The Books/Reading Thread
- Thread starter Matt
- Start date
Dak
mentat
I also don't know how anything could be superficial OR deep in regards to logic. Logic merely is.
Einherjar86
Active Member
"Logic" has been dictated by centuries of anthropocentric Enlightenment thought; it is anything but obvious.
Dak
mentat
Anthropocentrism really has nothing to do with it. If I have 2 rocks in my left hand and two rocks in my right hand, and I release them, it logically follows that four rocks will fall from my hands. It doesn't matter what language, culture, or terms you use to describe/record the scenario.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I don't know how else to begin arguing with you except to say that I think you're completely mistaken and that what you're describing is automatically susceptible to claims of anthropocentrism (the fact that your rocks are numbered based on a system of abstract representation, created by human beings, known as mathematics; that you're envisioning a human subject holding them who is familiar with this system, etc.).
You seem to also equate logic with some naturally occurring order of things that we might tentatively call "truth." Let me say that, first and foremost, I firmly believe that objective things do happen in the world that possess essence and action which could, hypothetically, be expressed by some abstract idea of truth.
This naturally occurring essence isn't necessarily compatible with what we call "logic," however; logic does not exist external to human beings and it certainly differs among human beings. Logic dictates the lens through which view perceive the natural world, but it isn't inherent in the natural world.
You seem to also equate logic with some naturally occurring order of things that we might tentatively call "truth." Let me say that, first and foremost, I firmly believe that objective things do happen in the world that possess essence and action which could, hypothetically, be expressed by some abstract idea of truth.
This naturally occurring essence isn't necessarily compatible with what we call "logic," however; logic does not exist external to human beings and it certainly differs among human beings. Logic dictates the lens through which view perceive the natural world, but it isn't inherent in the natural world.
Dak
mentat
This misses the point. Whatever is used to describe said event is irrelevant. It doesn't change what is, what is done, and what follows due to what is done with what is. You can quantify/qualify using whatever you want, it doesn't change the reality.
Logic does exist external to humans. Human ability to qualify/quantify/describe/use does not change reality anymore than our lack of knowledge about zero/rules thereof affected reality of it's potential presence/effect on us.
Logical outcomes are different depending on informational inputs. Man did not invent logic/math. It was discovered. Symbology is irrelevant.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Description changes everything, Dak. Even following the logic of quantifiable amounts exposes the incoherence of representation with reality; just look at Zeno's paradoxes.
I cannot agree with your blind acceptance of human cognition. Our quantification and description of things completely changes their nature, as far as our perceptions are concerned.
Man did invent logic and math, Dak. Symbology is everything (the medium partially dictates the message). Representation, quantification; these things are human creations that project a certain logic or order onto the universe. It is flawed to believe that this logic is inherent in the world.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
Anybody who thinks logic is the key to reality should read about Parmenides and then realize how naive such a statement is.
Dak
mentat
Description can change perception, not reality.
Edit: Quantifiable amounts is the variable within a logical argument. It is an assumption that must be accepted for the paradox to work. Just because an assumption does not line up with reality does not mean the argument is not solid within itself. Logic is no different from anything else: GIGO.
Agreed.
Symbols are merely a representation of ideas about/or reality. Limitations due to a lack of a robust set of symbols does not mean that the limitations are in any way imposed on anything other than the use of that symbol system. I think you mistakenly believe yourself freed (to some degree) from anthropocentric thinking only to be stuck in a human-centric perspective, as evidenced in previous assertions on certain subjects that "we can make of things whatever we want". I reject this notion completely. There is a natural order and rules that govern the universe and it's contents. Attempts to operate outside that order/ruleset fails to work, regardless of symbology.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Symbols might work within their own internal logic, like a text or a mathematical equation; but it's naive to project that textual order onto the physical world.
I don't believe myself freed in any way from anthropocentric thinking, and any assertion in which I implied that "we can make of things whatever we want" was also intended to imply that that is not necessarily the way things actually are. There may have been a time when symbols were intended to direct human beings toward objects that possessed some form of value for them; but we live in a world where the symbols themselves possess value, thus creating the illusion that representation can somehow accurately capture what goes on in the world around us.
The more intelligent and mature thing to do is to acknowledge that our representational methods fail miserably at communicating the physical world.
Dak
mentat
Can you expand on that?
Fail miserably by who's standards? I don't necessarily disagree, but I think any attempt to judge representation is going to be inherently subjective.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well, without going off the deep end (in the "Books and Reading Thread" no less), here's what I think:
Language is one of the most mystifying and mysterious institutions to have emerged in the course of history; and once that institution took hold, the human mind began working in ways dramatically different from that of their animal predecessors. We take much of language for granted, but we also take for granted that our words are the natural signifiers of the world we intend to communicate. The logic behind this suggests that words become, in a sense, currency. They are an abstraction of the actual reality of the world.
The standards by which representation "fails miserably" are those of the Continental School of critical theory, primarily. I, personally, believe they've done a pretty convincing job of illuminating the deceptive ideological components of things like the Enlightenment, empiricism, logic, and "common sense," as well as, of course, language.
Definitely Parmenides; any members of the Eleatic tradition, really.
Haha, I'm not certain if this was a joke or not, or necessarily what you mean by it...
Language is one of the most mystifying and mysterious institutions to have emerged in the course of history; and once that institution took hold, the human mind began working in ways dramatically different from that of their animal predecessors. We take much of language for granted, but we also take for granted that our words are the natural signifiers of the world we intend to communicate. The logic behind this suggests that words become, in a sense, currency. They are an abstraction of the actual reality of the world.
The standards by which representation "fails miserably" are those of the Continental School of critical theory, primarily. I, personally, believe they've done a pretty convincing job of illuminating the deceptive ideological components of things like the Enlightenment, empiricism, logic, and "common sense," as well as, of course, language.
Definitely Parmenides; any members of the Eleatic tradition, really.
Haha, I'm not certain if this was a joke or not, or necessarily what you mean by it...
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 559
- 113
So what makes you so certain that logic is just a language abstracted conception of reality? After all, you're using language to express that notion...
Einherjar86
Active Member
Haha, but of course! What other option do we have? I'm not saying it's pointless to go about talking to one another because, let's face it, "language doesn't actually have any value." Of course it has value; it serves purposes within human social systems. You can understand what I'm saying because we're operating within an agreed upon system.
Logic (or logical thought processes) is an ideological tool. While it helps us navigate the universe, it's imperative that we don't make the mistake of mystifying logic to the point that it becomes inherent within nature. There is nothing to suggest that the logic used by human beings is somehow pre-existent in the world around us.
To take a crack at mathematics, one need only read Zeno's paradoxes; the paradoxes of motion, for instance. We have units of measurement that help us to determine how great a distance exists between objects. So you start at point "A," and need to get to point "B." The distance between them is fifty feet. We obviously know that a person can cross between these points, and arrive at one from the other. However, Zeno claims that this is an illusion (at least, it's an illusion based on our representative system of quantification). Zeno claims that, before one can reach the opposite point, one must first reach the halfway point; and before one can reach the halfway point, one must first reach the one quarter mark; but before one can reach the one quarter mark, one must first reach the one eighth mark, and so on ad infinitum.
What this should show us is that there is a fundamental disjunct between the way we represent reality, and the way it actually works.
Logic (or logical thought processes) is an ideological tool. While it helps us navigate the universe, it's imperative that we don't make the mistake of mystifying logic to the point that it becomes inherent within nature. There is nothing to suggest that the logic used by human beings is somehow pre-existent in the world around us.
To take a crack at mathematics, one need only read Zeno's paradoxes; the paradoxes of motion, for instance. We have units of measurement that help us to determine how great a distance exists between objects. So you start at point "A," and need to get to point "B." The distance between them is fifty feet. We obviously know that a person can cross between these points, and arrive at one from the other. However, Zeno claims that this is an illusion (at least, it's an illusion based on our representative system of quantification). Zeno claims that, before one can reach the opposite point, one must first reach the halfway point; and before one can reach the halfway point, one must first reach the one quarter mark; but before one can reach the one quarter mark, one must first reach the one eighth mark, and so on ad infinitum.
What this should show us is that there is a fundamental disjunct between the way we represent reality, and the way it actually works.
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 559
- 113
It just seems like he's saying that there's no way to fully explain the entire process of getting from point A to point B because it would be broken down into endless fragments. That doesn't change the fact that the object can and does get to point B and that the fragmented steps can be assumed through logic.
Dak
mentat
Zeno's paradox's only work when one accepts the assumptive claims (IE, that one must embark on the infinite number of predefined steps). It is the assumptive claims, not the logic, that fails.
It's like saying "If horses could talk we probably would be able to hold a conversation with them". That's not a failure of logic. The assumptions of conditions that do not exist make it irrelevant.
Einherjar86
Active Member
In this case, I'd say that logic can also dictate that an object can never reach point "B," based on the properties of mathematical quantification. Saying "But we know objects can travel between points; that's just logic" is an improper use of the term. Common sense might be more appropriate, although this suffers from its own flaws.
@Jimmy: One of the biggest fallacies that Ayn Rand makes is telling her readers to just "use common sense." She has no interest in determining whether or not common sense is ideologically influenced.
But the systems of representation we're discussing are what presuppose these conditions, which is what Zeno's paradoxes rely on. Quantification presupposes a coherent totality. All forms of human reasoning and logic are an attempt to impose order onto the natural world; sometimes successfully (a better adverb might be "usefully"), and sometimes where no such order exists.
Manic Ferocity
Active Member
- Nov 5, 2006
- 5,280
- 559
- 113
Did it ever occur to you that such "what if?" speculation like this is also pretty paradoxical if not entirely pointless? What I like about Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism is that it offers a completely humanistic outlook that anyone can relate to and isn't based out of infinite questions like "do we really exist?" and other completely metaphysical speculation that is impossible to answer. Ayn Rand isn't ideological and for good reason. Ideology is rarely rational (if ever).
Einherjar86
Active Member
Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is steeped in ideological thinking; the centered human subject, the universal constant of "common sense," etc. She's an ideologue of the worst kind.
The questions you're posing are a caricature of what true philosophy should aim to do, which is liberate our thought processes from the limitations of historical tradition. It's not paradoxical to question why we think the way we do, and that includes apparently "logical" institutions such as empiricism and "common sense."
The questions you're posing are a caricature of what true philosophy should aim to do, which is liberate our thought processes from the limitations of historical tradition. It's not paradoxical to question why we think the way we do, and that includes apparently "logical" institutions such as empiricism and "common sense."
