What is Logic?
- Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
What is Logic?
Logic is simply the act of identifying, or concluding what the causes are of a particular phenomena.
The particular phenomenon in question might be the 'mortality of Socrates'
There are innumerable factors causing Socrates mortality, but just to name one, Socrates mortality is caused by being a man.
Sound about right?
The particular phenomenon in question might be the 'mortality of Socrates'
There are innumerable factors causing Socrates mortality, but just to name one, Socrates mortality is caused by being a man.
Sound about right?
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: What is Logic?
How is mathematics different from logic? Is it, as has often been said, the language of logic? Why are ontological arguments not reducible to set theory? And how can recent (last 100 - 150 years) developments in set theory, especially pertaining to infinite sets, not have an impact on naturalistic philosphy?
- Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: What is Logic?
Do you agree with my definition of logic above?brokenhead wrote:How is mathematics different from logic?
An 'answer' in mathematics is a particular phenomena, and the particulars comprising the equation leading up to the answer are simply the causes of that phenomena.
Re: What is Logic?
Reason, of which logic is the formal study, is founded upon a ‘first principle’: the Principle of Identity, and its corollaries, the Principle of Contradiction and the Principle of Excluded Middle: the “Three Laws of Thoughtâ€. It is because of these laws that we are able to ascertain the causes of an event, and develop a logic.
- Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: What is Logic?
Indeed. Logic is about necessary or defined relation.
- Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: What is Logic?
I agree with this, but I would add: to think philosophically about ascertaining the causes of an event, is to become conscious of how logic has involuntarily developed.Jehu wrote:Reason, of which logic is the formal study, is founded upon a ‘first principle’: the Principle of Identity, and its corollaries, the Principle of Contradiction and the Principle of Excluded Middle: the “Three Laws of Thoughtâ€. It is because of these laws that we are able to ascertain the causes of an event, and develop a logic.
Re: What is Logic?
Interesting view, in that case, causality should be logically consistent. Let’s put it to the test.
Just as a effect cannot arise without a cause, nether can there be a cause without that it has an effect; for what then would it be the cause of, and how would it differed from that which is not a cause? Consequently, it may be asserted that a cause and its effect are interdependent and complementary aspects of an occurrence, and that neither can exist independent of or antecedent to the other; and therefore, a cause cannot precede it effect.
Is this logically consistent?
Just as a effect cannot arise without a cause, nether can there be a cause without that it has an effect; for what then would it be the cause of, and how would it differed from that which is not a cause? Consequently, it may be asserted that a cause and its effect are interdependent and complementary aspects of an occurrence, and that neither can exist independent of or antecedent to the other; and therefore, a cause cannot precede it effect.
Is this logically consistent?
-
- Posts: 2271
- Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:51 am
- Location: Boise
Re: What is Logic?
From the Wiktionary:
A method of human thought that involves thinking in a linear, step-by-step manner about how a problem can be solved.
- Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: What is Logic?
Firstly, I fixed what I thought was a grammatical error. Let me know if I changed the intended meaning.Jehu wrote:Interesting view, in that case, causality should be logically consistent. Let’s put it to the test.
Just as an effect cannot arise without a cause, nether can there be a cause without that [which is] an effect;
Secondly, I agree that there cannot be a cause without an effect.
Not very sure what you mean here, but in an effort to find common ground I'll say:for what then would it be the cause of, and how would it differ from that which is not a cause?
A cause or an effect is entirely relative. From one perspective, we may regard seed as an effect of fruit. From another perspective, the seed is a cause of fruit.
Again, not too sure what you mean, but to find common ground, I'll say: an occurrence is not in anyway apart from 'cause and effect'.Consequently, it may be asserted that a cause and its effect are interdependent and complementary aspects of an occurrence
And a cause is in no way existing independently apart from an effect, and vice versa. If you remove the effect, you remove the cause (and vice versa).
On a practical level, it's reasonable to to regard birth as antecedent to death, or youth antecedent to old age.neither (cause and effect) can exist independent of or antecedent to the other; and therefore, a cause cannot precede [an] effect.
Is this logically consistent?
However, from an absolute perspective, the past and future are part of an undivided continuum beyond time, and so it's correct to say that the past and future are actually one - that 'occurence' as well as 'creation' are illusions.
Re: What is Logic?
Now, given that everything has a beginning, and so is an effect, would it not be reasonable to say that its causes must be continuously present, so long as the thing (effect) persists?
Re: What is Logic?
I can agree with the former, which might not necessarily involve defining, but wouldn’t the later involve defining as well as conscious reasoning?Cory Duchesne wrote:Logic is simply the act of identifying, or concluding what the causes are of a particular phenomena.
Sound about right?
---------
- divine focus
- Posts: 611
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 1:48 pm
Re: What is Logic?
I like it!Jehu wrote:Now, given that everything has a beginning, and so is an effect, would it not be reasonable to say that its causes must be continuously present, so long as the thing (effect) persists?
eliasforum.org/digests.html
- Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: What is Logic?
That sounds about right.Jehu wrote:Now, given that everything has a beginning, and so is an effect, would it not be reasonable to say that its causes must be continuously present, so long as the thing (effect) persists?
- Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: What is Logic?
I think defining would necessitate concluding what the causes are of the particular phenomena we are seeking to define. In other words, logic, as I've defined it, is the precursor to defining.Sapius wrote:I can agree with the former, which might not necessarily involve defining, but wouldn’t the later involve defining as well as conscious reasoning?Cory Duchesne wrote:Logic is simply the act of identifying, or concluding what the causes are of a particular phenomena.
Sound about right?
Re: What is Logic?
Not in the least.Cory Duchesne wrote:Logic is simply the act of identifying, or concluding what the causes are of a particular phenomena.
The particular phenomenon in question might be the 'mortality of Socrates'
There are innumerable factors causing Socrates mortality, but just to name one, Socrates mortality is caused by being a man.
Sound about right?
Could you grant some credence to the last few millenia of thinkers and start from existing
definitions before introducing your own conflated confabulations?
Re: What is Logic?
Good! Now an entity, as apposed to a quality or relation, must be constituted in one of two ways: either it must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes, or it must be dependent upon extrinsic causes for its being; there being no intermediate alternative [law of excluded middle]. Is this correct to say?
Re: What is Logic?
No this is pure nonsense. The english dictionary does not logically define reality.Jehu wrote:Good! Now an entity, as apposed to a quality or relation, must be constituted in one of two ways: either it must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes, or it must be dependent upon extrinsic causes for its being; there being no intermediate alternative [law of excluded middle]. Is this correct to say?
Re: What is Logic?
I am not sure that it is the function of a dictionary to ‘logically’ define any term, but merely to provide a compendium of conventionally prescribed meanings. Nevertheless, here are some definitions which I have drawn from my current Oxford English Dictionary, just so that you do no suppose that I am creating my own meanings.Neil Melnyk wrote:No this is pure nonsense. The english dictionary does not logically define reality.Jehu wrote:Good! Now an entity, as apposed to a quality or relation, must be constituted in one of two ways: either it must be possessed of its own intrinsic causes, or it must be dependent upon extrinsic causes for its being; there being no intermediate alternative [law of excluded middle]. Is this correct to say?
“reality - 1 what exists or is real, that which underlies the appearance of things.â€
“real – 8 Philos. having an absolute and necessary and not merely contingent existence.â€
“absolute – 2a Philos. that which can exist without being related to anything else.â€
I think you will find that I have employed no term in such a way as to be in conflict with the conventionally prescribed or philosophical meaning. As far my statements being ‘nonsense’, I will take that to mean that you do not understand what I have said.
Re: What is Logic?
Cory Duchesne,
I just reread your quote and I know what you meant. However, when you say that the past and future are like one, then it gives me the impression that they are complete, even though things are constantly changing. It's like a whole, that hasn't taken place yet (but will...). One could say that a "moment" doesn't exist, yet it does in that moment.
Another thing, cause and effect aren't separate they are just there (like time) to break up the flow of nature into parts that we can understand.
Logic is an abstract tool that was developed to understand causation.Logic is simply the act of identifying, or concluding what the causes are of a particular phenomena.
Wasn't this guy killed by drinking poison? (Hemlock?) So, I guess it wasn't because he was a man and dying of old age, but because he ingested poison. The poison killed him, not because he was a man, but because he ingested it and it wasn't agreeable with his biology. It was toxic for his body and he died because of the negative (yet perfect cause and effect) reactions happening between his chemistry and the chemistry of the poison. He died because he was a man who died from ingesting poison. Get it? He didn't die because he was a man, but because he drank poison and was a man.There are innumerable factors causing Socrates mortality, but just to name one, Socrates mortality is caused by being a man.
The will of man is caused.I agree with this, but I would add: to think philosophically about ascertaining the causes of an event, is to become conscious of how logic has involuntarily developed.I agree with this, but I would add: to think philosophically about ascertaining the causes of an event, is to become conscious of how logic has involuntarily developed.Jehu wrote:Reason, of which logic is the formal study, is founded upon a ‘first principle’: the Principle of Identity, and its corollaries, the Principle of Contradiction and the Principle of Excluded Middle: the “Three Laws of Thoughtâ€. It is because of these laws that we are able to ascertain the causes of an event, and develop a logic.
There's nothing beyond time, when time is defined as a measure of change. So, time must exist inorder for there to be change. Time was always there and it was only understood by man. It wasn't developed, a sense of time and the name "time" was developed. Time is like the vibrations which cause sound, if there's no ear present, then there is no sound. And if there was no man, then there wouldn't be a measure for change, yet there still would be change, so the possibility of time would always exist and be present...waiting...for someone to uncover it.However, from an absolute perspective, the past and future are part of an undivided continuum beyond time, and so it's correct to say that the past and future are actually one - that 'occurrence' as well as 'creation' are illusions.
I just reread your quote and I know what you meant. However, when you say that the past and future are like one, then it gives me the impression that they are complete, even though things are constantly changing. It's like a whole, that hasn't taken place yet (but will...). One could say that a "moment" doesn't exist, yet it does in that moment.
Another thing, cause and effect aren't separate they are just there (like time) to break up the flow of nature into parts that we can understand.
Re: What is Logic?
Time is like logic, it was there all along waiting for us to discover it.
Re: What is Logic?
Why can’t there simply be causally interactive parts, and that itself be the nature of nature? For “nature†to break up something, it has to necessarily be what that thing is not, so it then would have to be a “part†itself. I don’t consider “nature†something apart from things, so I find it illogical to say “nature†breaks-up any thing at all; it already is, has always been, just like ‘change’, which I gather you already know.sagerage wrote:Another thing, cause and effect aren't separate they are just there (like time) to break up the flow of nature into parts that we can understand.
---------
Re: What is Logic?
Sapius, I think you misunderstood what I meant: cause and effect don't exist separate from nature (nature being like an infinite (too many too understand at this point) amount of interconnected causes and effects. Each effect is the others cause and each cause is anothers effect and there's an infinite amount of these connections). However, there are no boundaries between a cause and an effect and it's not linear or like a web diagram (with causes and effects). This cause and effect is like time, it exists in our minds, so that we can understand nature. It's a logical tool, like logic itself, which we use.sagerage wrote:
Another thing, cause and effect aren't separate they are just there (like time) to break up the flow of nature into parts that we can understand.
Why can’t there simply be causally interactive parts, and that itself be the nature of nature? For “nature†to break up something, it has to necessarily be what that thing is not, so it then would have to be a “part†itself. I don’t consider “nature†something apart from things, so I find it illogical to say “nature†breaks-up any thing at all; it already is, has always been, just like ‘change’, which I gather you already know.
Imagination is also part of nature.I don’t consider “nature†something apart from things, so I find it illogical to say “nature†breaks-up any thing at all
Re: What is Logic?
Sure, I understand what you are trying to express.sagerage wrote:Imagination is also part of nature.
So are you saying that it is perfectly ok to imagine it either way?
---------
Re: What is Logic?
Yes (there isn't only one right way. The same thing can be expressed in many different ways), I'm just not quite sure of what you meant by this...So are you saying that it is perfectly ok to imagine it either way?
...What about decomposition? Nature constantly changes and this change can be observed in many, many ways.so I find it illogical to say “nature†breaks-up any thing at all; it already is, has always been, just like ‘change’, which I gather you already know.
It's ALL nature (do you agree?). The "casually interactive parts" of which you speak of is what I mean by the flow of nature (like a river - constant change, causation etc). It's just when I think of parts, I think of separation, which cause and effect is not. Instead, it's all connected to one another in many different ways. It's sorta like trying to figure out the parts of a flowing river and how each molecule reacts with the next. You know what I mean.Why can’t there simply be causally interactive parts, and that itself be the nature of nature?
- Cory Duchesne
- Posts: 2320
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 10:35 am
- Location: Canada
- Contact:
Re: What is Logic?
If you were to subtract the factor "Socrates as mortal man" from the equation, then the occurrence of death would be impossible.Cory wrote:Wasn't this guy killed by drinking poison? (Hemlock?) So, I guess it wasn't because he was a man and dying of old age, but because he ingested poison.sagerage wrote:There are innumerable factors causing Socrates mortality, but just to name one, Socrates mortality is caused by being a man.
Therefore, the fact that 'Socrates is a mortal man' is one of many causes contributing to his death.
You can say the poison wasn't agreeable with his biology, but it's also correct to say that the poison killed him because he was a man, rather than some other creature or object that might be impervious to poison.The poison killed him, not because he was a man, but because he ingested it and it wasn't agreeable with his biology.
There are many causes that contributed to his death, one of the most most fundamental causes was that he was a man.It was toxic for his body and he died because of the negative (yet perfect cause and effect) reactions happening between his chemistry and the chemistry of the poison. He died because he was a man who died from ingesting poison. Get it? He didn't die because he was a man, but because he drank poison and was a man.
Change only exists relative to an observer. If there is no observer, then there is no change. Instead, there is only an undivided continuum beyond perception, beyond time.Sagerage wrote:There's nothing beyond time, when time is defined as a measure of change. So, time must exist in order for there to be change. Time was always there and it was only understood by man. It wasn't developed, a sense of time and the name "time" was developed.However, from an absolute perspective, the past and future are part of an undivided continuum beyond time, and so it's correct to say that the past and future are actually one - that 'occurrence' as well as 'creation' are illusions.
Time is like the vibrations which cause sound, if there's no ear present, then there is no sound. And if there was no man, then there wouldn't be a measure for change, yet there still would be change, so the possibility of time would always exist and be present...waiting...for someone to uncover it.
I just reread your quote and I know what you meant. However, when you say that the past and future are like one, then it gives me the impression that they are complete, even though things are constantly changing.