Is logic faith?

Originally posted by marieclaire
My cousin would argue that while he has the option of agreeing with you, he will decline that option and instead believe the law of non-contradiction to be true.

But yes, he could theoretically believe and disbelieve at the same time as, although this is illogical, faith doesn't have to follow the laws of logic.

are you addressing logic vs faith

or logic vs truth

or faith vs truth?

logic refers only to itself, not necessarily to the world, as not every concept or even every word can be reduced accurately to a logical referant, linguistically.

faith refers only to itself, not necessarily to the world because you can choose to believe whatever you like -- anything goes, so long as you believe it.

Truth, on the other hand, is even more elusive. you cannot choose what is true based on whatever you prefer to be the case; you cannot always reason out what is true based on valid trains of thought, as some of the track isn't laid to get you to the Truth station.

Truth is a goal, and we do the best we can to get there. I prefer using rational means, in which logic is a tool to aid me, but hardly an answer in itself.

My ears do not come to a point -- my blood is not green, and I'm from this planet.

So, I'm with the Buddhists -- I strive to be aware of what is reality, what is happening as it happens, not as I imagine it to be.

As I've said elsewhere, I choose, wisely, not to believe everything I think.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I disagree, Vistesd. That X&~X must be false is an axiom of first-order logic, but not of many non-classical logics. Traditionally, X & ~X must always be assigned a truth-value of 0, but what if X is a vague proposition? What if I said "I am fat" and "I am not fat"? It is conceivable that X & ~X could then have some non-zero truth-value. I could be a border ...[text shortened]... logical axioms are human constructs -- though this is not to say that they are arbitrary.

are you addressing language, truth, or logic? 😉

Originally posted by Scriabin
I am not setting Camus up vs. Frankl in such stark terms. It would be more precise to say that in the case of Albert Camus speaking in the Myth of Sisyphus vs. Viktor Frankl speaking in Man's Search for Meaning, I hold for Frankl as the better authority.

Camus didn't end up where he started in the above-captioned essay, so it would be unfair of me to set o adhere to a faith-based, empirically or mathematically unconfirmable view, are meaningless.

It would be more precise to say that in the case of Albert Camus speaking in the Myth of Sisyphus vs. Viktor Frankl speaking in Man's Search for Meaning, I hold for Frankl as the better authority.

Fair enough. I have started Man’s Search for Meaning. Much as I really did not want to reread the first section, it is necessary.

Furthermore, I am not really convinced by Frankl later work in Man's Search for Ultimate Meaning.

I likely would not be either. I think it is exactly that kind of leap that Camus rejects. I am only 60-odd pages into Frankl, but it strikes me that he allows for “subjective” meaning as well as “objective” meaning. I’ll look at Camus again too, but I’m not sure from memory that he rejects the latter.

When we get there, I think it will be important to examine various meanings (usages) of that word “meaning”.

Ah, I may have stumbled on something useful. Try this on for size:

I choose not to accept as true or established fact that of which I cannot become aware, either through my own perceptions, or through those recounted by others whom I can accept as rational and reliable sources.

Folks can choose to believe whatever they like -- but discussions between those of us who adhere to a rational view and those who adhere to a faith-based, empirically or mathematically unconfirmable view, are meaningless.

Depending, again, on what we mean by “meaning”. I tend to agree. I think that blackbeetle’s objection might misconstrue your “cannot become aware.”

I’m going to be without internet access beginning tomorrow till likely sometime next week. By that time I will have finished reading Frankl, and hopefully have organized some thoughts.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I disagree, Vistesd. That X&~X must be false is an axiom of first-order logic, but not of many non-classical logics. Traditionally, X & ~X must always be assigned a truth-value of 0, but what if X is a vague proposition? What if I said "I am fat" and "I am not fat"? It is conceivable that X & ~X could then have some non-zero truth-value. I could be a border ...[text shortened]... logical axioms are human constructs -- though this is not to say that they are arbitrary.

My thought then is that logical axioms are human constructs -- though this is not to say that they are arbitrary.

I agree. But, I hold that they still serve (in whatever applicable logic) as standards of coherency in a given domain of discourse.

I also suggest that these standards may be ultimately derived from observed patterns of coherency in the real world.

Originally posted by Palynka
This is also my view (but I might go further). Remember our formalism/realism thread? (adam, what are you waiting for?) My views there roughly translate to this debate.

Formal logic is simply a form of symbolic representation. We use it to provide a structure to communication and thought (the coherency, that vistesd mentions although I prefer the word con ...[text shortened]... less gibberish.

Edit - Obviously, this means that I think formal logic is a human construct.

X and ~X can never be simultaneously true within the rules of the game, but without a game (i.e the language) then X and ~X are meaningless gibberish.

An important point. Wittgenstein once said that, if you change the rules (e.g., for the movement of the pieces) of chess, you’re not really playing chess “differently”—you’re really playing some other game.

We either communicate according to the rules of a language game, or, as you say, we end up with gibberish.

Originally posted by black beetle
Then the cobra behind that tree lurking for that Indian is not real because the poor man is not aware of its existence;
and that mighty 1950RHP who is cut in pieces after 30 moves from a 2360RHP but he cannot understand the reason why and complains that his opponent is an engine user, he must be definately right;
and, since my emotions and my thoughts ...[text shortened]... e responsibility of your actions and being constantly in awareness is as effficient as it gets😵

You are confusing apples with oranges.

Is it true that I brought apples today, or is it true I brought oranges?

Can we determine the answer to that in a rather straightforward manner?

So, do you really think what you said about the cobra is true?

Do you also think that your cobra assertion follows logically from what I said? How?

You are having problems with language, I think.

For example, what do you mean by the word "genuine" in the context you used it?

How is it different from the word "true" in the same context?

No one has said, certainly not I, that emotions, thoughts, and feelings can be adequately reduced accurately to mathematical formulae. I've not said that emotions, thoughts, and feelings can be evaluated mathematically for their truth value through a system of logic.

Quite the reverse. I've said that logic only refers to itself, not to the world. This, I've said, is due to the impossible task of reducing language accurately enough into logical terms.

Again, no pointy ears here -- I may distrust feelings, as they aren't a good indicator to me of what actually is happening as it happens, what is the case. Feelings are a good indicator of one's reaction to what is happening or has happened. But feelings don't make me more or less aware of what is the case. Feelings only tell me what someone feels about something they think.

You confuse, as well, the idea of logic with the idea of truth. No system of logic can show as a matter of fact that you don't really mourn the loss of a loved one, or that your feelings "are not true."

Truth is one thing. Do I have apples, or oranges?

Logic is a mere tool by which we can try to determine if we got to our conclusion in a rational way (I'm holding up an apple) or whether our conclusion was based only on our subjective feelings and beliefs (close your eyes and imagine I'm holding up an orange, but I could be lying).

Logic is really very useful if you are building a case at law involving the award of money damages for the consequences of a bridge collapsing; logic is also useful for determining how to set up the specifications for a given construction job, like building a bridge.

Logic is really no use at all in determining whether or not you ought to feel grief, how long you should feel it, or how deeply you do or should feel it.

In addition to being familiar with logic and law, I'm no stranger to grief, either.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]X and ~X can never be simultaneously true within the rules of the game, but without a game (i.e the language) then X and ~X are meaningless gibberish.

An important point. Wittgenstein once said that, if you change the rules (e.g., for the movement of the pieces) of chess, you’re not really playing chess “differently”—you’re really playing some oth ...[text shortened]... communicate according to the rules of a language game, or, as you say, we end up with gibberish.[/b]

Wittgenstein is my guide. I'm convinced of the value of the statement quoted. I don't confuse that value with "The Truth," for I'm not convinced I can ever become aware of everthing that is the case. I assume there are always more facts than those of which I may be aware.

so we do the best we can. Accepting that is one way to defeat the anxiety demons.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't see where your X & ~X fits in. Clearly all intermediate shades are ~Pure Blue and ~Pure red. Not one of them is both Red and ~Red or Blue and ~ Blue. I certainly don't see who one can assign some sort of fuzzy truth to them.

[b]A definition is never false.
A definition is either simply an explanation of the words you are using or it is an ...[text shortened]... not be false. If you have two axioms that contradict each other then you are being incoherent.[/b]

I don't see where your X & ~X fits in. Clearly all intermediate shades are ~Pure Blue and ~Pure red. Not one of them is both Red and ~Red or Blue and ~ Blue. I certainly don't see who one can assign some sort of fuzzy truth to them.

But there is no clear-cut 'pure' blue region. You can say that one region is definitely blue, one definitely red, and another definitely the intermediary purple. But, because it is a spectrum that imperceptibly changes from one colour into another, we cannot clearly define when the blue changes into purple and into red. That means that there is a section which can neither be categorised as blue or not-blue (and ~(X V ~X) implies X & ~X in formal logic). How does that not illustrate X & ~X?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]My thought then is that logical axioms are human constructs -- though this is not to say that they are arbitrary.

I agree. But, I hold that they still serve (in whatever applicable logic) as standards of coherency in a given domain of discourse.

I also suggest that these standards may be ultimately derived from observed patterns of coherency in the real world.[/b]

I agree. But, I hold that they still serve (in whatever applicable logic) as standards of coherency in a given domain of discourse. I also suggest that these standards may be ultimately derived from observed patterns of coherency in the real world.

Good. I only disagree with the statement that X & ~X is always incoherent. I can see many instances in natural language where such contradictory statements have currency, especially when we deal with vague properties (like fatness, blueness, tallness).

Originally posted by Scriabin
Wittgenstein is my guide. I'm convinced of the value of the statement quoted. I don't confuse that value with "The Truth," for I'm not convinced I can ever become aware of everthing that is the case. I assume there are always more facts than those of which I may be aware.

so we do the best we can. Accepting that is one way to defeat the anxiety demons.

Yeah. Sometimes those “anxiety demons” (at least as I know them) are “free floating”—that is, attached to no specific thought that I can identify. They are almost like post-hypnotic suggestions, that we might try to rationalize: “Oh, I guess that’s because…” (People under post-hypnotic suggestion seem to do that when their otherwise inexplicable behavior is pointed out.)

Rumi once said: “Always we wake anxious and afraid. Don’t go into the library! Take down the dulcimer…” I think that was a very personal “we”. But—sometimes a book can be a good strategy too.

So, that kind of “anxiety demon” cannot really be confronted unless and until it’s fully understood. Which may be never. But there are strategies, as you point out.

That is why I never say that we can “control” our feelings, just that we can make healthy choices in the face of them. As Frankl points out, talking about the role of humor in the camps, such choices, and the techniques for making them, can be learned.

Originally posted by vistesd
Yeah. Sometimes those “anxiety demons” (at least as I know them) are “free floating”—that is, attached to no specific thought that I can identify. They are almost like post-hypnotic suggestions, that we might try to rationalize: “Oh, I guess that’s because…” (People under post-hypnotic suggestion seem to do that when their otherwise inexplicable behavior ...[text shortened]... he role of humor in the camps, such choices, and the techniques for making them, can be learned.

Anxiety is what you feel when you think too much.

Anxiety is the state of the human being when he confronts his freedom

Originally posted by Conrau K
But there is no clear-cut 'pure' blue region. You can say that one region is definitely blue, one definitely red, and another definitely the intermediary purple. But, because it is a spectrum that imperceptibly changes from one colour into another, we cannot clearly define when the blue changes into purple and into red. That means that there is a section wh ...[text shortened]... not-blue (and ~(X V ~X) implies X & ~X in formal logic). How does that not illustrate X & ~X?

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that there is a color that is both blue and not blue? Surely you realize that is not true? If you say it is blue when it contains at least some blue then it cannot be 'not blue' as long as it contains some blue. What am I missing?

Originally posted by Scriabin
You are confusing apples with oranges.

Is it true that I brought apples today, or is it true I brought oranges?

Can we determine the answer to that in a rather straightforward manner?

So, do you really think what you said about the cobra is true?

Do you also think that your cobra assertion follows logically from what I said? How?

You are havi ...[text shortened]... addition to being familiar with logic and law, I'm no stranger to grief, either.

You said earlier:
"I choose not to accept as true or established fact that of which I cannot become aware, either through my own perceptions, or through those recounted by others whom I can accept as rational and reliable sources."

However the cobra exists -it is real- although the Indian is not aware of this fact neither through his own perceptions nor thanks to any other rational and reliable sources.
The other two examples I offered are based on the same idea of mine, which is quite simple: you say that, since you cannot be aware of a fact either through your own perceptions, or through those recounted by others whom you can accept as rational and reliable sources, you cannot accept that this fact is real/ true. Well, I wanted to point that in my opinion this is false;

“Genuine” is the person that is able to know what s/he knows and what s/he ignores, thus able to use her/ his mind genuinely for his own purposes instead of permitting her/ his mind to use her/ himself. This is a task related to maturity;

Furthermore, we agree that Logic is an organon -however it remains one of the many the Human has to use in order to proceed. It seems to me that Life is full of surprises; therefore you have to know when you have to switch your Mind off;

Finally, I am sure that I am the one who decides if and when I will drive angry against a specific person, where and when I will drive angry, how exactly I will react, how long and to what extend I will permit to myself to be engaged and when exactly and how I will disengage. For, I use Logic in determining whether or not I ought to feel the way I feel, how long I should feel it, how deeply I do or I should feel it, and how exactly I will react😵

Originally posted by Scriabin
Anxiety is what you feel when you think too much.

Anxiety is the state of the human being when he confronts his freedom

Anxiety is a form of fear: generally I have thought of it as fear divorced from a situation of imminent danger (what some psychologists call “primary fear”; I usually don’t apply words such as fear and anger to the natural survival response, just as a matter of clarity).

That does not contradict what you say. Your first statement I agree with.

Your second statement is therapeutically insightful vis-à-vis my comment about “free-floating” anxiety for which there is not an identifiable contributing thought. I think you may have hit the nail on the head. That names the “demon”! (Good show, Doctor!)

[Given my own existentialist bent, I’m surprised I didn’t see it clearly before. ]

Originally posted by vistesd
Anxiety is a form of fear: generally I have thought of it as fear divorced from a situation of imminent danger (what some psychologists call “primary fear”; I usually don’t apply words such as fear and anger to the natural survival response, just as a matter of clarity).

That does not contradict what you say. Your first statement I agree with.

Your ...[text shortened]... Doctor!)

[Given my own existentialist bent, I’m surprised I didn’t see it clearly before. ]

Hey vistesd, I wish you a fine, magical night -over here I hear the blackbirds singing under the early sun of the late winter🙂


Logic! What a noise for just a figure of my Mind😵