Wilson's quote leaves your constipated thought process in the dust. Everyone seems to have an opinion. Something magical must make your's 'right' so that (ego demands) every other perspective must be 'wrong'. Uh huh... Logic (as the artificial construct that it is) is in itself insufficient to encompass all Truth. It has limited use. But your opinion is certainly true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.
Logic does not rely on opinion, rather on the elimination of perceptions that are not true. My argument stands that back in the real world outside of everyone's little private fantasy, all of Wilson's conditions do not apply at once in regards to the actual function or structure of reality. If we are not discussing such function or structure, perhaps we are discussing human constructs which fall prey to illogical preference evaluations.
Furthermore it seems that false perception marches on, proud in all its glory. Let me explain. Humans did not invent fire. Fires existed even before there were people. Humans learned to use fire. Logic is like this in that it existed, like reality, before there were people, in a manner where logical processes were at work. A tiny minority have taken some time to get a handle on this tool, the rest consider it too much to bother with because its just another "human invention" like favorite flavor of ice cream, rather than a basic essential like ability to create fire.
I'm surprised by how many people hold logic to be the ultimate truth, but deny my 'the opening...' thread as 'piffle'.
Then your arguement falls on it's face. No one has ever, ever!, experienced the 'real world' that you imply. Some one-size-fits-all 'world' beyond human concept. It is impossible to know. For anything to exist for you, it MUST exist in your mind as concepts, percepts. Everything. If it has no existence in your mind, for you, in your 'world concept' it does not exist. Period. Nor can you ever know whether there exists any kind of 'world' actually 'in front of your nose' beyond your mind. It is merely a meme, an arrogant 'ass-umption' with no evidence. Of course, a serious consideration of the implications can certainly do violence to the delicate ego! Logic, least of all, as it is merely a construct of the intellect; a sort of 'grid' we place over the tapestry of existence to salve our thoughts, our minds, to be able to live comfortably in our lineo-temporal construct (logic only can have value in a linear temporal construct of 'existance'). Logic is certainly useful, in it's place, in THAT construct. It was the most logical thing to do, at one time, to 'bleed' a medical patient to release the 'evil humours' from the blood. That was the height of logic (and science!!), considering the 'context'! Now, you have your little logic that you feel to be the be-all and end-all of intellectual investigation and description of Truth? Funny, that was what they thought also, leeches in hand! Perhaps the 'cutting edge' of logic in medieval Europe was the 'ultimate' descriptor and analogy of 'reality'. But THIS, NOW must be the 'bestest' form and useages of logic because... well.. it's US! And we must be the 'best'! Right? Demands of the ego and such... This is a most absurd statement that says much about you! First, how can you possibly show evidence for this absurd assertion? Do you 'believe' that mathematics pre-existed mathematicians also? Really? Quite a 'belief' system you have there, so much 'faith'... If you really believe this cement-headed constipated statement to be true, you show that you haven't the foggiest experience/concept of Truth or falseness. But, obfuscating that fact, your bold ass-ertions most ass-uredly resonate with many others who are either emotionally invested in their 'beliefs and faiths' also, or if not invested as such, are just simply ignorant. Just a quick example of the absurdity of your ass-ertion; You are a person who has never been burned with fire. You can use all the intellect and logic you like and you will never, NEVER! have an understanding of the Truth of being burned! Want a trans-logical methodology of 'understanding' the Truth of the matter? Hold out your finger and let me get my 'Zippo'! Nothing need be said beyond the act and the experience! Now you will 'know' (as oppposed to logical speculation)! That is one methodology of understanding, beyond the usefulness of logic. Intuition is also a direct access to 'Truth'. That is all we CAN discuss, Mr. Spock! Unclench your mind!
I prefer to make distinction between 'Reality/Truth' and 'existence'. I suspect that there have been and will continue to be many conversations between entities with absolutely no knowledge of mathematics. Some very deep and meaningful conversations, too, I'd think! Perhaps a quote from my old neighbor will help clarify; Our conversation of words (one word then the next for the purpose of attempting to 'share' mental concepts, perspectives) has it's 'existence' within 'lineo-temporal space' and is certainly within the functional purview of logic thereby, actually the judicious application of logic will enhance the possibility of communicarion, especially here in cyber-land, where words are, for all intents and purposes, all we have with which to communicate (no body language, gesticulation, etc...). I am not belittling the value of logic as a tool for use in its area of proper function; neither am I magnifying it beyond those limited boundaries. Like all 'tools' that are used in one's honest attempt to uncover Truth/Reality, it is often magnified in its importance by (familiarity?) the person using it (especially if is the principle or only tool being used/mastered). Like all tools, at one point or another, it must be discarded in order to 'proceed' in that 'uncovering/becoming' Truth. Logic, meditation, science, entheogens, mantra, fasting, faith and beliefs, Love, whatever the 'tool', it is one of many and must be, eventually, discarded.
If logic is to be held as truth by some posters, then the following must also be held as true. The opposite of private is public. Private is when a single person knows something, and public is when people know something. Now, 'a person' becomes 'people' when there are two enitities present, however I'm sure we can all agree that something is more public if there are more than two people present! So then it would seem that simply finding opposites is far from the discovery of truth.
You didn't pay attention to my post. As I said before, the problem isn't with logic itself, but with the definition. You should really learn some Mathematical Logic. All this is accounted for in logic. You'll understand it if you learn it.
Hi all. I stumbled onto this site and thought it might inspire some though if anyone is interested enough to read it; Transcendence of Rationality
I found this: "Is faith the opposite of logic? A502: It depends what you mean by "faith." A distinction should be made between "belief based on evidence" versus "belief without evidence" or perhaps even "belief despite evidence to the contrary." If faith is simply a feeling of reasonable certainty resulting from observable evidence (e.g., I "have faith" that I am typing these words into my computer), then we all have faith in many things, and faith is in fact a manifestation of logic. However, a distinction can be made between this sort of faith and a more absolute version, which I'll refer to as "blind faith." Anything requiring blind faith for acceptance goes against reason itself. Why would you ever believe something without a logical reason? There are beliefs where I could be accused of having blind faith, however. But I vindicate these beliefs by stating that to believe any other way would be suboptimal. For example, I have faith in the logical process of induction. But induction is not foolproof. Why do we assume the future will resemble the past? Because it has worked for us so far—that is, it always has in the past. But that logic is clearly circular! So how can we justify induction? Many believe we can't justify it, but we can vindicate it—we can easily see that to believe any other way would be useless. That is, if our assumption that the future will resemble the past is incorrect, then it becomes impossible to make predictions about the future at all, and logic will cease being of assistance. Thus, induction is the optimal strategy for predicting the future, even if it doesn't always (or ever) work. "
Here's something that might be relevent that I found in cyberland; One kind of thinking is the rational empirical thinking, be it pretheoretical and practical or sophisticated and scientific, that is constrained by logic and observation, is a common human property, and enables us to solve the practical problems that must be solved for physical survival. The other, nonrational thinking, often referred to as symbolic thinking, is the kind that finds expression in art and affirmations of belief. This mode of thinking is also or even more a universal human characterisic, for it precedes rational empirical thinking. It is the resultant of the totality of our experiences, a resultant that we express in the dominant, beliefs that guide our purposive conduct, including our use of our capacity for rational empirical thinking to solve specific problems. Expressions of nonrational thinking differ most obviously from rational empirical propositions in that symbols or words are not used unambiguously to denote the same entities or processes. As is evident in poetry, symbols are used polysemically and connected with each other without regard to logic in changing ways that evoke and associate wide ranges of disparate experience. Rather than dealing with specific phenomena or practical problems, nonrational thoughts express our sense of the global meaning and value of our diverse experiences. , if this kind of thinking is not logical, neither is it irrational, for it uses logic and observation in a subordinate role. Thinking only becomes irrational when the interplay between nonrational and rational empirical thinking is inhibited, when people repress their capacity for observation and reality-testing in an effort to protect cherished nonrational beliefs that are menaced by available rational empirical knowledge...
just to come from a different angle than before, if "logic" is used in its full sense. isnt everything logical? so there is no opposite to logic. except nothing. but thats anouther story, nothing VS something. abstracts again. peace.
I, too, thought that was a strange assumption to suddenly just accept considering the overall context of the piece. On re-reading the article, I find that.. well... it kind of sucks. It was in my stuff for a long time. Perhaps this; Principal Problems with Principles: Limits of Logic in the Growth of Knowledge would be a bit better. Here's a beautiful piece on the subject. I think that Alan Watts wrote it; "The only way we shall ever recapture the sort of knowledge Lao-Tsu referred to in his dictum, "Those who know do not speak," is by subbordinating the question, "how shall we know?" to the more existentially vital question. "how shall we live?" To ask this question is to insist that the primary purpose of human existence is not to devise ways of piling up ever greater heaps of knowledge, but to discover ways to live from day to day that integrate the whole of our nature by way of yielding nobility of conduct, honest fellowship and joy. And to achieve those ends, a man need, perhaps, 'know' very little in the conventional, intellectual sense of the word. But, what he does not know and may only be able to express by elloquent silence, by the grace of his most commonplace daily gestures, will approach more closely to whatever reality is, than the more dogged and disciplined intellectual endeavor." If logic exists, then it's compliment (opposite) must also exist. Things are defined by their 'compliments', their 'opposites', what they are not. A banana can only be a banana if it is 'not' an artichoke. Logic can only be logic by contrasting it with 'other'.
lao tsu/tzu a wise man indeed, wise people speak, wise people also listen, but speaking nor listning will let you see.. peace.
Another short but sweet article, The Limits of Logic; Everything looks like a nail. Here's a short excerpt; Here are some of my problems: 1. Logic and reason are inherently post-facto modes of thinking, they cannot encompass innovation (except, of course, by testing its truth value, post-facto). 2. We use the non-logical part of our mind to solve most real-world problems (e.g. speaking, walking, image recognition) with remarkable speed and accuracy. 3. Our ultimate goals are, by definition, non-logical. Everybody has non-logical goals which are very important to them. When people don't recognize their non-logical goals, they are left unexamined. What these three points have in common is the observation that the human mind is not primarily logical: that logic is not the most powerful tool in the tool-chest of the human mind, and that the fundamental experience of being human has little to do with logic. (There is a place one can leave comments on the site.)
