What is the flaw in pursuing knowledge and logic? It's the

File: 183851832581.jpg (8KB, 266x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 266x200px

>>8693205
>logic is the most valuable pursuit
>t. logic

>>8693210
>lol you're using logic to validate logic!!
>t. logic

It's impossible to go against logic, and there's nothing wrong with that, if anything it should be motivating to keep searching for answers, we need to find a way out of the CAN'T KNOW NUFFIN hole we've been stuck in for decades

>>8693205
>>8693228
I hear you my man. I think you might be dealing with the realization that just because something is logical, meaning it follows from given premises, does not necessarily mean it's true. Logic is a tool, not an end in of itself. Most of philosophy has been practiced by men who have reasoned their was to conclusions that were not anchored on something fixed or unchanging, but instead just utilize cursory readings or bias accounts of humanities shortcomings in order to justify their particular solution. It's a good idea to become versed in the sciences or math, like the great polymath philosophers, so you don't wind up thinking words are reality and predicates are causality.

>>8693205
> It's the most logical thing to live by instead of endlessly philosophically jerking each other?

Because its self refuting - take a look at the demise of the logical positivists

Google Hume and "is aught"

or just look at this poster >>8693331

>>8693205
>What is the flaw in pursuing knowledge and logic?
YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THIS.

>It's the most logical thing to live by instead of endlessly philosophically jerking each other?
YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THIS.

Philosophy is the tool that we use when logic or scientific theories fail.
Without philosophy all cognitive aspect of mankind (knowledge) would suffer and we
would definitely regress to the Dark Ages.

File: sartre_eyes_photoshoped.jpg (19KB, 340x327px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 340x327px

>>8693228
>It's impossible to go against logic

>>8693375
Isn't philosophy's purpose to find out what is real, and how we know it's real?

>>8693356
>The is–ought problem, as articulated by David Hume states that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is

On what basis do we assert the certainty of any claim? Is there no truth? And isn't saying a logical supposition is self refuting admitting the rules of logic as a necessary component of you arrived at that conclusion?

>>8693422
On what basis do we assert the certainty of any claim? Is there no truth? And isn't saying a logical supposition is self refuting admitting the rules of logic as a necessary component of you arrived at that conclusion?

It uses logic to reveal the limits of logic and demonstrates the impossibility of someone attempting to use is as a basis of the "ought" questions in life.

My point wasnt that logic itself is self refuting only that using it as some type of complete philosophy that answers all lifes problems ethical and otherwise as the OP suggest is.

File: 1472718536195.gif (262KB, 191x184px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 191x184px

>>8693394
>b-but it's possible to defy logic, reality doesn't have to make sense!
>t. logic

>>8693553
Not all mental things pertain to logic

And axioms and self-evident truths aren't achieved by deductive reasoning

>>8693356
>Google Hume and "is aught"
If an object IS in motion it AUGHT to stay in motion unless acted upon by another

>>8693553
>b-but it's possible to defy logic, reality doesn't have to make sense!

Reality alway makes sense (to itself), it is possible for a mind to defy logic and to not make sense.
t. madness/insanity/ignorance

>>8693579
Its the name of a philosophical argument anon not the argument itself

Its about the disconnect between positive statements and prescriptive ones.

>>8693602
I know, I thought I came up with an example that proves its motives wrong

Is ought thing really messed with Kant right, inspired him to make certain aspects of his philosophy, because Hume was pretty much saying science cannot be certain, because there is no proof the universe will not disappear tomorrow,

and/or is this is this aught more about morals and ethics?

>>8693593
Why do you defend the enemies of all art? "Madness", aka "Genius."

>If it were not for the Poetic or Prophetic character, the Philosophic & Experimental would soon be at the ratio of all things & stand still, unable to do other than repeat the same dull round over again.

>>8693205
how does one pursue logic? go ahead, explain to me.

>>8693632
>and/or is this is this aught more about morals and ethics?

Yes thats its focus, whilst hume looks into causation and empiricism heavily this particular argument is just on morality and ethics.

>I know, I thought I came up with an example that proves its motives wrong

From the Hume perspective (moving away from ethics) the example you made was not logical - Its only really logical to say that "if an object is in motion it is likely to to stay that way unless acted upon by another as that is what we tend to observe happening"

This is because he was a rather hardcore empiricist and as a consequnce rejected the existence of causation

>Is ought thing really messed with Kant right, inspired him to make certain aspects of his philosophy, because Hume was pretty much saying science cannot be certain, because there is no proof the universe will not disappear tomorrow,

I recall Kant saying it was the writings of Hume that woke him up from his philosophical slumber.

>>8693662
Something about minding your ps and qs

>>8693671
>"if an object is in motion it is likely to to stay that way unless acted upon by another as that is what we tend to observe happening"

Would would he be able to say about a hypothetical or theoretical statement as to why the object would not continue in motion?

I understand this is why kant started with the apriori transcendental stuff, dont know how hume responded to Kant.


>This is because he was a rather hardcore empiricist and as a consequnce rejected the existence of causation

How can empiricist reject causation, all empirical evidence points to overwhelming causation everywhere

Interesting about the is ought thing for sure, in terms of morals ethics. It comes down to the concept of ought. I am sure legal laws existed in humes time, would he suggest one ought follow them?

>>8693788
>Would would he be able to say about a hypothetical or theoretical statement as to why the object would not continue in motion?

Probably the same given his vews on empiricism though my Hume knowledge is quite rusty.


>How can empiricist reject causation, all empirical evidence points to overwhelming causation everywhere

Actually it doesn't, itself causation can never be observed itself only inferred. We see a series of events then create the causal relation in our mind.

Hence all causation is is a term we give for consistent correlation.

>Interesting about the is ought thing for sure, in terms of morals ethics. It comes down to the concept of ought. I am sure legal laws existed in humes time, would he suggest one ought follow them?

Probably given his political views. I think its important to note though that all his argument would do is defeat the notion that you should only obey laws because they are logically sound which is a very very small part of why people follow laws let alone impose them.

>>8693569
>>8693593

Inductive reasoning is part of logic

Any assertion or conclusion we make about reality or any aspect of existence will be done through logic -or reasoning, as you may prefer to call it-, regardless of language constructs, which also includes statements such as "not everything is logical"

We can empirically imagine a life without making any assertions, being driven purely by feelings and emotions, ignoring all evidence, being driven by madness, etc. Take into account, however, that you are making logical assertions about supposedly "illogical realities" through your own standpoint. It's a contradictory statement, like stating that truth is subjective as an objective fact. Once again, you can't go against reason; It's necessarily "universal", regardless if it's in the form of statements or languageless thought

Ultimately, reasoning is based on empirical observations, which isn't a bad thing, and contrary to what many irrational subjectivists think, it doesn't invalidate the truths we can get to. You are perceiving yourself to exist, and while you -for whatever retarded reason- may assert that you actually aren't, such assertion doesn't hold any truth according to your own experience. It's thanks to a careful analysis of empirical reality that we can define axioms and laws of logic in the form of language: our reasoning is not arbitrary. If our current society is able to discuss about the nature of truth, subjectivity and relativism, it's because an objective basis needs to exist and allow such discussions to take place.

The only thing this proves is that language is not the ideal way to explain the nature of "reality", neither to assert that logic is universal nor to assert that it isn't or it may not be (circular logic was used to reach both conclusions, just like the one I'm writing right now). What kind of explanation needs to be found is another topic, however to avoid dangerous relativistic points of view we can't give up on logic as we currently understand and define it, as this understanding is much more useful than adopting a relativistic point of view

>>8693331
Science and maths are for hack philosophers.

>>8693887
I use percepts not concepts thanks. I don't know who you mean by we but it certainly does not include me.

>>8693887
So being illogical is possible?

Or being illogical still occurs via logic?

>>8693827
>causation can never be observed itself only inferred
The anomaly of human perception is that they DO observe causation itself. The experience of one moving the fingers of their hand contains a direct measurement the acting force.

And the is-ought problem only applies for creating a direction from logic, and not applying logic to a direction. It's an argument against starting from nothing, but we already start from something.

>>8693579
>If an object IS in motion it AUGHT to stay in motion unless acted upon by another
Newton's Laws and other laws of physics are based on observations and are not proven in the mathematical sense. There is no logical evidence for why inertia, energy, or matter must be conserved just empirical evidence which supports the idea.

Hume would say that just because an object is in motion does not mean it will stay in motion within the context of our current laws but that there is probably some proof that exists which we do not know yet.

>>8696255
An object in motion stays in motion unless acted on by something that is not it, should be apriori true,

In an absolutely pure nothingness vacuum, though there is the chance an aether of some sort exists which makes the true concept a but sketchy for out potential universe, even though there is great empirical evidence that objects in motion stay in motion; a la the sun, the earth, the moon, a marble rolling down a slope a thrown ball (in motion until gravity forces them not) etc.

A priori, if you can conceive of the concept of an object/mass/body, and you can conceive of the concept of pure absolute nothing (dont give me weak troubles with that, like some psueds tend to do), and you can conceive of the concept of motion;

there is no concept you can conceive of that would allow you to propose that an object put into motion amidst absolute pure nothing, would stop (unless interacting with something else)

Did Hume also have a problem with the statement; energy cannot be created or destroyed?

there is logic behind conservation laws, whether or not this universe is fundamental reality, fundamental reality cannot help but be physical logic

the logic behind conservation laws is: if there was only nothing, there could not be something. If there is something, there can never be purely nothing.

File: 2817_2y010_2817_1.jpg (20KB, 430x600px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 430x600px

>logic

>>8693887
>You can't make an illogical statement
a=b, b=c, a=/=c.

>>8693205
It's the way of the low T beta faggot

>>8697007
Try, just try to make a statement that follows no logic or reasoning of any type.

>>8697118
Is existing a statement?

>>8697122
No.

>>8697007
Then the binary relation = simply lacks transitivity
what is your point?

>>8697522
Man A: Man B is lying
Man B: Man A is lying

>>8698670
You're making "true" statements to state your paradox. You're still using logic to go against it.