would you prefer your logic to be true by definition or true because the world is logical?
>>25251295But the world isn't logical, because women exist
I believe we mostly view truth subjectively, and while objective truths exist, we may never be able to see the world as such. There may be a logical frame work for the world, but the human race can never be truly objectively logical.Our induvidual perceptiins are based in a myriad of things like genetics, your nervous system, brain chemistry, formative experiences, belief systemsWe all have to admit our own logic may be flawd at any given time.
>>25251308Why not advocate for pluralism then?
>>25251305Holy shit, I am just learning I can get women to pleasure me. >>25251308it looks like everything in this starter pack applies to me
>>25251312I sort of do, as in i respect the beliefs of others and i try to consider that they could be right and i could be wrong. But at the same time... not everyones belief can be valid if objective truth does exist.
>>25251318>starter pack>kant
>>25251381why we can't have nice things>genius edition>accessibility edition>day one edition>subscriber edition
>>25251329That depends if one's knowledge is finite or infinite, if its the former then people cannot grasp the highest most objective truth anyways.
>>25251387Skip straight to kant in picrel>>25251388I guess it does kind of go against human nature to admit and humble ourselves to the fact that we probably will never discover the answers to our deepest questions. Of course we will keep aski g, and keep seeking... right bros?We cannot discover all truths, we may misinterpret, but that does not invalidate truth seeking
>>25251295im going with the world is logical because i made the world logical
>>25251399We march on anon. It is what makes us finite beings beautiful
>>25251295I'd rather it be true because the world is logical, for what reason would anyone ever desire it to be true merely stipulatively?
>>25251295>necker cubeI only ever see it one way
>>25251399Sometimes truth is dangerous in the wrong hands. Like mine.
>>25251295>>25252059>>25252088The law of excluded middle doesn't work in the real world, Shroedinger's cat and all that.
>>25251295what do you mean by 'logic' here?
>>25251295this is my favorite liars album
>>25252818maybe later
>>25252897should i make coffee or tea? i'm fine with both but can't decide.
>>25252923coffee all the way. i'm gonna make some now, thanks for reminding me
>>25252389Then explain how Anarchy, being the absence of government and Atheism, being the absence of a belief in God can be logically consistent when Buddhism lacks God but is a religion. If that holds true, then Anarchism is a form of government. Your move.
>>25252969i feel like three value logic makes the law of excluded middle pointless. furthermore i also see it as basically a redundancy when held against LNC
>>25252980So as such, its a yes/no/maybe proposition? To use an example: finite properties of A containing B the former law applies but in case of infinite properties of A, the possibly of them containing B is speculative at best. So going by that, the possibility of a third property could be predicted within the infinite set of A? What if there are more than three?
>>25252988non(A) doesn't have to contain B, you're right. non(government) doesn't have to contain a truth value for government. but (not)religion/religion doesn't have to contain a value for (not)government either. I don't really understand your example because you are comparing two different propositions
>>25253001god i love philosophers who just do mathy logics
>>25253001So the third value can literally represent anything and not just A has property of C as C = D, E, F??
>>25253005i mean pragmatically Buddhism is considered more as a spirituality belief system than a religion, and anarchy still maintains governance principles. i am not that great at logic though. i'm trying to communicate that just because (absence)R is true it doesn't make (absence)G true
>>25253007i think in three value logic it can be anything yes. i need to stress i am not really a logician. but for example, you can have T/F/Unknown or True/False/True but unjustified. three value logic is three truth functions, so it's literally a contradiction of LEM
>>25253019Fair enough
>>25253015Then why is it often grouped in with religion despite having shared characteristics of one yet its not? Is family resemblances simply just a useful heuristic? Or does it go deeper than that?
>>25253030Spirituality and religion are pretty similar. Family resemblance, I'm not sure. Buddhism also believes in all sorts of supernatural things that require just as much bare belief as a god. Are schizophrenics de jure religious because of their beliefs?
>>25253033>Are schizophrenics de jure religious because of their beliefsCome on now. That's silly.
>>25252969>Anarchy, being the absence of government and AtheismThere is no reason anarchists cannot be religious
