[Sivad]

If a given mode of production has its own decline and destruction built into it, and it can be logically and rationally demonstrated that it has, then it is entirely logical and rational to condemn it and propose that we establish a different mode of production.

If by "condemn" you mean predicted its decline and failure, then I guess, but that's a strange way of putting it. Logic simply analyzes, it doesn't condemn. Condemnation requires a moral sentiment or at least a personal value judgement.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I prefer to be called an "idealistic cynic". Or a "cynical idealist", whichever you prefer.

So a happy cynic.

Yes.

Hmmm.

Well then, that being the case, would you be willing to debate this in future? (After I am done with Saeko)

I can hardly think of a person I would rather debate on the "other side" of the ideological spectrum.

A gentleman's duel done at a leisurely scotch-sipping pace.

I will argue that my moral-political system of theonomic anarcho-capitalism can be demonstrated as logical and rational from certain axioms and a few simple syllogisms [and therefore that it ought to be believed as universal and objective]

We can discuss terms and definitions at a later date (I think a similar format to the one I am doing with Saeko will suffice).

What says you old chap?

Do you accept the challenge?

[Albert]

@Potemkin Btw, is not 2+2=5 is not an example of logic. Logic is that A+B=C. Logic does not bring about an answer it is a structure that we us to process information. 5 in the end is just symbol and we give it the meaning of 5. Just throwing it out there.

So the only way we can force this on a society at large if we redefine the meaning of the symbol 5 to mean four.

[Victoribus Spolia]

For example people thought the earth is the centre of the universe before. It was a logical argument that they had used to support this claim, like the sun moves around the earth, one just have to look out of their window. Or if the earth moved around the sun, would not the clouds fly off? These are logical concussions but as we now know are are not true.

No, that is not a good example either because in that case the premises were invalid. (If we assume heliocentrism of course).

So in conclusion more is needed then just logic to arrive to truth.

Because your premises were false, your conclusion does not follow.

That is how logic works.

is not 2+2=5 is not an example of logic. Logic is that A+B=C. Logic does not bring about an answer it is a structure that we us to process information. 5 in the end is just symbol and we give it a meaning of 5. Just throwing it out there.

No, logic is not just a structure, it is laws. numerals represent actual fixed identities that cannot be violated in a contradictory fashion, the consistent computation of numerals is math, but the assumption of their identity goes back to the laws of logic, as with anything else.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin Btw, is not 2+2=5 is not an example of logic. Logic is that A+B=C. Logic does not bring about an answer it is a structure that we us to process information. 5 in the end is just symbol and we give it a meaning of 5. Just throwing it out there.

So the only way we can force this on a society at large if we redefine the meaning of the symbol 5 to mean four.

In the context of Notes From Underground (as a Russian, you've read it, right? Right?), it is obvious that Dostoyevsky is challenging the basic principles of logic itself, not just the interpretations we happen to give the symbols manipulated by the rules of logic.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Potemkin,

What says you old chap?

Do you accept the challenge?

[Albert]

In the context of Notes From Underground (as a Russian, you've read it, right? Right?), it is obvious that Dostoevsky is challenging the basic principles of logic itself, not just the interpretations we happen to give the symbols manipulated by the rules of logic.

No I've never read it, Dostoevsky is such a depressing read. I'm not a real Russian. *Weeps*

But as far as I understand Dostoevsky was trying to show us how we are irrelevant to the rules of nature, that even if we wish 2+2 would = 5, it nevertheless will always equal 4. We are all bound by this regardless of our desires.

[B0ycey]

No, logic is not just a structure, it is laws. numerals represent actual fixed identities that cannot be violated in a contradictory fashion, the consistent computation of numerals is math, but the assumption of their identity goes back to the laws of logic, as with anything else.

actually VS, logic is ideals of reasoning. But a conclusion can alter depending on reasoning so not fixed like a law.

For example, what is more logical? To save one life of a child or to save three lives of middle aged adults? It is logical to save the infant as they have more years to live but it is also logical to save the most lives by saving the adults. Only reasoning differs.

[Victoribus Spolia]

To save one life of a child or to save three lives of middle aged adults? It is logical to save the infant as they have more years to live but it is also logical save more lives by saving the adults. Only reasoning differs.

You have not given me a syllogistic basis for valuing life at all to begin with, so how could I say either way?

This is the same problem Albert and OneDegree are having. You are conflating "reasonable actions" based on what might be viewed as "common-sense" with logic.

You have presented no syllogism for me to interact with, so I don't really know what you are talking about.

As far as logical laws, the three laws of logic are identity, non-contradiction, and the excluded-middle.

So yes, logic absolutely has to do with fixed laws.

If you don't know what logic is, just say so, don't wield the terms like a child who found his father's pistol without realizing the implications of such a naive usage.

Logic refers to its laws and the inferring of conclusions from valid premises without fallacy (which is itself governed by certain laws regarding inference and structure).

Logic is also either axiomatic or transcendental in that it is not proven, but is the basis of all-proving-itself and also serves as a necessary precondition for human intelligibility.

[Potemkin]

No I've never read it, Dostoevsky is such a depressing read. I'm not a real Russian. *Weeps*

But as far as I understand Dostoevsky was trying to show us how we are irrelevant to the rules of nature, that even if we wish 2+2 would = 5, it nevertheless will always equal 4. We are all bound by this regardless of our desires.

Shameful, Albert, just shameful. Go away and read Notes From Underground, then come back here.

[B0ycey]

If you don't know what logic is...

I could say the same thing actually. Logic is by definition 'principles of validity' not fixed laws btw. Principles are determined by reasoning. After all are your principles anything like mine?

Btw, my example showed you that logic is not fixed as either choice is logically correct depending on reasoning. If you cannot see that then it is you who suffers from logic deficiency.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I could say the same thing actually. Logic is by definition 'principles of validity' not fixed laws btw. Principles are determined by reasoning. After all are your principles anything like mine?

Oh good, then please explain by what reasoning the law of identity was derived that was more basic than identity itself.

my example showed you that logic is not fixed as either choice is logically correct depending on reasoning.

No, neither choice is logically correct or not-correct as no proposition was given regarding human life that could be evaluated as true or false.

your "dilemma" assumes what has yet to be proven (that life is valuable at all).

If you cannot see that then it is you who suffers from logic deficiency.

Okay. Sure.

[Albert]

Shameful, Albert, just shameful. Go away and read Notes From Underground, then come back here.

Okay.... *cries more*

[B0ycey]

No, neither choice is logically correct or not-correct as no proposition was given regarding human life that could be evaluated as true or false.

your "dilemma" assumes what has yet to be proven (that life is valuable at all).

My example was solely to explain that logic is not fixed. Not to show the value of life (which is, as shown in this thread, debatable). Whether it is is logically to save whatever life (or to actually save no life) all depends on the reasoning used to reach a conclusion. If you don't consider life worthy to be saved, it would be logical to save no life wouldn't it? That is after all sociopathic behaviour.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Potemkin,

via Imgflip Meme Generator

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[Victoribus Spolia]

My example was solely to explain that logic is not fixed.

I don't see how that accomplishes your goal.....Like at all.

Whether it is is logically to save whatever life (or to actually save no life) all depends on the reasoning used to reach a conclusion.

Agreed.

If you don't consider life worthy to be saved, it would be logical to save no life wouldn't it?

Correct.

That is after all sociopathic behaviour.

Which would mean that everyone who has disagreed with me on this thread so far is a potential sociopath.

[Albert]

@Victoribus Spolia

As far as I understand logic is like this.

1) I will walk to the store, go inside, therefore I can steal something there.

2) I will walk to the store, go inside, therefore I can buy something there.

Both of these statements have two premises and a conclusion, thus logical (A then B = C), yet the meaning or outcome of either conclusions differs. Therefore morality is not related to logic. Hence bad people can be logical and coherent, yet immoral and destructive.

[B0ycey]

I don't see how that accomplishes your goal.....Like at all.

I don't have a goal, just pointing out you were wrong. If logic was based on laws, then everyone would reach the same conclusions - as in maths. But by the fact you can reach different logical conclusions using the exact same scenario means logic is not fixed.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin,

via Imgflip Meme Generator

via Imgflip Meme Generator

I wanted to make you beg three times, VS. Now I am content.

I accept your kind invitation.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Victoribus Spolia

As far as I understand logic is like this.

1) I will walk to the store, go inside, therefore I can steal something there.

2) I will walk to the store, go inside, therefore I can buy something there.

Both of these statements have a two premises and a conclusion, thus logical (A then B = C), yet the meaning or outcome of either conclusions differs.

NO. Just No.

Here is an example of propositional form.

Premise One: All men are mortal.

Premise Two: Socrates is a man.

Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

The conclusion follows from the premises and there is no possible world where this conclusion would not follow from the premises.

these premises and the conclusion follow strict rules on their form.

They all must have a subject, an object, and a copula and typically will also have the modifiers All, None, Some, etc.

1 and 2 could each be made into there own separate syllogism with separate conclusions.

I don't have a goal, just pointing out you were wrong. If logic was based on laws, then everyone would reach the same conclusions - as in maths. But by the fact you can reach different logical conclusions using the exact same scenario means logic is not fixed.

What?

That is a non-sequitur, just because people disagree as to the nature of something it does not mean that the thing on which they disagree doesn't exist (in the case, logic as fixed-law-having).

POD made this same error earlier. So no, I am not incorrect.

Furthermore, logic being fixed has nothing to do with everyone using it improperly.

Your example gives a scenario without a controlling proposition, however, if there were a fixed moral definition based on reason, one of the two options would be correct and the other false regardless of how people acted.

You cannot reach different and contrary conclusions from the same valid premises without fallacy or error.

If you disagree, then please show me how the opposite conclusion could be inferred from the syllogism I just wrote above in address to Albert.