Philosophaster wrote:Logic makes distinctions, but on its own it cannot tell you which "side" of the distinction to prefer.
Well, with animals, the prefered distinction is apparently the one that feels good. So, in the case of animals, they do not appear to use logic to determine preferences. The factor that determines preferences in animals, is a non rational drive for comforting sensation.
With humans, the prefered distinction is more than often the one that feels good as well, they are just like animals - - but don't you think it's true that there have been humans who have been willing to prefer truth, simply because it is the most logical way, in contrast to all other alternative ways?
I decided to first ask "so why aren't they rulers then?"
True philosophers do not compromise (though egotistical and academic ones do)
Politicians are expert at the art of compromise, providing it suits their aims. It is with compromise that foundations are built up. Compromise is a form of balance - where two opposing sides are equalised by pluses and minuses. Compromise provides semi-lasting strength, as battles between those who would be foes are minimised. Any battle partially destroys the power of either side, but with compromise this power is just held in stasis. The art of the politician is to make the battles for change small and progressive, so that compromises are evened out progressively.
A philosopher-politician would stir up peoples emotions too much, and the structures already in place might crumble, or this emotional volitilty might need to be expelled externally. Hitler was a philosopher, albeit a very poor one as he did everything for his own ego. Once he stirred up the German peoples emotions, he maintained very tight control of the exercise of emotions within the country (SS, propaganda), and used battles with other countries in order to form new balances to take up the excess of the Will to Power emotion that he had stirred up in the German population.
Valuing truth is the most logical way for a person who values happiness and the avoidance of suffering - that is, for all of us. But the initial valuing of happiness to begin with is just a brute fact of our existence. There is no logical reason to value happiness. We just happen to prefer it.
And even the valuing of truth, even though it is logical in the context of our valuing happiness, can be said to be arbitrary because our decision to pay serious attention to logic in the first place is also arbitrary. In other words, it is dependent upon our genetics, upbringing, past experiences, mentors, etc.
Philosophaster wrote:Logic makes distinctions, but on its own it cannot tell you which "side" of the distinction to prefer.
If one's value is logic itself, then one necessarrily values predictability. Logic is the basic foundation of Reality. Even "illogic" has a certain logic to it if enough variables are entered into the equation, so even then ultimatly truth can be ascertained. Therefore if one values logic above all else, that person also values Truth.
So I disagree - logic on its own can make the distinction of what to prefer.
David Quinn wrote:
And even the valuing of truth, even though it is logical in the context of our valuing happiness, can be said to be arbitrary because our decision to pay serious attention to logic in the first place is also arbitrary.
Well, it seems to me that the reason we pay such serious attention to it is due to the emotional/sensual rewards it brings in contrast to the relative misfortune a person experiences when they neglect logic. It isnt really arbitrary. There is a reason.
David Quinn wrote:Valuing truth is the most logical way for a person who values happiness and the avoidance of suffering - that is, for all of us. But the initial valuing of happiness to begin with is just a brute fact of our existence. There is no logical reason to value happiness. We just happen to prefer it.
And even the valuing of truth, even though it is logical in the context of our valuing happiness, can be said to be arbitrary because our decision to pay serious attention to logic in the first place is also arbitrary. In other words, it is dependent upon our genetics, upbringing, past experiences, mentors, etc.
-
But I think even the slightest effort of securing what one values necessitates the valuing of truth and logic, so I honestly don't see how the valuing of them can be avoided. I think everybody naturally values truth and logic to the degree that they are striving for something. Additionally, I think if anyone wanted to secure something with 100% certainty, then I think the logic of pursuing that would unavoidably bring them to valuing the absolute.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:If one's value is logic itself, then one necessarrily values predictability. Logic is the basic foundation of Reality. Even "illogic" has a certain logic to it if enough variables are entered into the equation, so even then ultimatly truth can be ascertained. Therefore if one values logic above all else, that person also values Truth.
So I disagree - logic on its own can make the distinction of what to prefer.
You are deriving a value from another value, which is just what I said would happen. If you value logic, then you will value predictability and truth, but there is no purely logical reason to value logic; it is simply something you want to do or you don't according to how nature has predisposed you.
Last edited by Philosophaster on Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Matt Gregory wrote:But I think even the slightest effort of securing what one values necessitates the valuing of truth and logic, so I honestly don't see how the valuing of them can be avoided. I think everybody naturally values truth and logic to the degree that they are striving for something. Additionally, I think if anyone wanted to secure something with 100% certainty, then I think the logic of pursuing that would unavoidably bring them to valuing the absolute.
Another way to put it is: I don't think consciousness can avoid valuing itself. To the degree that it exists, it values itself.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:If one's value is logic itself, then one necessarrily values predictability. Logic is the basic foundation of Reality. Even "illogic" has a certain logic to it if enough variables are entered into the equation, so even then ultimatly truth can be ascertained. Therefore if one values logic above all else, that person also values Truth.
So I disagree - logic on its own can make the distinction of what to prefer.
You are deriving a value from another value, which is just what I said would happen. If you value logic, then you will value predictability and truth, but there is no purely logical reason to value logic; it is simply something you want to do or you don't according to how nature has predisposed you.
For anything to do anything on its own, it necessitates becoming self perpetuating. True - circular logic must be circular to be circular logic.
