>If it can't be written in formal logic, it is not a philosophical position; it is not a proposition at all, and cannot be proved for or against empirically, or logically. It's just sophism.the most retarded thing i've ever read on this board by a mile. stirner is the only philosophy related image i have btw
>>24957719I've never read a post with a Stirner image that was worth reading.
>>24957719I think this board should stop being so terrified of formal logic and mathematic adjacent ideas. Its embarrassing to squirm away from it because you had a shitty arithmetic teacher 20 years ago. Or to limit math exclusively to whatever engineering majors require.
>>24957730why would i need to add fucking maths nonsense to a tradition that is separate from it and that does not need it. aristotle's attempt to mix science, the study of the physical realm, with philosophy, the study of the mental realm, was a colossal mistake
>>24957736Just admit you were filtered by Algebra 2 bruh
>>24957745just admit that philosophy doesn't need maths chucked into it and it certainly doesn't need 90% of its corpus discarded because it isn't "logical" and i certainly don't need to be told i'm "unreasonable" because i refuse to listen to arguments from someone who is either autistic or pretending to be
>>24957736>>24957761Logic isn't seperate from philosophy. Do that and you also reject arguing from premises and everything you say and write is completely subjective and unfalsifiable. Its the same as denying objective reality.T. different anon
>>24957769>Do that and you also reject arguing from premises and everything you say and write is completely subjective and unfalsifiable.why would that matter unless you're arguing with a dishonest/ hostile/ stupid person? between two good philosophers (those who are honest, friendly to one another, reasonably intelligent) agreement on fundamental concepts and principles, and friendly disagreements on the same, would obviously occur> Its the same as denying objective reality.we don't have to believe in something just because it's objectively true anyway, so what's your point?
>>24957719Give us an example of a proposition that can’t be represented in logical notation.
>>24957791idk ask the guy who i quoted
>>24957783>we don't have to believe in something just because it's objectively true anyway, so what's your point?If you dont believe in a thing that is objectively true then you are subhuman and need to be purged
>>24957769So what? Who cares?
>>24957813that is ridiculous and autistic. do i need to believe that a cow has spots? do i need to believe grass is green? in what sense are these "objective truths" relevant to me or anything i need to waste time believing?
>>24957719>If it can't be written in formal logic, it is not a philosophical position; it is not a propositionIs your statement a proposition then?
>>24957828that's the guy i quoted, ask him. you're just agreeing with me that what he said was dumb
>>24957791average analytical philosophy fan
>>24957783>why would that matter unless you're arguing with a dishonest/ hostile/ stupid person? between two good philosophers (those who are honest, friendly to one another, reasonably intelligent) agreement on fundamental concepts and principles, and friendly disagreements on the same, would obviously occurIf your good philosophers don't believe that their concepts and principles should be rooted in logic then on what basis do they agree or disagree on them aside from personal feeling? How do you judge such ideas or built from them? How do you even know that your good philosophers aren't dishonest and stupid? >we don't have to believe in something just because it's objectively true anyway, so what's your point?That our belief is irrelevant. Humanity could nuke itself to extinction today and it would matter very little in the grand scale of things. The laws that govern reality wouldn't be changed in the slightest. >>24957819
>>24957856What does it actually mean for something to be rooted in logic? Just that there's no contradiction? Almost no popular philosophical view contains strict contradictions. Or that you use modus ponens? You can easily create a modus ponens for nonsense.
>>24957856>If your good philosophers don't believe that their concepts and principles should be rooted in logic then on what basis do they agree or disagree on them aside from personal feeling?all theories are intuitive. in the sense that logic exists, there is a proposition (this is X, for example) and a theory (if this is Y then this should be X) and a proposition derived from the two (Y is so, because this is X and (if this is Y then this should be X). that theory and first proposition must be agreed upon-they don't need to be logically proven.>How do you judge such ideas or built from them? intuition>How do you even know that your good philosophers aren't dishonest and stupid? how many of their propositions and theories i intuitively agree with. if they are dishonest, and everything they say i agree with, then what is the difference? if they agree with me on most things, but disagree with me on fundamental things and they are dishonest, then they are very stupid.>That our belief is irrelevant. Humanity could nuke itself to extinction today and it would matter very little in the grand scale of things. The laws that govern reality wouldn't be changed in the slightest. philosophy is the study of the mental realm, not the physical one. of course what relates to the mental realm (our beliefs), are ALL that is relevant to philosophy. if we were to physically exist, but not believe anything, then philosophy would not exist. if we were to not physically exist, then our beliefs would also cease to exist, and then the mental and physical realms would both cease to exist. philosophy exists to serve those who believe, those who create and maintain the mental realm.
>>24957877To expand on this:"Logic" has at least 3 meanings:1. Good reasoning in general2. Formal logic3. Classical logicIf you mean that philosophical arguments should use good reasoning, most people will agree, but it's vague.If you mean classical logic, the logical system itself only gives you tautologies. So you can say that a entails a, or that (a AND b) entails (a OR b) but you can't do that much interesting stuff with this. Other than that it only tells you what truth value you get when you combine propositions, e.g. with AND or OR.The interesting implications are themselves just premises. E.g. "if Socrates is a man, he is mortal" or "Socrates being a man implies he's mortal" but you don't get this premise from logic itself, it's an empirical observation.Philosophical arguments are just a bunch of premises, combined in very simple ways. Your argument being logically valid (combining the premises in the right way) is almost a given.
>>24957877There is a middle ground between rejecting logic outright and demanding that all positions should be based on a priori.
>>24957940>it's an empirical observation.it's a belief. these premises, or theories, are simply beliefs.>if Socrates is a man, he is mortalthe premise that you are implicitly stating is that "all men are mortal". that's the real premise here. what you're doing is simply relying on implying a premise using another premise
>>24957954I wanted to highlight the structure in propositional logic and make the modus ponens obvious.
>>24957729I have
>>24957719>formal logic>philosophical position>proposition>empirically>logically>sophismSpooky.
>>24958047The concept of a spook is itself a spook, and therefore your value judgment of things as “spooky” is also a spook. Ergo self refutation; suicide by spook.
>>24958061Nit suicide by spook. But rather what you're describing results in a form of eternal masturbation as one becomes spookless, even freeing himself of the concept of the spook
>>24957791The way she said to me "I really can't do that" after I told her "I just wish I could feel the love between us flow"
>>24957954>that's the real premise here. what you're doing is simply relying on implying a premise using another premiseLogicians have a name for that: enthymeme
>>24958164this is not the first time i've independently come up with something aristotle said despite never having read aristotle outside of the racist parts
>>24958164wait a minute he describes it as a rhetorical technique, so nothing to do with logic at all. great
>>24957719>the most retarded thing i've ever readNot an argument.
>>24958387it was an insult, if you believe shit like that it's not worth any effort to convince you to stop being retarded
>>24958408Anyone who knows logic isn't insulted by such things. That's one of the benefits of studying logic. You should try it. It's easy, fun and the most rewarding thing you can do. This is good:forallx.openlogicproject.org
>>24958454oh god, not THIS tard again. you're immune to literally every argument and insult because you think being reasonable means literally reasoning a lot
>>24958463I don't know what you're upset about. Many people today know nothing about logic because logic is suppressed. Many people also believe that they don't need to study logic and out of pride refuse to study logic. Just do it. Freemasons do it. Jews do it. Everyone in the elite studies logic.https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI1h_nAkaQq5MDWlKXu0jeZmLDt-51on
>>24958491logic is not "suppressed", most logicians support liberalism. most of liberalism is based on logical arguments and principles>>24958510urrrrrrrrrrrrgh
>>24958511>logic is not "suppressed", most logicians support liberalism. most of liberalism is based on logical arguments and principlesDon't know what you mean.>urrrrrrrrrrrrghDon't know what you mean.
>>24957736This is what Frenchmen actually believe.
>>24958515i know you don't and i don't care>>24958518this is what everyone with a brain believes. the only "people" who don't believe it are a bunch of autistic maths geeks who think that an entire philosophical tradition can be refuted with numbers and mathematical proofs
>>24958523What does liberalism have to do with being suppressed? Do you think the image contains too much text? I'm not a mind reader.
>>24957736> why would i need to add fucking maths nonsenseBy “logic” he doesn’t mean math , or arithmetic, per se , but (propositional) logic.
>>24958528most liberals, followers of the dominant western political ideology, use logic to support their arguments and refer to concepts created by your logician idols like russell and popper>>24958539>(propositional) logic>formal logic and mathematic adjacent ideas.that is frege-russell slop, 100%
>>24958541>most liberals, followers of the dominant western political ideology, use logic to support their arguments and refer to concepts created by your logician idols like russell and popperSo?
>>24958543so in what sense is logic suppressed??? this is what i was responding to;>Many people today know nothing about logic because logic is suppressed.
This thread is very stupid.
>>24958545only if your definition of stupid is stupid, the second stupid being my definition of stupid and not yours
>>24958544It is suppressed in public schools and mainstream media. You don't learn any logic in school. Yeah, most people know zero logic. Politicians, lawyers etc study logic. The masses don't. It's designed that way, it's called the Prussian education system, it's based on suppressing logic and critical thinking for a vast majority of people and teaching it to a small minority.
>>24958549>Politicians, lawyers etc study logic.someone should tell the politicians that! HIYO! i was privately educated so idc about this anyway, learn it on your own time if you care so much. there's too much public education anyway, they should be teaching you how to load a truck and do addition on your fingers, not this shit.
>>24957730How do you evaluate logic, retard? If you understand formal logic and math adjacent ideas you recognize how utterly deranged the quote in OP is.
>>24957791Explain why someone should use logic. You can't use logic to explain it since that would be circular.
Apparently you don't know the strength of artificial neural networks. Their knowledge can't be written in formal logic, only their operation. Assuming supervised training (which is necessary, otherwise garbage-in garbage-out), one can create an LLM with the entire body of human knowledge and experience, which would take a human being over 2,600 years to achieve. This isn't sophism, this is a huge jump toward the Singularity. Your philosophy is obsolete, because it is limited to human intellects.
>>24958697who cares, who the fuck is going to accept an argument from an AI? what would an AI want? more computer chips? (i know nothing about AIs)
