Why is logic correct thinking? Not pic related

Logic is 'correct' within the logical framework you're working in

If you change frameworks your old logic might not be correct anymore

>>9021350
So logic is correct if we assume that certain assumptions are correct? If we assume some of them are not correct then logic is not correct, or we need new logic?

>>9021361
Those are called axioms. Those things when we cannot deconstruct anymore and come to what we must accept as truths.

They are like the atoms of logic and reasoning.

File: 1477379657016.jpg.jpg (230KB, 1007x548px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1007x548px

Using purely logic to make decisions leads to interesting outcomes. For example, if you have a change to steal money from someone without getting caught, then of course you should do it, because the money will benefit you.

>>9023873
Your logic is faulty, it may benefit your wallet, but it will cost your soul.

>>9022504
How is this any different from a religious statement of faith?

>>9025204
its not!
:)

>>9025310
If so, is pragmatism the ultimate standard of philosophical and scientific thinking? Our models of the universe may not be 100% correct, but they are correct enough that they help us to do what we want to, same thing with religions. Religions may not be 100% correct, but they are correct enough to help people live lives of flourishment?
If that is the case, does ultimate reality exist and we approach truth asymptotically, or are you all just a figment of my imagination?

because it's useful?

>>9025327
Theres not really a satisfying answer i can give you to this question.

Some people chose to believe there's a reality out there and were interpreting it and even if there's not your/my subconscious seems to be telling you/me that progress really only gets made when we make the former assumption.


Although i think there are cogent arguments to be made against solipsism.

>>9025345
Meh, I guess I'll leave it at
> assuming that there is actually a mind independent reality is useful
and call it a day. Attempting to act out the opposite assumption would be disastrous. Do you really want to try to prove that the universe is really just in your imagination by stepping off the building of a roof? If you say no, you are implicitly admitting that while solipsism may be philosophically interesting, it fails the test for 'being able to be lived out'

>>9025400
thats really the obvious conclusion, isnt it?

>>9021345
Logic exposes inconsistency. Without logic, we'd all be christians and flat-earthers.

>>9025405
Yeah. After going down the skepticism rabbit hole, my conclusion was: Okay, you can make lots of really interesting philosophical arguments for all kinds of things, but unless there is a sufficiently compelling reason (exact requirements tbd) to entertain those theories, I'm just going to go with what works. I no longer believe in certainty, which is interesting I guess, and I am much more willing to entertain different points of view, unless the person is irritating me or w/e.
I still value consistency, because it seems to be much more helpful for simplifying the world enough to navigate in it. I don't expect trucks on the road to spontaneously blink out of existence, even though a tiny corner of my brain wags its finger and says I can't assume that with absolute certainty, but I mostly just tell that part of my brain to shut up and leave me alone. It makes it very hard to listen to debates though, because I don't really believe anyone or anything. Do you have any solutions to this?

>>9021345
Correct thinking is determined by natural selection only.

>>9025460
I mean, Theres not really a "solution" to a philosophical framework.

you could read about other philosophers and see how they felt and that might help.

>>9025481
Yeah, that seems to not get me very far. Oh well. My working model of the world is based around the question of: 'what assumptions are necessary to make in order to maximize iterable human flourishment?' which i tell myself is different than utilitarianism because it doesn't take happiness as the end goal and I'm trying to integrate meaningfulness/thriving as factors. It seems to work okay. Trying to narrow in on what presuppositions and assumptions underlie science has been really interesting, same with history/psychology/religion etc.
My list of fundamental assumptions borrows quite heavily from the book "Philosophy is Bullshit" as well as the Critical Realism framework of Roy Bhaskar. I borrowed some of my epistemology from Keith Lehrer, but I've been casting about for ideas in ontology and metaphysics without much luck. My ethics and aesthetics are mostly inspired by classical/Thomistic though because I'm a romantic, although Jordan Peterson has certainly made an impression upon me. What assumptions do you make about the world, anon-kun?

>>9023876
SPOOKED
P
O
O
K
E
D