[WithoutMe]

Reason proceeds from logic whereas belief proceeds from faith. But what is the reason in being reasonable? One may answer it by saying: “The reason of being reasonable is that being reasonable is itself reasonable”. But this won’t be an answer, let alone an explanation, because what it does is presuppose the very idea before explaining it, that is, it is at best, an assumption that over time became a definition. But whichever way I use to prove, either way I only use reason to do so & thus am contradicting myself. Even every proof inculcates in it the faith in the beliefs that corresponds to the initial assumptions & the flow of events after that which are considered to be causal when in reality nothing is causal. This is so as no one has gone to the future & verified whether the effect always follows the cause, we only know that it has always followed but we cannot say for sure that it will except for the probability that it may. Thus, every proof makes that which it proves probable & nothing more. It is upto the thing to be what it is & to become what it will though in the actuality of things, there is nothing else to become except of what we, men/women of reason make of it.

In Quantum Mechanics, this fallibility of Causality has been vital with such experiments as the modified double slit where the effect occurred before the cause indicating once again that things are not causal. If any thing, they are what they are & that is self-consistent.

A point to be noted here is that anything is possible but not probable in the future as probability is again based on our faith in it. Possibilities, as always are endless, but probabilities are constricted to the kind of logic one adheres to.

Regards,
wM.

PS. That which is 100% illogical cannot be proved to be "100% illogical" coz by being able to prove so, will mean that it is not "100%" illogical, as it is then " 100 - "the logic to prove that its illogical" " % illogical.... that which is illogical is so only by the virue of itself, that is without proof or logic, - its is just so!!!

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hello WithourMe, I had to make a few comments after reading this; "Reason proceeds from logic whereas belief proceeds from faith. But what is the reason in being reasonable? One may answer it by saying: “The reason of being reasonable is that being reasonable is itself reasonable”. But this won’t be an answer, let alone an explanation, because what it does is presuppose the very idea before explaining it, that is, it is at best, an assumption that over time became a definition. But whichever way I use to prove, either way I only use reason to do so & thus am contradicting myself."

I have seen many people and writers through the years confuse logic and reason, and yet I've only come across one person to sort this out. The author and philosopher was Charles Sanders Peirce. Without quoting him directly I will state what I learned from him. Reason and logic are two distinct entities or attributes of our essences. To treat them both as more closely related than they are is a grave mistake. Reason is used to find the cause and affects of things and logic is used to observe reason, reasonings and reasons and find the greater truths. We can only understand our reasoning with logic and a few of our other essence agents, i.e., judgement, intent etc. When we view our essence agents as individual agents we understand their purposes much clearer.

I happen to think the too close a link between logic and reason, without realizing the power they truly possess apart, is one of the world's greatest mistakes. If you view reason as used on parts to wholes, and logic as used on wholes to parts, and further realize that reason is the subjective essence agent, and logic is the objective essence agent, life is much easier to understand. I think this simple knowledge can benefit the world greatly.

Only logic, used separately, can prove reason. Hope this clears up a few things.

regards

"Logic, the god of our minds; reason it's handmaiden." me

[WithoutMe]

On the one hand, what your reply seems to tell me is that "reason" is our triggered by our will-to-convince, that is, reason has a personal aspect to it, a subjective smell to its very use! Whereas, logic is the "pure observation" of facts, or rather as I would like to say, logic is the observation of a thing where the observer has no sense of identificatin with what s/he is observing, otherwise, such an observation would become subjective!

The ananlogy which comes to my mind is that of the observer watching a movie & understanding the contents of what he is seeing as a kind of "logic", whereas a person observing something happening with somethng or someone (may be herself also) with which s/he identifes her/him self! Now, even in the first case, can there be no sort of identification while watching? If not so, then "logic" would always remain an ineffable idea, something to be verbalised about but never realised, that is, in the case of an identified-out-observation , logic ultimately turns out to be a reason which the majority has accepted, or that sort of reason which has been handed down by society (thru its edcation, teachers, books, media & the rest of it)!!!

Is there anything as true & pure logic (totally objective, I mean) in something that exists exists as a thing & not as an idea, or is all logic ultimately a beguiled version of propagandized reason?

The logic in mathematics is about numbers, which on its own has no existence, the numbers exists as an attribute of that for which we use the number, like "two candles" exists, but can "2" exist all alone, without any sort of association to that which it connotes, & here, I mean exist not as an idea, but as a hard fact, like the table in front of me?

If that is not the case, then logic & reason become the father & the mother of all sorts of relationships.... is it so? Can the one live absolutely devoid of the other?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Wikipedia lists over 137 different types of logic, and 9 categories. Not all are mathematical. There is predicate/subject, two, three, four value logic, on and on. All mathematics and logic is real, as it is not a construction as you suggest, they are of our innate, intrinsic essences. All maths and logics must first be cognized from the outside world as objects and symbols, only then do we abstract them into our perceptive memory areas. So, at base math and logic are as real, and directly cognized real, as any other aspect of our innate selfs. The post-modern view is not correct. The older classical Ocham's razor view is the valid one, and Heraclitus is more right than all of them, with his open natural dynamic logic, and logos.

"If that is not the case, then logic & reason become the father & the mother of all sorts of relationships.... is it so? Can the one live absolutely devoid of the other?"

Nothing lives absolutely devoid of the other. As I said, they should not be as closely allied as post-modernism has falsely taught. Both reason and logic are agents of our one essence, thus live in the same house. It's just that confusing or mixing them improperly makes no sense, and does harm to your own true reasoning and logic self. And, beware the subjective illusion, as tis worse than the objective illusion. And finally, to think logic is reason, is just plain academic ignorance. As a child, I had logic long befor reason - natural instinctual logic. We all did.

regards

[WithoutMe]

Lloyd,
If that be so, then we would be able to do what Russel & Whitehead once attempted (thru their collosal work).... Can we then equate the whole of life, reality & existence as symbols inter-connected by systems of logic?

But as you may know (me thinks from yur signature), Godel ruined all such plans, but let us not get stuck with that! Instead, if u do believe that there is this "innate" world of mathematics & logic, then I must say that you are one of the proponents of the "a priori" (God knows what Kant was thinking) theory, - that thing-in-itself exist without any relation of conformation.... is that so??

My whole pt. is, even if the noumenal world do exist & as Kant says, there is no way to know it, then why all thus fuss on something which will never yeild a result, one that is not theoretical or verbal but one that can be felt as the hard surface of the keyboard that I am feeling?

By this, I am not saying that the noumenal world doesnot exist, neither am I saying that it does exist, what I am instead saying, is that i DONT KNOW!

Now, can one live with this dont know & not investigate into this "dont know", coz by that one may reach to an answer, but as the answer will be that of thing-in-itself, there would be no way in verifying it with our senses & emotions.... Such a knowledge will be verbal throwouts, without much significance in the things that we actually feel!!! Do tell me, can you feel the number "2" without feeling the "2 candles"?

I repeat -- I am not refuting the noumenal world nor am I onto it..... there is no way to know it as a thing I feel, coz by its very definition, it is a thing-in-itself!!!

I maintain the same stance for all things meta-physical, as I am unable to infer whether a meta-physical statement/theory/proposition is true or false, as they are out of the scope of verification! Note here, I am neither propagating the idea of "logical positivism". Infact, Wittgentein himself quite shrugged of the "Vienna Circle"... in one instance, when he was invited to the Vienna Circle & asked abt something he wrote on his Tractacus, he instead recited a poem by Rabindranath Tagore..... frankly speaking, if you extend any line of "logic" (be it syllogistic or whatever), it ultimately runs down to a paradox & thus, becomes out of our very zone of testing & hence verification. In that way, if we start of theorize or quantize or solve anything in life, what we will get is a bunch of verbal throwouts, whereas life, to me, is much more than that.... life is just THIS!

Trying to investigate, we postulate, extend, simulate, & all this just takes us away from the initial state of mind which is the basis for our knowledge, -- a very dont know mind, but an unsettled mind, & it presumes that it'll be satifisfied when it gets some verbal throwout!!!! Why this need to know? What is the source of this Will-To-Truth?

Is there a sense of "lack" behind all this quest for truth/knowledge/theories & God-knows-what-not???

Regards,
wM.

PS. Going thru theories, ideas, notions, postulates, one ultimately reaches a dead-end, that one simply "doesnt know"....lol!

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by WithoutMe Lloyd, If that be so, then we would be able to do what Russel & Whitehead once attempted (thru their collosal work).... Can we then equate the whole of life, reality & existence as symbols inter-connected by systems of logic?

Your sarcasm can be answered as, "Can if you want to."

But as you may know (me thinks from yur signature), Godel ruined all such plans, but let us not get stuck with that! Instead, if u do believe that there is this "innate" world of mathematics & logic, then I must say that you are one of the proponents of the "a priori" (God knows what Kant was thinking) theory, - that thing-in-itself exist without any relation of conformation.... is that so??

Your absolute knowledge of philosophy is pro-found!

My whole pt. is, even if the noumenal world do exist & as Kant says, there is no way to know it, then why all thus fuss on something which will never yeild a result, one that is not theoretical or verbal but one that can be felt as the hard surface of the keyboard that I am feeling?

Philosophers of note have known Kant wrong for over a century. Where have you been? The thing in itself can be known much, much deeper. Stop setting up arguments, and maybe we could learn.

By this, I am not saying that the noumenal world doesnot exist, neither am I saying that it does exist, what I am instead saying, is that i DONT KNOW!

That's for sure!

Now, can one live with this dont know & not investigate into this "dont know", coz by that one may reach to an answer, but as the answer will be that of thing-in-itself, there would be no way in verifying it with our senses & emotions.... Such a knowledge will be verbal throwouts, without much significance in the things that we actually feel!!! Do tell me, can you feel the number "2" without feeling the "2 candles"?

You feel. I choose to "Know."

I repeat -- I am not refuting the noumenal world nor am I onto it..... there is no way to know it as a thing I feel, coz by its very definition, it is a thing-in-itself!!!

Thing in itself is just a stupid, lazy deffinition for god. Get out of religion and come into the house of science.

I maintain the same stance for all things meta-physical, as I am unable to infer whether a meta-physical statement/theory/proposition is true or false, as they are out of the scope of verification! Note here, I am neither propagating the idea of "logical positivism". Infact, Wittgentein himself quite shrugged of the "Vienna Circle"... in one instance, when he was invited to the Vienna Circle & asked abt something he wrote on his Tractacus, he instead recited a poem by Rabindranath Tagore..... frankly speaking, if you extend any line of "logic" (be it syllogistic or whatever), it ultimately runs down to a paradox & thus, becomes out of our very zone of testing & hence verification. In that way, if we start of theorize or quantize or solve anything in life, what we will get is a bunch of verbal throwouts, whereas life, to me, is much more than that.... life is just THIS!

Wittgenstein, not very smart - was he?

Trying to investigate, we postulate, extend, simulate, & all this just takes us away from the initial state of mind which is the basis for our knowledge, -- a very dont know mind, but an unsettled mind, & it presumes that it'll be satifisfied when it gets some verbal throwout!!!! Why this need to know? What is the source of this Will-To-Truth?

Just avoiding stupidity, thank-you!

Is there a sense of "lack" behind all this quest for truth/knowledge/theories & God-knows-what-not???

Thanks for your contribution to the post-modern mind of self-proving insanity.

Regards, wM. PS. Going thru theories, ideas, notions, postulates, one ultimately reaches a dead-end, that one simply "doesnt know"....lol!

You sure don't!!! A very important aspect of philosophy is about knowing what we don't know. This is true. It's also about knowing what we know we do know.

regards

[WithoutMe]

So u mean that yur cheif interest in "knowing" & not feeling.... even the same holds for all scientists (& i dont blame them for that)...

Knowing without feeling that which one knows is like reading loads of books of the Himalayas & knowing every nook & corner of the hills, but never going there & experiencing it..... that person may be able to tell someone who lives in the Himalayas, more than the one who lives there, but inspite of all this living, he would never be able to experience any of the beauty that comes not by doing anything or becoming anything, but just by the very presence of something!

If one carries on like this with equations & ideas without ever experiencing it (as a feeling that creeps into yur very system, creeps not as something u can talk abt or write books on, or bore ppl with, but as something that u kinda feel while in presence of it), then one day that person may reach a stage where he can equate a whole lot of his world which he can never experience, like for eg writing books on Geology without seeing a single lake or a land-slide!!! What good will such a "unfelt of knowledge" serve to him?
Give him the sense of security that he now "knows"!!!

Here I will paste something I wrote in another forum....
__________________________________________________ ___________
Having a cup of coffee is much more revealing to the mind that reading a hundred pages on coffee. Only in being one with the phenomenon of being alive is life felt most intensely, not by equating or theorizing about it.

All theory, equation is based on "measure"; infact physics is the science rotating in & around measurement, wheras reality is actual, reality is immesurable... try, for instance, measuring this moment, yes, the moment that you are reading this very spot! You can try over a million ways to measure everything present in this moment, but nonetheless you will miss loads of other things, not to mention the one thing which is always beyond measure, that is the one who is measurig it -- the eye can see everything except itself, however, it can use a mirror to see its reflection, but that wouldnt be "seeing" with all its variations, rather that would be seeing the reflection of the eye, & it is the reality of the eye that is always escaping itself, coz, may be, reality receded to itself... huh!

The eye can never watch itself, but can it watch itself?

The fact of being alive, the very experience of it & not the theory or verbalizing of it, -- how can that be more true than the way it is, that is by living it, going thru the process???

Infact, there is no such thing such "life". But yes, there certainly is this thing called "living". Now, "living" is a process, is a going-thru-it, a phenomenon, whereas "life" is a noun, something which has a value, a measure, whereas, me believes, we are almost always mistaken there, mistaken at our linguistic compulsion to use words in such a fashion!

Take, for eg., "I am watching this PC", whereas in reality, as a fact -- "I really my in this experience of being in some relation to this phenomenon, which we term it as 'PC'" ... yes, it may well be a linguistic impossibility to talk in verbs only, but aint verbs the only thing that connotes mostly to reality, whereas nouns are like the "necessary mistakes" (if I can use such a word) we commit to speak.... its like the necessary mistakes making the correct ones work, that is, the nouns needed to actualize the verb, or even, viceversa!

May be, Buddha would have said it: "Nouns are crystallized verbs, & Verbs are leaky Nouns"..... huh!

Here I am, using so many words to create an idea in yuour very mind, which on contemplation would lead to a realisation, which in turn may lead you to act in a certain way, as in to reply to this, or even ignore this -- which part of all this an illusion & which part of it is a reality?

Then writing for me is a reality to me & an illusion to me (u have not experienced my very writing), whereas, reading/ignoring this or replying to this is a reality to you & an illusion to me! For me, what I have then, is the fact of checking TOEQuest & seeing the replies, & not the experience of acctually writing the replies.... Your cause, my effect! My cause, your effect!

Then what is this "consensual reality"? Something intermediate of the cause & the effect, or something beyond this cause & effect, or as Nagarjuna would have said it, something of a "co-dependent arising" sort!!!

Let me ask you, "what time is it now?" By the time, I make up this question & by the time I speak up, the "now" of the making-up-the-question has gone, & by the time you have recieved it, my making-up-the-question now has long gone, & even by the time you speak up the answer, the making-up-the-answer now has long now! So even I donot have access to my now, even you donot have access to your now!!!

By the time we get any signal from our environment, even from inside us, the moment of the birth-of-the-signal has passed, so by the time we cognize the signal as being part of an experience, the moment has passed, & trying to know how much time has passed would lead us to an ad infinitum, a paradox!

Only, in the case of "non-local behaviour" (Einstein, Podolsky wud have freaked out), will we be able to access the "now", otherwise, we are always living in the "now" of the past -- which past, now that will real back to a bottomless pit, - a dangerous paradox!!!! So, unless the Law of Non-locality is maintained, one's existence is always inaccessible... Puff!!!

Now, if the Non-locality principle is maintained, can there be a "consensual reality", otherwise, there cannot be the question of a TOE???
__________________________________________________ ___________

My pt: "Knowing devoid of feeling" would be like -- say -- I know that it hurts to kill, but I just cannot feel the "hurt" of of the one I am killing & hence, inspite of this "knwoing", I continually kill!!!

Had we based knowing firmly on feeling, we would have never have a "should be" or "ought to be" world as against this world of "is"!!!! I believe this whole aim of most of humanity to "become" something ("something" as depicting the "ought to be" world) is just sooooo absurd.... wat say u ?

Had we based knowing firmly on feeling, we would have had just this & only this world, -- no imaginary world of physics, chemistry, & all the rest of it!

A theory exist as an idea, but what actually exists is that which is theorized about, for eg., the my experience of being pulled down to earth exists, but the explanation of it by gravity or space-time warp or whatever, exists as an idea of to me, coz I can directly feel the pull (even if I am illiterate), but the theory, I have to learn..... Is theory then an approximation of the reality??

Why live with an approximation? What wrong with the reality we have? Why this so much of striving to become (become knowlegable or whatever)?

Btw, what is stupidity? & what is the problem with it? Our Survival chances -- is it?

Regards,
wM.

PS. Can the limited be the door to the unlimited? What was Camus pointing to when he uttered: "Reality cannot be summed up"??
Also, I never did say that Kant was right or wrong, that is not my pt. Kant was just a bait in my writing!