That is enough to solve, for example, Russell's paradox.

Does the set that contains all sets that do not contain themselves, contain itself?

- Yes --> not possible, because in that case it is not a set that does not contain itself.
- No --> in that case it should contain itself, because it is a set that does not contain itself.

So, the answer is not true and not false. That result is a problem in Aristotelian-boolean two-valued logic and therefore deemed a paradox. However, this result is fine and perfectly supported in Buddhist logic.

Hence, a paradox may transcend a particularly simplified system of logic but may be not paradoxical at all in a more flexible system of logic.

It is therefore not about transcending rationality but more about lifting particular limitations. The resulting, more flexible system, such as Buddhist logic, is still perfectly rational.

Of course, this does not mean that there always exists an extension to basic logic that will allow for the solution of a paradox. If no such extension is possible, then we have simply reached the limits of rationality. Not all problems are solvable. In fact, most are not.

True...some. But paradox is the byproduct of context. Change the context and either a paradox is solved or created, I discovered this when working with ai. Paradox is strictly the application of context.

Now to a fundamental observation:

The nature of distinction is the grounding of paradox as a distinction is simultaneously connection and seperation.

A very simple example is the circle. There is interior space and exterior space and depending upon the point of view the circle either connects or seperates these spaces, take both viewpoints and this happens simultaneously. The circle is the space between spaces.

This is the paradoxical nature of distinction and all knowledge relies on distinction.

Paradox should be embraced as it allows a transitional process of reasoning and a transcendental function of the psyche. The truth is it is just inherent within the act of conceptualization.

[godelian]

The nature of distinction is the grounding of paradox as a distinction is simultaneously connection and seperation.

A very simple example is the circle. There is interior space and exterior space and depending upon the point of view the circle either connects or seperates these spaces, take both viewpoints and this happens simultaneously. The circle is the space between spaces.

This is the paradoxical nature of distinction and all knowledge relies on distinction.

In the case of the circle, it works, as it simultaneously connects and separates two spaces.

What is the "space" between the 256 colors that can be represented by the 8 bits in an 8-bit color palette?

If we look at the letters a to z. What exactly is "space" between two letters? How does this "space" connect them?

If a partition of distinct values does not have a spatial representation, how does "space" separate or connect them?

[Eodnhoj7]

The nature of distinction is the grounding of paradox as a distinction is simultaneously connection and seperation.

A very simple example is the circle. There is interior space and exterior space and depending upon the point of view the circle either connects or seperates these spaces, take both viewpoints and this happens simultaneously. The circle is the space between spaces.

This is the paradoxical nature of distinction and all knowledge relies on distinction.

In the case of the circle, it works, as it simultaneously connects and separates two spaces.

What is the "space" between the 256 colors that can be represented by the 8 bits in an 8-bit color palette?

If we look at the letters a to z. What exactly is "space" between two letters? How does this "space" connect them?

If a partition of distinct values does not have a spatial representation, how does "space" separate or connect them?

If I say "chair" the word is connected to various other words and simultaneously stands apart from all words. Distinction is paradox, I covered this with ai and the ai agrees.

[godelian]

If I say "chair" the word is connected to various other words and simultaneously stands apart from all words.

The word "chair" is distinct from other words. In what sense, it is however, connected? What is the circle-like concept that simultaneously connects and separates "chair" from other words?

[Impenitent]

the chairman said "Sit on it Malph"

-Imp