View Single Post
Old 10-06-2008, 11:18 AM   #8
Litofsky
Galaxial
 
Litofsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
My problem with Bahnsen is that he attempts to say that his view is The View - an objective view, one above or below all others. I disagree with that mainly because I don't see how it's possible to have such a view. Only God could be said to be objective in that way; no man is an island, cut off from every influence.
So, he sees his view as superior to others? And, if he believes that his view is superior, wouldn't that mean that he could not be swayed by other views/opinions, seeing as they are 'beneath' his?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
If you're asking how we came to use logical laws, I imagine it was because we found a use for the varieties of expression they provide, or wanted a more general system that combined several systems with smaller scopes. That's what prompted the growth of logic within the last 150 years, with Frege, Russel and other innovations like set theory in mathematics. It's pretty useful to have ways to formulate arguments which force your opponent to agree with you.
Thanks for taking time to get into that. Without logical responses, I do believe that most conversation about scientific advances (and other relating fields) would have been near impossible. So, would it be a fair guess to say that logic was pioneered with the Greeks?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by entirely dependent. Yes, I agree that the particular terminology we might use is dependent on our viewpoint, but if we use the same methods we should be free from subjectivity as far as meaning goes. Indeed, it's essential that logic should be free from subjectivity; if it wasn't it would be logic. That's just part of what it logic is... but you will remember that I am not an independent observer; I am human, after all. "That is just part of what logic is" shows what I have learned of the use of the word within the context of my language and my life. I couldn't be wrong about it, if that's what you're asking, in the same way I couldn't be wrong about the fact that my name here is Samuel Dravis-- but someone else might know differently.
Well, if we look at logic in a literary and linguistic sense, the word 'logic' means using sound reasoning- without any influence whatsoever- to arrive at a conclusion. However, when we explore the individual perception of logic, it's quite possible to arrive at a different conclusion, is it not?

However, I believe this part of the conversation may turn into one of fact and fiction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
To say that being reasonable is just a point of view is in some cases appropriate and others not. For example, I could understand it if you said that in the context of seeing an insane person raving about something imaginary, and you'd say, "See that man? He thinks he's reasonable, but that's just his point of view." And I would agree: "Yeah, he's a bit crazy."
I'd have to disagree with you on the first part of your statement. I feel the sudden need to quote Obi-Wan here: "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Reason can be shifted to fit someone's point of view. I agree with you that it will always produce result "x" in certain situations, but, nevertheless, people will continue to alter it to their needs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
But if you were to say, then, that our being reasonable was just a point of view: "What if we're like him, not reasonable and we don't even know it? How can we justify saying that we're reasonable?" I'd have to dismiss your speculation. Why? Because it simply demonstrates a misunderstanding. In order to say this, you have to learn the use of the word "reasonable." A necessary part of learning the use of the word is learning the contexts in which it is appropriate to say. If the word "reasonable" cannot be applied to us - we who are here talking calmly and normally about this man's illness - then it cannot be applied to anyone, but it's clear from a cursory inspection of the possibilities that it is in fact used and applied to people like us all the time. If you were to insist that, contrary to the natural linguistic usage and everything you'd been taught, we could not be described as reasonable people in this situation, then you'd simply have made a mistake using the word. Some things can't be denied because there literally is no such thing as their denial.
But how does one go about determining if they are reasonable? If we decide who is and who is not reasonable, wouldn't that make it a matter of point of view? I have a grasp on the linguistic meaning of 'reason,' (or so I like to think) but when we begin to apply it, wouldn't that be a matter of what one accepts as reasonable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis View Post
It's interesting when you look at language this way. It seems to wrap itself around us, like quicksand, in a sheathe we cannot escape, always changing and never solid... but really that quicksand is of the thickest concrete and serves as the foundation of our most lasting structures.
Language suddenly holds more power than previously thought: instead of just words on paper, or letters in a word, it proves to be the basis for everything that we view as a being. My mind shifts back to 1984, and Newspeak, which involved taking out all words that could be possibly used to insight rebellion, amongst other things. If there are no words for something, is it possible to exist? A very interesting point, Mr. Dravis.
Litofsky is offline   you may: quote & reply,