While discussing friendship in another thread (http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=215233), I started thinking of an old topic I had discussed many times with a friend who is a realist.
I tend to be an idealist, but have been known to swing either way depending on the problem. This has angered some people over the years, but I prefer to utilise more than one approach to solving problems or interpreting things: one approach is not necessarily the best, and using more than one approach can uncover problems hidden by the other approach.
In relation to the thread "Do you know who your real friends are?" I noticed a comment as quoted below, written by LORD_RED_DRAGON in response to someone saying "real friends are hard to come by".
(Note that this thread is by no means a criticism of LORD_RED_DRAGON or their opinions):
In my personal opinion, friendships are governed by morals, which often replaces the black and white of ABSOLUTE LOGIC with the grey of EMOTION or IDEALISM.
The above post, then, from LORD_RED_DRAGON expresses his theory from a scientific/mathematical style which is then being applied onto a moral/emotional scenario.
To me, this is akin to trying to place a square peg into a round hole, for the most part it can't be "matched up" and when it's even remotely possible to do so, it can be correlated to a mathematical graph where X never reaches 0, against a timescale of infinity (explained below).
The conversation I had with my realist friend was this: I used his logic against him (by use of drawing a graph in mathematics) to display that my emotional/idealist approach worked in a scenario where his realist approach was not effective (but he believed it could), because ultimately his pure stats/maths approach was FLAWED, i.e. pure logic at it's absolute root does not exist. Science and mathematics are "theories", and through their own equations, not absolute.
In the graph above, X approaches 0 but for infinity will never reach it (called asymptotic behavior). Thus, the error margin which always exists represents a flaw in the logic, 0 represents absolute logic. Obviously, were there no room for error margins, logical would be successful and thus absolute.
A simple example in real life can be that of a circle: in pure mathematical terms, derived from calculus and so on, we can ascertain that a circle is not actually curved and is in fact a multiple sided object (dimensional factor is irrelevant in the context of my description here). We can zoom in and zoom in and we will find more and more facets on the edges.
Ultimately, in my opinion I feel that pure logic can not exist because even through mathematics an error margin can be proven, thus rendering absolution obsolete.
Apologies for the long windedness of this opener comment to the thread, but I felt it was necessary to go through it in order to ask:
- are you a realist or an idealist?
- how do you feel about a "multiple philosophy" approach as opposed to the single hard line (I personally find the single hard line approach to be herd- & narrow-minded, thus lacking in intelligence [coupled with poor investigative skills])
- how effectively can one style be applied to another? Is it akin to having two images, one blurred and the other crystalline over each other, whereby the result yields a concise image surrounded by uncertainty?
Apologies if I have not conveyed this concisely enough (I think I have though).
I tend to be an idealist, but have been known to swing either way depending on the problem. This has angered some people over the years, but I prefer to utilise more than one approach to solving problems or interpreting things: one approach is not necessarily the best, and using more than one approach can uncover problems hidden by the other approach.
In relation to the thread "Do you know who your real friends are?" I noticed a comment as quoted below, written by LORD_RED_DRAGON in response to someone saying "real friends are hard to come by".
(Note that this thread is by no means a criticism of LORD_RED_DRAGON or their opinions):
LORD_RED_DRAGON said:
In my personal opinion, friendships are governed by morals, which often replaces the black and white of ABSOLUTE LOGIC with the grey of EMOTION or IDEALISM.
The above post, then, from LORD_RED_DRAGON expresses his theory from a scientific/mathematical style which is then being applied onto a moral/emotional scenario.
To me, this is akin to trying to place a square peg into a round hole, for the most part it can't be "matched up" and when it's even remotely possible to do so, it can be correlated to a mathematical graph where X never reaches 0, against a timescale of infinity (explained below).
The conversation I had with my realist friend was this: I used his logic against him (by use of drawing a graph in mathematics) to display that my emotional/idealist approach worked in a scenario where his realist approach was not effective (but he believed it could), because ultimately his pure stats/maths approach was FLAWED, i.e. pure logic at it's absolute root does not exist. Science and mathematics are "theories", and through their own equations, not absolute.
In the graph above, X approaches 0 but for infinity will never reach it (called asymptotic behavior). Thus, the error margin which always exists represents a flaw in the logic, 0 represents absolute logic. Obviously, were there no room for error margins, logical would be successful and thus absolute.
A simple example in real life can be that of a circle: in pure mathematical terms, derived from calculus and so on, we can ascertain that a circle is not actually curved and is in fact a multiple sided object (dimensional factor is irrelevant in the context of my description here). We can zoom in and zoom in and we will find more and more facets on the edges.
Ultimately, in my opinion I feel that pure logic can not exist because even through mathematics an error margin can be proven, thus rendering absolution obsolete.
Apologies for the long windedness of this opener comment to the thread, but I felt it was necessary to go through it in order to ask:
- are you a realist or an idealist?
- how do you feel about a "multiple philosophy" approach as opposed to the single hard line (I personally find the single hard line approach to be herd- & narrow-minded, thus lacking in intelligence [coupled with poor investigative skills])
- how effectively can one style be applied to another? Is it akin to having two images, one blurred and the other crystalline over each other, whereby the result yields a concise image surrounded by uncertainty?
Apologies if I have not conveyed this concisely enough (I think I have though).
