Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 112

Thread: Absolute Logic

  1. #81
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    04-15-18 @ 03:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,789
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Logic cannot function without premises. All premises in moral reasoning are based on emotion.

  2. #82
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    05-17-18 @ 10:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    30,560

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Zawisza View Post
    Assuming you're correct, what's unhealthy about it? If there's no life after death, religious people cease existing before they ever find out that the strong beliefs they've held their entire lives happen to be a complete sham. While they're alive, they get to look forward to the most awesome party they've ever attended after they die. I don't see the problem.
    You don't think living a lie is a problem? Spending your life on your knees, wishing that some imaginary friend would make your life better, rather than getting on your feet and actually doing something about it? Throwing money at a church that wastes it rather than doing something useful with it? Wasting time sitting in a pew when you can be doing something productive? You don't see anything wrong with that?

    Sorry, I do.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! SpkOut me!

  3. #83
    A Man Without A Country
    Mr. Invisible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,987
    Blog Entries
    71

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    There is logic, emotion, "right", "wrong", and every other preconcieved notion out there.

    I am posting an ordeal where one chooses between absolute logic and emotion. Stick to the story, make your choice, and explain why.
    _

    Let us say you and your mother were lost in the frozen barren woods. You had kindling, a lighter, a knife, rocks, and little hope. Your mother was slowly succumbing to the atmosphere and neither of you had food. (Here we go) Would you kill your mother and survie through cannibalism because absolute logic dictates that you must do so to survive? Or would you let her be because you love her and would rather starve?

    _

    That is all. I'm trying to illuminate why absolute logic cares not for morality or emotions. I am showing why emotions are an important and credible aspect in argumentation. There is no other alternatives in this story. It must be a hard choice with deep reasons.

    What are your thoughts and, more importantly, what would you do?
    I would let my mother be. Period.

    Edit:

    @ Wake: What would you do in the situation you mentioned? (If this was already addressed, cam someone please PM me the link as I don't feel like going through the thread. Thank you )
    Last edited by Mr. Invisible; 04-28-11 at 10:45 AM.
    "And in the end, we were all just humans, drunk on the idea that love, only love, could heal our brokenness."

  4. #84
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,964

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    Logic cannot function without premises. All premises in moral reasoning are based on emotion.
    Which was the point I was making, in that, the premise is an ethical question. I am yet to see an ethical question reasoned for truth by using pure logic?


    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  5. #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    09-29-11 @ 10:32 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,671

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I won't disagree that there are good reasons for dietary restrictions, I'm saying that inventing a foolish reason for it is, likewise, foolish. Be honest about your reasons, there's no need to pretend there's a god.
    bitchen.... this is something we can get our teeth into... i started a response and decided that, having found i had managed to wedge my head up my ass, i had better take a walk and ruminate a bit... ihave no doubt that you would have caught the logical flaws in the first attempt AND the double-talk gobbledygook in the second... the idea needs a trifle more marinating... (i seem to have picked up a gustatory metaphorical tic... ).

    geo.

  6. #86
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    09-29-11 @ 10:32 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,671

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    Logic cannot function without premises. All premises in moral reasoning are based on emotion.
    good start. now, you wanna try to show that with a reasoned argument? or... is that simply a personal belief?

    geo.

  7. #87
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    05-17-18 @ 10:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    30,560

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Patric View Post
    bitchen.... this is something we can get our teeth into... i started a response and decided that, having found i had managed to wedge my head up my ass, i had better take a walk and ruminate a bit... ihave no doubt that you would have caught the logical flaws in the first attempt AND the double-talk gobbledygook in the second... the idea needs a trifle more marinating... (i seem to have picked up a gustatory metaphorical tic... ).
    No problem, take your time. I was just thinking that, while there was a time where humans were pretty ignorant and illogical, back in the days when most of these dietary restrictions were originally made, today there's just no excuse for attributing their efficacy to a deity, nor should we take the ignorance of the past as a sign that it was a good idea back then to use gods as excuses for otherwise good ideas. While yes, they didn't know any better then, we certainly do today, we ought to be able to dismiss their ignorant conclusions and come up with a better idea now.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! SpkOut me!

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    09-29-11 @ 10:32 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,671

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Religion [is] based on wishful thinking.
    no, i do not think that it is. further, i don't think you have given the matter as much thought as it deserves.
    there are good reasons for dietary restrictions [but] inventing a foolish reason for it is, likewise, foolish..
    Ok.... TWO walks and two cigarettes... let's try again.

    the problem i was having had to do with NOT having the argument dismissed as 'arguing semantics" (it is pretty hard to argue without employing semantics, of course). truer, perhaps, is that our difficulty may revolve around a 'lexical' inspecificity.

    we use the term rational in a number of ways. shall we dismiss the "crazy" usage for the purpose of this discussion? (i'll allow as to using it that way with the folks that think Climate Change is a conspiracy by the world's scientists).

    that aside, "rational" means based on reason. with this very simple definition, it would seem impossible to derive rational behavior from irrational cause. but the fact is, MOST of what we do is NOT based on reason, or at least, not based on OUR reasonings.

    if you shower and brush your teeth each day, no one is gonna call that "irrational", but YOU never reasoned out the benefits of doing so - the probability is great that, though someone once reasoned it out, you acquired the behavior at a time when you could not have reasoned the benefits of doing it. you inherited a rational behavior. Here, and in most of the instances in which we use the term, "rational" means "in accord with reason".

    and the truth is, that since we do not figure out all or even most of the good reasons for all the good things that we do, we not only do not question the methods of acquisition, we are inclined to value those methods over reason. they are a lot easier, for one thing.

    for these reasons, i would argue that it would be irrational to criticize the methods of learning them as "irrational". i would argue that a behavior that is in accord with reason is rational even if the methods for acquiring the behavior was not.

    not taking by force those things which belong to another IS rational, whether you see it as a matter of maintaining social harmony or as a proscription from God.

    Hebrew dietary laws WERE rational, though they were not reasoned out as we would.. they had no accumulation of data regarding microbial infections.

    they DID have a knowledge that eating such foods had a greater liklihood of making the eater sick than did other foods. We tend to think that Newton invented the notion of cause and effect. ridiculous of course - such understanding in innate. to ascribe unknown cause to an unknown entity is, in fact, perfectly rational.

    our issue today, is that we KNOW the causes of most of those things which early peoples acribed to deities. that modern people continue to ascribe them to deities is irrational.

    but reason is valuable for a reason. no reason determined it, it is valuable as a matter of mere (evolutionary, physical) mechanics - it is good because it works.

    irrational behavior that does not counter "good" is value neutral. irrational behavior that nonetheless produces "good" is still good... could be better, possibly, but still "good".

    only irrational behavior that produces harm is subject to criticism by rational people. (again, what one thinks or believes is meaningless unless it take the form of action that affects others).

    criticizing a religion (qua that religion) is irrational. criticizing religious practice that produces good behavior is irrational. criticizing religious practices that produce harmful behavior is rational and moral. Criticizing Religion (capital "R" - as a social force, a political force) IS rational if we can conclude (as i frequently do) that is is detrimental to the rest of us.

    Criticizing a Roman Catholic for kneeling before a plaster statue... is not rational in my view. Criticizing a Roman Catholic adherent for attempting to impose his nonreasoned religious conclusions as policy for others is perfectly rational.

  9. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 11:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    Logic cannot function without premises. All premises in moral reasoning are based on emotion.
    How do we know this for sure?

  10. #90
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 11:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Patric View Post
    no, i do not think that it is. further, i don't think you have given the matter as much thought as it deserves.


    Ok.... TWO walks and two cigarettes... let's try again.

    the problem i was having had to do with NOT having the argument dismissed as 'arguing semantics" (it is pretty hard to argue without employing semantics, of course). truer, perhaps, is that our difficulty may revolve around a 'lexical' inspecificity.

    we use the term rational in a number of ways. shall we dismiss the "crazy" usage for the purpose of this discussion? (i'll allow as to using it that way with the folks that think Climate Change is a conspiracy by the world's scientists).

    that aside, "rational" means based on reason. with this very simple definition, it would seem impossible to derive rational behavior from irrational cause. but the fact is, MOST of what we do is NOT based on reason, or at least, not based on OUR reasonings.

    if you shower and brush your teeth each day, no one is gonna call that "irrational", but YOU never reasoned out the benefits of doing so - the probability is great that, though someone once reasoned it out, you acquired the behavior at a time when you could not have reasoned the benefits of doing it. you inherited a rational behavior. Here, and in most of the instances in which we use the term, "rational" means "in accord with reason".

    and the truth is, that since we do not figure out all or even most of the good reasons for all the good things that we do, we not only do not question the methods of acquisition, we are inclined to value those methods over reason. they are a lot easier, for one thing.

    for these reasons, i would argue that it would be irrational to criticize the methods of learning them as "irrational". i would argue that a behavior that is in accord with reason is rational even if the methods for acquiring the behavior was not.

    not taking by force those things which belong to another IS rational, whether you see it as a matter of maintaining social harmony or as a proscription from God.

    Hebrew dietary laws WERE rational, though they were not reasoned out as we would.. they had no accumulation of data regarding microbial infections.

    they DID have a knowledge that eating such foods had a greater liklihood of making the eater sick than did other foods. We tend to think that Newton invented the notion of cause and effect. ridiculous of course - such understanding in innate. to ascribe unknown cause to an unknown entity is, in fact, perfectly rational.

    our issue today, is that we KNOW the causes of most of those things which early peoples acribed to deities. that modern people continue to ascribe them to deities is irrational.

    but reason is valuable for a reason. no reason determined it, it is valuable as a matter of mere (evolutionary, physical) mechanics - it is good because it works.

    irrational behavior that does not counter "good" is value neutral. irrational behavior that nonetheless produces "good" is still good... could be better, possibly, but still "good".

    only irrational behavior that produces harm is subject to criticism by rational people. (again, what one thinks or believes is meaningless unless it take the form of action that affects others).

    criticizing a religion (qua that religion) is irrational. criticizing religious practice that produces good behavior is irrational. criticizing religious practices that produce harmful behavior is rational and moral. Criticizing Religion (capital "R" - as a social force, a political force) IS rational if we can conclude (as i frequently do) that is is detrimental to the rest of us.

    Criticizing a Roman Catholic for kneeling before a plaster statue... is not rational in my view. Criticizing a Roman Catholic adherent for attempting to impose his nonreasoned religious conclusions as policy for others is perfectly rational.
    How are you sure that your beliefs are correct?

    How can we logically talk about irrational behavior if we can't even know for surt what sanity, art, and normality are?

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •