View Single Post
Old 10-06-2008, 12:31 AM   #6
Litofsky
Galaxial
 
Litofsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
Well, before the internet people had a lot of time on their hands. Me included.
And before government mandated schools, too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
I'm curious what you mean here. I wasn't aware I was being quite that general.
Well, as I was reading and responding to your post, a commercial was playing in the background, and I was comparing where we were as a society (intellectually) as to what you were talking about (way above most of society).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
Well, I think he uses a particular view of logic, etc., which forces him to assert that God is necessary for them to exist. However, his argument doesn't force people to agree that his view is the only one.
So, his logic fits his views? In most cases, we do that with our minds/perception: we modify the facts (even slightly) to fit in with our established opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
Well, I'm a bit wary of "proving" the laws of reason and logic. I agree with Aristotle in that we should argue from some central ideas like logic, morality, etc., and not to them. I think it's clear that no finite amount of cases where someone jumping out the window and living will ever make it necessary that someone who jumps out a window will live. I'm not even sure what it would be like to argue "for" logic. I mean, how could you argue without it? Something has got to be the bedrock for discussion here; it's not just turtles all the way down. Logic is that kind of bedrock for many things.
So, before we argue, we assume that certain notions or ideas are true? That makes sense: if you don't have an initial platform, you can't argue from there. However, I wonder where we developed these initial ideas from (i.e., 'what is logic?') at times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
I'd say that the definition of logic cannot be separated from how we use it. That doesn't mean that the truths of logic are human "creations", but the development of our methods of logic could certainly be seen as a subject of scientific interest. I think it's entirely possible to apply reason and logic to God, but doing so comes after you accept certain things (like the existence of God). Those things which are accepted are not reasonable and they are not logical. You can see them as a religious bedrock. "Whatever else happens, this cannot be doubted."
But the truths of logic would be entirely dependent upon one's viewpoint, would they not? Relying on my previous idea (that we shape logic to our opinions), would not reason be a point of view?

The Greeks must've spent hours upon hours just thinking.
Litofsky is offline   you may: quote & reply,