animal-friendly wrote:
Logic has its rightful place, but EVERY single person on the planet has a brain ..... and EVERY brain is capable of some kind of logic and the logic of beliefs ends up being not so smart afterall. We have all seen many very intelectually logical people advocating separation via war, via the concept of us vs. them, when, in reality, there is no us or them. Even Hitler was 'logical', but only in the sense of a very strong identification of what it meant to be German or of the "master race" which was an idea, an ideology and an idealism. What, afterall, is a German?
A German is one who is a citizen of Germany, but Hitler was not interested in Germans. His master race was the Aryan, which are blue-eyed blondes unlike Hitler. Of course there may have been some truth in that as I am blue-eyed and used to have blonde hair.
Quote:
Quote:
Flawed logic is still called logic by some. However, true logic leads to better conclusions.
While I have seen and heard and read and experienced flawed logic, I'm still wondering what is true logic?
Read the highlighted portion following.
Quote:
Quote:
There are classes spanning years which are devoted to such explanations, but in a nutshell true logic does not employ a logical fallacy and has a connected reasoning to reach a conclusion whether by inductive or dedective paths.
Monsanto? Nuclear power? Both I would call flawed and I don't know if you would call these 'so called' solutions "true" in logic, but I wouldn't (as you know, and I know).
Since you have given no example of logic to discuss there is not much left to do other than point out logic is not a company or energy source.
Quote:
Quote:
I believe this exhibits the confusion concernimg what is and is not logic. Neither is logic, but both use logic and may be part of a logical process.
Yes, okay Wayne. From an academic view point. Although i am not a student of logic, I do see that we are living in a world seemingly ensconced in some form of "logic". I guess that's my point.
Actual logic is academic by definition, as most illogical processes tend to be emotional or irrationally based on wild guesses, beliefs, or myths.
Quote:
What seems chaotic actually has a precise "chaotic" flow, not seen by most. If we could only get out of the way .... then the seeming chaos of the forest could perhaps work it's divine magic. A forest has an intricate and elegant intelligence, while a tree farm is merely logical.
A tree farm may be logical, but your example is more of order than logic. Logic is orderly, but orderly is not logic.
Quote:
Quote:
It seems to be another area of confusion. Lack of decision cannot be generally defined as either logical or illogical.
I do not mean to say that one should not make decisions, it's just that most of our decisions have resulted in this. All one needs to do is to look around and see how we live, which is largely irrational. We impose 'logic' ...... but there seems to be something missing. What is it?
The understanding and use of logic is missing.
Quote:
Quote:
Logic has its place for sure, .... but I'm not at all sure the majority of us know what logic is or how it works.
From what I have read, seen, and heard, I am sure the majority of us do not know what logic is or how it works.
Still true.
Quote:
Quote:
I do not see how ignoring everything could allow logic to function. Logic is a tool to determine action or form an explanation for action. Logic does nothing else.
One cannot ignore everything anyway, so its not about ignoring; it's more about getting out of the way which doesn't mean not-doing since that would be impossible.
If getting out of the way is a logical decision, but that is an unsupported assumption at this point.
Quote:
What we ARE doing is suspect. Logic thus far seems to be a clever way of rationalizing and justifying actions which turn out to be ..... irrational.
You still do not understand what the term logical really means for this sentence clearly misrepresents it all.
Quote:
For instance, we come up with rational/logical solutions to problems which really threaten our security. Wouldn't it be more logical to look at the roots of these problems rather than find solutions that threaten our survival?
If the logical solutions to a problem is chosen, it does not mean it will solve the problem in an agreeable manner, but just that it is the better solution given the circumstances.
For example, there are three men in a lifeboat with provisions for three days. They cannot reach land for ten days. They will not die immediately especially due to hunger, but they may die of thirst within a week. The logical determination is not all will survive to land and the sooner the strain on the supplies is lessened the better the chance of at least one of them surviving. The most logical solution is to have one use all of the supplies, which would almost guarantee survival to land. The second most logical solution is to have two use the supplies, which means there is a greater chance for all to die but somewhat of a chance for two to survive. The choice would be more emotional than logical. The final solution would be for them all to try to make it and hope for a windfall of supplies or some other external input.
Quote:
We attempt to safeguard our existence by offering short or possibly longer term measures that ultimately create insecurity for everyone. If this is logic, it seems we are missing something. What could it be?
The logic.
Quote:
Quote:
The feminine has been so oppressed and hidden over the last five or more centuries, and it is time for that precise chaos to emerge. Re-emerge.
Quote:
Intelligent precision in choas ... or, getting out of the way. There are bolders, and there is the water that flows around them.
If you have enough boulders the water stops flowing until the dam fills.
Login
Register
FAQ
