I posit that logic is a theology. You cannot argue for the use of logic without using logic in the argument. Therefore it is circular. Science itself assumes the continuity of nature, that patterns of the past will repeat into the future. Therefore it is flawed. We say that science and logic are constructs of reasoning and are therefore given this unproven ground. We allow them to exist in their flawed state because they are useful.Value exists beneath both. You cannot use logic or science without first valuing them. You cannot make any statement at all, or reply to this thread, without using value. If you tell me that 'nothing matters' you have admit that the announcement matters to you and refuted yourself with the announcement. This makes the materialist seethe uncontrollably.
When is irrationality a necessity?
>>540780900It comes down to a point where you need talent you cannot teach an ape to sing an aria.
>>540781610You can't coherently argue for the necessity of incoherence without performing coherence to do it.
>>540781841Alright so irrationality is a necessity for the exists of the rational?
>>540781682Talent is not a requirement for understanding.
>>540782060No, you are conflating. That coherence is required to argue against incoherence shows incoherence can't be a live alternative, not that it's a necessary precondition for coherence to exist.
>>540782259Then why did Socrates speak of Divine Madness?Is Madness Rational?
Learn to be content with probabilities, rather than certainties.
>>540782346Socrate's said a lot of wacky stuff that I do not like. He would go on boomer type rants about the written word.
>>540782346But to actually engage in your question he was kinda right.
>>540782398Every innovation has a price. Writing did in fact make it so that people don’t need as good of a memory and also did make it so that people sitting on their ass in a room for decades could LARP as knowledgeable
>>540782398Didn't Alexander issue a scathing letter to Aristotle regarding the writing specific things down?GET EM TOLD ALEX
>>540782712This is straight insanity. Before literacy was widespread the common man was enslaved, wholesale, by their lack of knowledge. The elites wanted to heavily restrict the printing press to keep the common man stupid and exploitable.
>>540782810Old Greeks do old Greek shit. What's new?>>540782823
>>540780900> We allow them to exist in their flawed state because they are useful.This is called heuristic pragmatism. We either accept it or we have nothing to research. What do you think is preferable?Our best logicians readily admit that the foundation of all logic is a belief. Logic only handles rules for things that don't change, i.e. for the "thing as such" that we can't prove to exist anywhere. We have to believe in it to use logic.
>>540782914I posit that value exists at least slightly beneath both and as such is deserving of further inquiry.
>>540780900WHAT?No one is noticing that OP (wrongly) claims circularity in asserting the insufficiency of logic BUT THEN actually uses circularity to prove Value? While I heartily admit that "Inference" is circularly defined by the use of logic, it is a common mistake in philosophy to conflate "circularity" with "symmetry."While ONE premise being defined by its conclusion OF that premise is the fallacy of circularity, ALL premises being defined by their conclusion that they make is symmetry. "Value," not just in OPs claim, but in ALL of its definitions IS always dependent, and so IS circularly defined, Especially when you use Value to claim Value has Value.... ... as did OP
>>540782823I’m talking about how before literacy even existed, or during the times literacy temporarily vanishes (Greek dark ages), people like scholars, bards, merchants, etc. have to be way fucking smarter to do their job. This was commonly understood in the ancient world but people who can’t imagine a world without writing don’t get the point Socrates was trying to make.
>>540783219The sharpest thus far.I made my position clear, I never said fallacy, I said flawed. I pointed out, accurately, that these are theologies based on the flaw, not fallacy. Effectively showing that the ground everyone assumes logic to hold does not hold on any higher analysis. Value, by contrast, never claimed to be non-circular, nor did I ever claim it to be non-circular, nor did I claim circular things to be fallacies.So your assertion of hypocrisy isn't just flawed, it's a fallacy. You're right that inference is circularly defined and that is my entire point. Slow down and read carefully.
>>540782914Doesn't believe have German origins meaning to love?Faith as Pistis?
>>540783223And yet you continue to use the written word, implicitly showing that you value it while arguing against it.
>>540783664He is right thoughIt's why Alexander WROTE to Aristotle to scorn him for WRITING about specific things
>>540780900Of course logic is theological. It exists on its own, outside of a purely human mind. If no human were alive, 2+2 would still equal 4. Because it is a mental construct, there must however be a Universal Mind, that constructed this mental concept we call logic, and maintains its existence. We call this Universal Mind "God".We argue about what the traits and qualities of this Universal Mind are, but THAT it exists is a logical necessity. Anyone denying the existence of this Universal Mind is denying logic itself. They're self-refuting.This is part of the Transcendental Argument for God that Christians use to justify their worldview, in case you're curious.
>>540783867And in doing so he refutes himself.
I imagine that a mind like Aristotle's, who unlike Plato and Socrate's did not denounce the written word, would have seen the humour in Alexander denouncing writing in writing.
>>540783981Diogenes would definitely have had a good chuckle, if he existed, which most people are skeptical of.
>>540783664The argument wasn’t that writing is inferior, it’s that writing doesn’t simply make people smarter. It can make certain kinds of people in certain contexts dumber.
>>540784195Definitely I believe he claimed Alexander had sex with an opposing male general.>>540784935All three of them made different arguments, all of which are irrelevant to me. All new technologies are denounced by the old. It's one of our oldest traditions.
