(Untitled)
I just spent an hour and a half banging onto my keyboard writing what by the end of it looked like an angry rant. So I scrapped that idea (I have an unpublished rant folder on my computer) and decided to pose a series of questions instead
( Read more... )
1) Without getting too in depth I would tend to agree; though I must admit that argument and deduction are more within my sympathies.
2) This would tend back towards my original thoughts on dispassionate rationality (see below). Perhaps it is my exposure to discrete mathematics that has tainted it for me slightly but I guess, in my mind anyway, logic can be used to loft about the abstract by means of hypothetical situations. Granting you assumptions from which you can build upon. I guess for me something is no longer reasonable when the assumption is granted - and not proven - but it can still be logical because it possesses no fallacy in its progression.
3) Now this is the one that has been bugging me. In conversational English I admit that I have been guilty of the same. But when I conceive of the two I find certain things which bother me - subtle differences. Within the realm of logic I find people like Thomas Hobbes and Ronald Reagan; who posited the logic in individualism and greed, and the latter limited nuclear war scenarios.
I guess it is not so much logic that makes me stop and think so much as it is dispassionate rationality - because I do have arguments to offer up against both of those ideas. Perhaps I have introduced a third category. Hmm.
4) This one has vexed me slightly. Apparently I don’t give off the air of a logical person. Or so it is coming around to me. My father brought this up to me and when I asked Erin she let slip that the opinion is mirrored by others around me.
I guess the question is; could you explain to me the context of employ? In rhetoric, in thought, or in every action that is taken by the person? I am curious because as far as possessing a command of logic I would contend that I have that. And when in discussion I would posit that I employ that. Though I admit that in my life I make decisions that are not entirely in keeping with logic.
5) My influences specifically for logic come in this order; training in discrete mathematics, Aristotle, Kant. I do of course have my plethora of googled favorites but until I can afford every scrap of literature that piques my curiosity in passing I think I am forgiven.
On that note an interesting trend within the debate on the nature of debate has started. People have begun dissecting the manner in which you argue on the internet. Well, the general you as in we humans. Not the specific you who are reading this now. Concepts like ‘The Jefferson Debate’ on intellectual property rights ‘Godwin’s Law’ has cropped up. Godwin is an old one, a good fifteen - sixteen years, but he has been rearticulated recently.
6) I think this one might need to be reexamined because we are working under two slightly different variants of logic and reason. I would concur in regards to the logic: EX I am wearing pants - therefore it will not rain tomorrow. Tomorrow will not see rain, so I am technically correct. Though through no command of logic. (I like my example better it doesn’t make crotchety people who are insecure with religion yell at you for being an atheist or heathen.) But for reason? I think that by definition something is unreasonable by contravening morality. So the statement becomes a tautology but…
7) Hmm, perhaps I should have phrased this better. Anything with a hormone system uses these as factors in decision making. Do you try to use logic and reason has your primary motivators in the decision making process?
8) I think I have tipped my hand enough to show my thoughts on this matter.
9) I already touched on this above. I am still having trouble deciding where dispassionate rationality comes into play. I think some of the feminists I have read might have influenced me on this. I think just writing this out has allowed me to order it better in my head however. Thanks.
Reply
Leave a comment