I’m sorry you feel that way. Maybe if I clarified my position a little further:
“Objective” literally means “devoid of personal influence.” An objective observer is one who can watch and judge a situation without letting his or her personal feelings or motivations get in the way. Maybe you meant “subjective”, which is quite the opposite; wherein one internalizes something and lets it be influenced by their personality. The definition of “justice” is often considered subjective because most people have their own concepts of equality and punishment.
You can’t have “your own X” where X is objective. It’s a literal contradiction.
Also, as discussed in more detail in another post, logic is pretty much just the structure of argument. The premises (which I’m assuming is what you meant by axiom?) lend support to a conclusion. The premises can be completely false, it kinda doesn’t matter.
The vagueness, I think, stems from the rhetoric of forming arguments and proving points, which is kind of like logic’s evil twin. Once all the rhetoric is stripped from a logical argument, it is literally an equation of letters (symbolizing statements) and any of about half a dozen symbols (symbolizing “not,” “if -> then,” etc).
Jeff’s question almost literally compared two things that have nothing to do with each other. Logical thinking is highly structured, utilizing valid forms and (hopefully) true premises. A logical argument is one that is valid and follows a certain organization. “Thinking for yourself” involves making your own decisions without relying on others for input. It means you do not blindly accept what other people tell you. You can use logic to think for yourself, but that’s really the only connection there is to be had. You could also use logic to be blindly led around.
Ahh I do see, “objective” was not a great choice of words. I meant it more as “objective with respect to outside influence, as much as that is possible, if it is.”
Nope! Logic is reaching conclusions based on inferences. It’s like math with words; 1 + 2 = 3. “If I go to the bar I will get drunk” + “I’m going to the bar” = “I’m going to get drunk.” Like math, of course, it gets a little more complicated down the road. It’s using external premises, however, so “thinking for yourself” really has nothing to do with it.
People say “logically” all the time, without even realizing that they’re comitting a logical fallacy. It just makes the argument sound better. It’s ironic, really, because true logic would eschew rhetorical devices like that which make an argument sound better without actually contributing to it.
During my ride home I decided..
I’d like to clarify that with an analogy and see what you think.
While a Chomskyist would say that all speakers possess an innate knowledge of internal grammar, they wouldn’t claim that all people speak exactly the same. I see logic in a similar fashion, with an internal logic-potential that is shared, but with you’re logic being unique from mine. While we may share the basic mathematical foundation behind our logic, we do each have a slightly different set of algorithms.
For instance, when determining which of two girls is more attractive, your logic might assign a higher coefficient to the variable that represents height. Your logical “attractiveness formula” differs from mine, and when using your formula and not mine, you are thinking for yourself.
(The argument to make would be: “we all learned our way of thinking from others.”)
Re: During my ride home I decided..
That’s not really a good analogy. Logic doesn’t quite work like that–the algorithms DON’T change from person to person. In fact, the structure of logical arguments are pretty well enumerated; its the rhetoric or connotations of words that makes anything fuzzy.
Using your analogy, I would say that redheads are attractive; perhaps you find them unnattractive. One of the more basic logical arguments is “If A, then B. A, so therefore B”
“If she is a redhead, I find her attractive. She is a redhead, so I find her attractive.”
“If she is a redhead, you find her unnattractive. She is a redhead, so you find her unnattractive.”
I’m not picking an example of a logical formula that helps my argument, by the way, simply picking what I consider to be the easiest one to explain and define (it’s called “modus ponens” if you’d like to do additional research on the topic). I’d be more happy to go into further depth with various structures, fallacies, etc.
The point I am trying to make is that while premises and maybe even conclusions can differ, the structure of a valid argument does not. That’s what logic is: the validity of an argument’s structure. This is an external value that my beliefs, upbringing, and personality will never change. “If A, then B; A, therefore B” is very much like “1 + 2 = 3” in that regard. Logic, despite how it appears on the surface, actually IS a variant of mathematics.
These are indeed all unique, but they don’t have much to do with the discipline of Logic; see my subsequent post for elucidation.
Let’s just agree that using logic isn’t the OPPOSITE of thinking for yourself.
not in the least, since the construct of logic itself is a relatively recent invention of western thought. on the other hand, any synthesis of “knowledge” or “belief” or whatever that actually exercises some neurons is thinking, and nobody else is impelling that, so… always yes and never yes.
When you put a rat in a cage with a machine that dispenses food, the rat can figures out that it will get food when it presses the button.
You don’t see “lower” animals doing complex math, but they understand cause and effect.
Yeah I mean when I’m talking about Logic, I’m not talking about some class you could take in Logic, or the computer program. I’m talking about logical thought.
No, they’re unrelated.
Logic is vaguely defined as a series of thoughts that make sense.
‘Thinking for yourself’ as a phrase is more related to making your own decisions with little influence. You could very easily think for yourself something totally illogical.
I suppose a simpler and more interesting question is “is it possible to think illogically?”
So long as its your own logic, or rather, objective and without other’s opinions inserted into its axioms.
Not only is “your own logic” contradictory to “objective,” it’s kind of a non-sequitor. It’s like saying “your own math.”
Debating semantics with you would be a great waste of time, I imagine.
I’m sorry you feel that way. Maybe if I clarified my position a little further:
“Objective” literally means “devoid of personal influence.” An objective observer is one who can watch and judge a situation without letting his or her personal feelings or motivations get in the way. Maybe you meant “subjective”, which is quite the opposite; wherein one internalizes something and lets it be influenced by their personality. The definition of “justice” is often considered subjective because most people have their own concepts of equality and punishment.
You can’t have “your own X” where X is objective. It’s a literal contradiction.
Also, as discussed in more detail in another post, logic is pretty much just the structure of argument. The premises (which I’m assuming is what you meant by axiom?) lend support to a conclusion. The premises can be completely false, it kinda doesn’t matter.
The vagueness, I think, stems from the rhetoric of forming arguments and proving points, which is kind of like logic’s evil twin. Once all the rhetoric is stripped from a logical argument, it is literally an equation of letters (symbolizing statements) and any of about half a dozen symbols (symbolizing “not,” “if -> then,” etc).
Jeff’s question almost literally compared two things that have nothing to do with each other. Logical thinking is highly structured, utilizing valid forms and (hopefully) true premises. A logical argument is one that is valid and follows a certain organization. “Thinking for yourself” involves making your own decisions without relying on others for input. It means you do not blindly accept what other people tell you. You can use logic to think for yourself, but that’s really the only connection there is to be had. You could also use logic to be blindly led around.
Ahh I do see, “objective” was not a great choice of words. I meant it more as “objective with respect to outside influence, as much as that is possible, if it is.”
Nope! Logic is reaching conclusions based on inferences. It’s like math with words; 1 + 2 = 3. “If I go to the bar I will get drunk” + “I’m going to the bar” = “I’m going to get drunk.” Like math, of course, it gets a little more complicated down the road. It’s using external premises, however, so “thinking for yourself” really has nothing to do with it.
People say “logically” all the time, without even realizing that they’re comitting a logical fallacy. It just makes the argument sound better. It’s ironic, really, because true logic would eschew rhetorical devices like that which make an argument sound better without actually contributing to it.
But you are folowing your own unique set of algoriths per se, so in that way we could call it “your own” logic, yes? Mhmm.
No I’m not.
So the way in which you interpret, understand, and relate to the world around you is not unique?
During my ride home I decided..
I’d like to clarify that with an analogy and see what you think.
While a Chomskyist would say that all speakers possess an innate knowledge of internal grammar, they wouldn’t claim that all people speak exactly the same. I see logic in a similar fashion, with an internal logic-potential that is shared, but with you’re logic being unique from mine. While we may share the basic mathematical foundation behind our logic, we do each have a slightly different set of algorithms.
For instance, when determining which of two girls is more attractive, your logic might assign a higher coefficient to the variable that represents height. Your logical “attractiveness formula” differs from mine, and when using your formula and not mine, you are thinking for yourself.
(The argument to make would be: “we all learned our way of thinking from others.”)
Re: During my ride home I decided..
That’s not really a good analogy. Logic doesn’t quite work like that–the algorithms DON’T change from person to person. In fact, the structure of logical arguments are pretty well enumerated; its the rhetoric or connotations of words that makes anything fuzzy.
Using your analogy, I would say that redheads are attractive; perhaps you find them unnattractive. One of the more basic logical arguments is “If A, then B. A, so therefore B”
“If she is a redhead, I find her attractive. She is a redhead, so I find her attractive.”
“If she is a redhead, you find her unnattractive. She is a redhead, so you find her unnattractive.”
I’m not picking an example of a logical formula that helps my argument, by the way, simply picking what I consider to be the easiest one to explain and define (it’s called “modus ponens” if you’d like to do additional research on the topic). I’d be more happy to go into further depth with various structures, fallacies, etc.
The point I am trying to make is that while premises and maybe even conclusions can differ, the structure of a valid argument does not. That’s what logic is: the validity of an argument’s structure. This is an external value that my beliefs, upbringing, and personality will never change. “If A, then B; A, therefore B” is very much like “1 + 2 = 3” in that regard. Logic, despite how it appears on the surface, actually IS a variant of mathematics.
These are indeed all unique, but they don’t have much to do with the discipline of Logic; see my subsequent post for elucidation.
Let’s just agree that using logic isn’t the OPPOSITE of thinking for yourself.
According to all my friends, yes. Logically, they must be right.
As long as you’re disagreeing with somebody (or somebodies) who aren’t using logic.
not in the least, since the construct of logic itself is a relatively recent invention of western thought. on the other hand, any synthesis of “knowledge” or “belief” or whatever that actually exercises some neurons is thinking, and nobody else is impelling that, so… always yes and never yes.
sup failure to log in
Logic is a natural function of the brain.
It’s not even confined to human thought.
i don’t believe you but am interested in this question and welcome an argument in favor.
When you put a rat in a cage with a machine that dispenses food, the rat can figures out that it will get food when it presses the button.
You don’t see “lower” animals doing complex math, but they understand cause and effect.
Yeah I mean when I’m talking about Logic, I’m not talking about some class you could take in Logic, or the computer program. I’m talking about logical thought.
No, they’re unrelated.
Logic is vaguely defined as a series of thoughts that make sense.
‘Thinking for yourself’ as a phrase is more related to making your own decisions with little influence. You could very easily think for yourself something totally illogical.
I suppose a simpler and more interesting question is “is it possible to think illogically?”
another thought: your gay
Hey dudes thanks,
for the thoughts.
another thougth… whats the sound of one hand clapping–if u have no hands..? heh, just posting a lil philoshophy on my lj.
heh,,,