Philosophy Forums Rules [IMPORTANT]

[-1-]

Logic is not subjective.

Logical speech as judged by one could be judged illogical by another.


The two are incredibly different.

Logical speech or writing takes hypotheses, or axioms, or assumptions, and uses logic to manipulate these assumptions or premisses to arrive at conclusions.

There are two ways of arriving at conclusions: the wrong way and the right way.

The wrong way may include one or both of these things: the assumption was false, or the logic used was not proper.

The right way uses the true assumptions and proper logic.

To illustrate:

Bagelboy is 1345546 feet tall. Therefore Bagelboy is taller than the Eiffel Tower.

Is the conclusion right? No it isn't. The logic involved is proper; but the initial assumption is wrong (Bagelboy is under 9 feet tall).

Bagelboy is between 2 inches and 9 feet tall. Therefore Bagelboy is taller than the Eiffel tower.

Is the conclusion right? No, it isn't. The assumption may be true, but the logic is wrong.

Bagelboy is betwen two inches and 9 feet tall. Therefore Bagelboy is shorter than the Eiffel tower.

Here, the logic is proper, the assumption is true, and the conclusion is right.

Bagelboy is 63937859 feet tall. Therefore Bagelboy is shorter than the Eiffel tower.

Here, the assumption is wrong, the logic is improper, and the conclusion is right, but only by outside knowledge, not because the argument is set up right.

The logic used in the above examples is "if A is X feet tall, and B is Y feet tall, then A is taller than B only if X is a larger number than Y. X and Y can only be positive numbers." There is nothing subjective about this.

Of course you can present an argument NOW to me where the formal logic is subjective. If you are successful, I'll withdraw the statement I have made.

-- Updated 2017 March 15th, 10:33 pm to add the following --

""" but we can construct different logics with different rules. """

However, that would not work with mathematics with its present set of axioms, and it would not work with reality, as we know it.

Sure, make up some different rules, create a different set of logic rules, but as long as you rely on arguments consistently using the same set of rules, the rules are objective. (You said so yourself.)

Using your different logical rules are not subjective, either. USING. Not establishing. I am talking about USING.

You can't get away from objectivity other than with changing the rules.

But nobody has on this forum changed the rules. The violators simply ignore the current set of rules of logic, or don't know how to use them.

-- Updated 2017 March 15th, 10:37 pm to add the following --

Nobody has on this forum changed the rules. The violators simply ignore the current set of rules of logic, or don't know how to use them.

This practice of allowing philosophers to use inappropriate logic must be stopped.

What are we?? Are we philosophers, or are we... not philosophers. The bread-and-butter of philosophy is using logic to argue the validity of a conclusion from a set of premisses.

[Fooloso4]

-1-:

Logic is not subjective.

This is not an argumentative section of the forum and so I am not going to argue. I pointed out several things that should be taken into consideration when considering the question of the subjectivity of logic and will add a few more points. If you choose to ignore it that is up to you. To do so is, however, illogical if you fancy yourself a philosopher and in quest of truth and understanding.

""" but we can construct different logics with different rules. """

However, that would not work with mathematics with its present set of axioms, and it would not work with reality, as we know it.

But it does as we see in the case of non-Euclidean geometry. Not only do they work as self-consistent formal systems they are applicable to such things as the curvature of space.

Using your different logical rules are not subjective, either. USING. Not establishing. I am talking about USING.

All uses by human beings are subjective. They are determined by our current status as knowers as well as our intent and purposes.

You can't get away from objectivity other than with changing the rules.

You seem to have missed the point. If you accept that a) we are subjective beings and b) logic does not exist in some Platonic realm then just what objectivity means must be addressed.

But nobody has on this forum changed the rules. The violators simply ignore the current set of rules of logic, or don't know how to use them.

Or perhaps, as you said:

Logical speech as judged by one could be judged illogical by another.

But let’s assume that you are right. Someone made an illogical argument. It happens. If you point it out and they either cannot see it or refuse to acknowledge it, then, as Spiral Out suggested, just let it go.

What are we?? Are we philosophers, or are we... not philosophers.

Personally I do not consider myself a philosopher and it has nothing to do with a lack of academic credentials.

The bread-and-butter of philosophy is using logic to argue the validity of a conclusion from a set of premisses.

As you pointed out earlier, the premises cannot simply be taken as given. Philosophy is much more than an exercise in logic.

[-1-]

Plato spoke of remembrance and Einstein spoke of intuition. Both are the results of awakening to reality hidden by the literal mind.

We have been through this before, more than once. I provided specific and sufficient textual evidence that you have misunderstood what Einstein said about intuition and what Plato said about remembrance. And yet here we are once again you repeating the same unsubstantiated claims.

Apparently you think that your comments about the literal mind give you the freedom to simply ignore what Einstein and Plato actually said. Of course this makes it easy to pretend that they are all essentially saying the same thing.

And it gives you another opportunity to once again rant about secularism, the Great Beast, education, indoctrination, experts, etc.

And then you proposed, F4, that my insistence on deciding things by logic is stupid.

Look at your argument now as quoted above. It had been perfectly logical, reasonable, and the only reason you can't enforce it is that logic is not the deciding force de rigeur on this site. People can perfectly well ignore logic, as the example shows. Here you are upset about it. On my thread you perfected the way of trying to prove to not use logic as a presiding instrument.

So which is it, O F4? You can't play for both teams. You can't decry logic and at the same time demand that when you use logical arguments, others heed to it.

Swim and stew in the same lukewarm water you keep creating, F4.

------
Don't get me wrong, I am on the side of logic. I am just befuddled at your hypocritical ways: when you do demand that people heed to logic and reason, it's a righteous demand, when I demand it, you try to prove it that it's a silly demand.

You are two-faced about this, and you know it better than I do.

-- Updated 2017 March 19th, 2:39 am to add the following --

Our goal is to be the best place on the internet to discuss even the most complicated or controversial topics in a civil, open-minded way free of personal attacks.

I still very much would like to suggest to you, Scott, that since the code name of this forum is philosophy, you add the phrase "logical and reasonable" to the list above, to alter it to be this way:

Our goal is to be the best place on the internet to discuss even the most complicated or controversial topics in a civil, logical, reasonable, and open-minded way free of personal attacks.


I further suggest that all posts that are not intended as humour, and are not logical, and are not reasonable by logically thinking minds, be removed by administrators on demand by the using public of these forums.

Until this change is introduced, a cockaphony of dilettante imbeciles and lunatics will continue, who are going to keep on having incessant arguments about things not philosophical, in ways that are below any thinking person's level who considers himself or herself a philosopher.

[Sonny11598]

1. Do you think Plato’s analysis of human nature into three parts – appetitive, spirited, and rational – is still useful? Suggest an occasion or example of when this way of analyzing a person, or groups of people, seems useful. (Note: Plato’s ‘spirited’ is more like physical drive & energy; it is not supernatural or mystical.) 2. What do you think of Plato’s idea that God could be co-eternal with other things? In other words, some things, including God, have been around forever. Besides the Creation story of the Bible, are there any other points about Christian doctrine that would have to be altered in order to accept Plato’s view? What about the ‘dust’ God supposedly used to create? 3. What did Plato think was real? How did he arrive at that conclusion? (Connect it to Socrates.) Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, what is the flaw in Plato’s reasoning? If you agree, then why is a rock, say, less real? 4. Choose one point of Plato’s political philosophy that you agree with, discuss why, and give an example of how it seems to be true of the world or your experience. Choose one point of Plato’s political philosophy that you disagree with, discuss why, and give an example of how his point seems to not hold of the world or your experience.
Delete request

[Sonny11598]

How do I start a new post?

[Josefina1110]

I will quote one of Plato's philosophy but I cannot disagree with it. Here is one: "The first and greatest victory is to conquer yourself" Plato. One of the most difficult thing to conquer about oneself is the desire for "sex". Celibacy is honorable. But one has to do a lot of battle against this natural desire. Any discussion?

[-1-]

I will quote one of Plato's philosophy but I cannot disagree with it. Here is one: "The first and greatest victory is to conquer yourself" Plato. One of the most difficult thing to conquer about oneself is the desire for "sex". Celibacy is honorable. But one has to do a lot of battle against this natural desire. Any discussion?

This thread is about the rules of the forum and why to change them and how.

Your input, Josephina, merits a new topic in an appropriate section of the forums. Here it is totally out of place.

You ought to have grown some understanding how things work on this site, by now, you are not new here.

In fact, the proper thing for me ought to have been to report your post as a forum violation, but 1. I don't want to disappoint you without having some educational value in it for you, and 2. the one and only admin that works this site is overworked, if she hasn't bowed out yet altogether of administering. Therefore I was not going to increase her work load, but instead let you know personally why your comment ought not to have appeared here at all.

-- Updated 2017 March 30th, 1:55 am to add the following --

How do I start a new post?

Dear Sonny11598 and Dear Lionheartnv, please read the forum rules CAREFULLY and MINDFULLY.

It's all in there.

By asking the question you force others to repeat the forum rules unnecessarily, as the information you seek is already available there.

[Josefina1110]

Whatever you want to do is ok with me. No problem at all. If I'm rejected to join the group, I will not feel bad or hurt. But I thank you so much for your attention to my post this time. I am sorry I answered that previous post about Plato and I thought I could start a new topic as the one posted above mine was asking how to start. More power to the forum.

[Despues18]

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how to post a Question

[Woodart]

I'm having a hard time trying to figure out how to post a Question

What is the question?

[-1-]

What is the question?

That's a good question.

-- Updated 2017 June 30th, 8:39 am to add the following --

A greatly accented ad hominem attack had been performed against me personally. I reported it. The rules of the site say "definitely no Ad Hominem attacks." The attack was perpetrated very clandestinely, and in an elaborate fashion, but it did not talk about the issues at hand, it only gave a depiction by irrelevant comparisons why my opinion should be invalidated -- not by reasoning about the topic, but by pointing out that I was not good enough to reason.

The moderator either did not understand the concept of "ad hominem" or the attack was so well put together, that the moderator did not recognize this.

There is no discourse I can take against the issue. Apparently the moderator has closed the doors on my complaint.

This is SOOO not satisfactory, Scott. Do something, please.

[Despues18]

(Nested quote removed.)


Go into the Forum where the topic listings are and click on NEW TOPIC in the upper left corner, or click on POST REPLY to reply to a previous post. You have to put in a title when posting a new topic.

Thank you very much

sorry, I did but still couldn't find it. Do i not have one because I'm new?

-- Updated July 1st, 2017, 1:48 pm to add the following --

could u tell me where to find the button for new topic...i just cant find it sorry

[Brissot]

It says i have to click on preview before is can submit my reply, so i clicked on preview but i still can not submit it.

[Sy Borg]

It says i have to click on preview before is can submit my reply, so i clicked on preview but i still can not submit it.

Hard to know what that issue is. I think if one takes some time to edit a component times out and the user will need to click Preview more than once until the machine "intelligence" gets the hint.

Also, new members have a trial period where their posts don't appear until a mod sees it in the queue and clicks the "Approve" button. Sometimes members will re-post several times, thinking their post didn't submit.

[-1-]

The rule of thumb on this site for successful posting is to sound nice, polite, civil; as long as you keep to this, you can post any old theory, whether it makes sense or not, and defend it likewise; logic, intuitive validity, and common sense are optional, and not a necessary part of debating.

Furthermore, you can insult people's intelligence as long as you are somewhat clandestine about it.