Reason or Logic,which is more fundamental?

Nope.

I see. This going to be another case of you not actually supporting your position, simply leaving it up to the rest of us to reiterate our point until you slink away after insulting everyone.
You made the statement that "Reasoning is unlimited".
Support it. I've already given links to show that it isn't.
Neither definition gives any credence whatsoever to your assertion.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Logic
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/reasoning
Maybe it's another failure of comprehension on your part. :shrug:

Well if you class pointing out your errors as "stupid shit" then I'll have to plead guilty. But that doesn't fit any normal definition of "stupid shit".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Reasoning is the cognitive process of looking for reasons, beliefs, conclusions, actions or feelings.

Logic is the study of reasoning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope.
It's not always that self-referential. It's a mode of thought.

Nope.
Logic is a system in its own right, it's not a "study of reasoning at all".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Give it up man. You are going against the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

This clearly proves that reasoning is fundamental.

 

Really?
No not really.

You're obviously reading something that isn't there. How does it prove it?

For example

Wouldn't you consider knowing true from false (or right from wrong) to be fairly fundamental?
Maybe not...

 

Logic is not the study of reasoning. Logic is a subset of reasoning. Even your own definition of reasoning puts some reasoning beyond the bounds of logic. Logic cannot study feelings, for example, nor looking for feelings. Logic is a set of rules about assertions and what conclusions can be drawn from them and not drawn from them. Reasoning however involves mental activities, including for example, perception and non-logical assessing - for example when checking the semantics of a word.

 

Actually, I do think he is right that reasoning is more fundamental. Edit: though let me qualify this....I mean fundamental as in dependent and that it came later in time, especially as an organized whole. We had to reason our way to logic and reasoning uses non-logical processes. He is wrong that it is unlimited, but I do think it is more fundamental. Logic cannot check reality. Logic cannot work out the semantics of a word. Logic can only work with assertions.

 

Thanks for the summary Doreen.

-ND-,

I'd advise you to go back and read through the thread from the beginning. All of what you're brought up recently, has been discussed at length earlier.

 

LOL, why do you hate me?

In my defense I was posting towards the op and not someone that sticks his nose as much as a curious puppy. I don't think I did anything wrong, I was trying to prove that reasoning came before logic therefore making it fundamental.

Logic tries to prove things, however logic is limited because it is the study of something (reasoning), meaning reasoning has covered much more ground than logic has. Logic is only trying to keep up with what reasoning has conquered.

If there was no reason, there would be no logic. No reason, no reason to be studied. Logic= not exist.

 

As previously pointed out - No it isn't.

Untrue.

 

lol

I don't.

However, it's my job within this subforum to maintain some modicum of standard. Rehashing lines of thought within an existing thread is superfluous, to say the least.

Fair enough, but it still behooves you to read the thread in its entirety..

Interesting; I didn't notice any argument to this effect.

In any case, that's a fallacious argument. See post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Again, go back and read the thread.
[Lots of nasty assumptions and non sequitors in your comments there..]

Perhaps.
You do realize here that you're doing nothing but making blind assertions yes?

Again, I suggest you go back and do some reading.

 

LOL. I got to thank glaucon for telling me to skip through previous posts. I was not surprised that someone else noticed what you are really doing and what you are pretending to be/are.

Nothing is true, unless "you" say it is. We are all living in "your" world. "You" are "the truth."

I know you feel bad, but time heals everything.

 

Ah, so you still don't know anything about me, or what I'm really doing, and assuming I'm pretending... something.

Yup, you're still lost.

And still wrong.

Presumably you're talking about Bishadi's comments?
Figures, he's a clueless crackpot who doesn't actually read anything, he just replies to what he thinks posts say.

 

It came before AND was used to construct logic(s). Logic came out of reasoning processes and is one.

I think personifying logic will only muddy the water. I don't think study is the right word. When people try to come up with logic they study reasoning, especially assertions and conclusions. But the logic itself is not the study, it is the product of it. Or one product of it, I should say.

And again this personification seems counterproductive to me. Reasoning can also use logic so it is not a relationship between two separate things.

I agree.

I couldn't figure this out.

 

LOL. How would I prove something on this forum, if what I just did was not proving, what did I do? I'm confused. Am I crazy? I don't make sense? Maybe I don't understand what proving means? Please help me understand how someone would prove what I just said.

If anyone on this forum has logic they would understand what i just posted.

 

It's harder to explain or teach since there are so many options and definitions and outcomes, no?

The last part. No reasoning = no logic since logic is reasoning's successor in some way(s).

 

I agree with what I think you mean. 'Successor' implies, hell means, replaces and logic didn't do this. But I agree that without reason we would not have come up with logic and that the logic portion of reason came later than other portions.

 

Funny, I've taught undergrad students logic, yet I can't understand it...

-ND-, you seem to be making a number of dangerous assumptions. You need to formulate an argument:

argument

Simply stringing together a number of unsubstantiated propositions and moving to a conclusion is not an argument.

And for the record, you can't prove anything. That's an entirely different concept entirely:

proof


Slow down.

 

I know one thing about you. You are identical to Oli.

I maybe lost, but if being found is you, I'll stay put.

Sometimes everybody hurts. ( R.E.M)

LOL, Bishadi, I don't really know. He has some sense but You and him hate each other so that would not be a fair example for me to choose from. I made my "false assumption" about you from this thread page 1 i think his name was thinking or something. Check 1st page.

 

Hardly identical.

Nope, he has nearly no sense whatsoever.
And I don't hate him at all.

Oh, thinking...
As Glaucon has pointed out, that's one poster that certainly doesn't live up to his user name.