The nature of logic

[Silenus]

My questions concerns how formal logic relates to reality. As I have read posts on these forums, I have notices that everyone appeals to logic and reason to justify the truthfulness of their claims. This seems obvious and appropriate to do.

However, is the world logical? i.e. does logic apply to the universe as it exists or is logic simply the rules humans use to create understandable communication, to create efficent language?

Or is it both?

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Eudaimonist]

However, is the world logical? i.e. does logic apply to the universe as it exists or is logic simply the rules humans use to create understandable communication, to create efficent language?

The world does seem to be amenable to logic. I don't think that logic is merely for the sake of communication.

For example, the law of noncontradiction states that an entity cannot be something other than what it is (e.g. to have different attributes or powers) at the same time and in the same respect.

E.g. A dog cannot be a cat at the same time and in the same respect.

I can't think of any way this could be false. If you are tempted to bring up particle/wave duality as a counterexample, think again. These phenomena happen at different times, and they are just analogies anyway. Quantum Mechanics defines the mathematics of such phenomena rigorously, and there is no violation of the law of noncontradiction.

Deductive logic also appears sound, though of course it is always dependent on the quality of its premises. However, if the premises really are true of reality, it's difficult to see how deductive logic can be mistaken.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

My questions concerns how formal logic relates to reality. As I have read posts on these forums, I have notices that everyone appeals to logic and reason to justify the truthfulness of their claims.

I think you must have misunderstood that. Logic doesn´t justify the truthfulness of claims, it distinguishes between valid and invalid reasoning. A conclusion can be reached logically, yet the resulting statement can be inaccurate. A reasoning can be illogical, but the result can be accurate.

However, is the world logical?

This is a wrong application of this term. It´s like asking "does green smell good?". The word "logical" describes a line of reasoning, not things.

i.e. does logic apply to the universe as it exists or is logic simply the rules humans use to create understandable communication, to create efficent language?

The latter, and a bit more. "Logic" are the rules we cannot help acknowledging if we want to form a thought.

 

[Received]

Logic doesn't apply to the in-itself. It's a relational faculty; it exists because we do; it's an extension of consciousness. Asking if the world is logical is intelligible from this angle. You can't question whether the world would contain truth or logic if we weren't here -- that type of question is always going to cause problems, because it's essentially a vacuum statement: you can only answer it in a way that's counter to the question; that is, you can't speak of what it would be like if no-one was there while you're here thinking about it. Something is "true" or "false" or "logical" or "illogical" as a synthesis between ourselves and the universe -- the self being, depending on your position, containing part of the universe (but not reducable to it), or a section of the universe arbitrarily cut out by virtue of consciousness and perspective. This isn't subjectivism; subjectivism denies an "objectivity" on which subjectivity feeds. In a non-conscious universe there is objectivity, but not truth; objectivity precedes truth, and makes truth-statements possible, not the way most people have it -- where truth and objectivity mean the same thing.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Agreed, and well-explained, Received.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FishFace]

However, is the world logical? i.e. does logic apply to the universe as it exists

But concisely, if it doesn't, we're pretty scuppered.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

My questions concerns how formal logic relates to reality. As I have read posts on these forums, I have notices that everyone appeals to logic and reason to justify the truthfulness of their claims. This seems obvious and appropriate to do.

However, is the world logical? i.e. does logic apply to the universe as it exists or is logic simply the rules humans use to create understandable communication, to create efficent language?

Or is it both?

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

Belief and logic/reason do not exist in a compensating and satisfying dualism with one another, since we ask many questions that conflict with both our logical and rational self along with our beliefs, we often create misconcieved truths from the already unbalanced formalities for the question we are asking. The composition of this relationship leads to the concept that belief and logic must make a compromise, but since neither can exist fully for many questions, the answer to the question becomes entirely out-of-tune.

It is in most cases that we are capable of dissolving this concept by simply looking at what is common sense. In certain questions though, we must create our truth of answer based off an already illusion of comprehension of the question in the beginning. Questions such as: Why are we here? Is there a god? Is there a human nature? are impossible to truly answer, because to answer them you must include both faith and logic, which do not interlock with one another. For most questions, such as dealing primarily with your belief alone, you can answer simply, or if your dissolving philosophy, you create a philosophy of logical anlysis based upon your belief, we can say then that each of these compositions are dependent upon each other, but realize they are complete opposites of each other all in themselves.

Im writing a thesis about this, and i explain it much better.

 

[Silenus]

I think I agree with recieved's statement . . .

Logic doesn't apply to the in-itself. It's a relational faculty; it exists because we do; it's an extension of consciousness. Something is "true" or "false" or "logical" or "illogical" as a synthesis between ourselves and the universe -- the self being, depending on your position, containing part of the universe (but not reducible to it), or a section of the universe arbitrarily cut out by virtue of consciousness and perspective. This isn't subjectivism; subjectivism denies an "objectivity" on which subjectivity feeds. In a non-conscious universe there is objectivity, but not truth; objectivity precedes truth, and makes truth-statements possible, not the way most people have it -- where truth and objectivity mean the same thing.

I think this is one of the most concise statements on logic I've read in a while. And I agree with Eudaimonist (as I am starting to find I do often) that this

f you are tempted to bring up particle/wave duality as a counterexample, think again. These phenomena happen at different times, and they are just analogies anyway. Quantum Mechanics defines the mathematics of such phenomena rigorously, and there is no violation of the law of noncontradiction.

is not an example of the world behaving "illogically" but is an example of either unclear definitions or something being different, but only at different times or under different conditions. However, I would like to push the discussion a little further, if I may. If logic is a necessary condition of consciousness and thought (i.e. we can think no other way.0 Is it possible that the logic we use and the order we see are constructs "written" on reality by the nature of our consciousness and not a true reflection of the "thing out there." As Hussuel has pointed out . . .

Science implicitly performs a phenomenological reduction, reduces the infinity of phenomena to something more manageable.

Is it possible, as we encounter concepts and use logic, we are doing the same thing. Reducing things to something more manageable? Let me put it another way and take the words of the founder of archetypal literary criticism, Northrop Frye . . .

Suppose you're shipwrecked on an uninhabited world . . . if the ship were a western ship, you'd probably feel that your intellect tells you more about what is really there in the outer world, and that your emotions tell you more about what's going on inside. If your background were oriental, you'd be more likely to reverse this and say the beauty and terror was what is really there, and that your instinct to measure, count, classify, and pull to pieces is what was inside your mind.

So, is logic a construct consciousness forces phenomena into, or does logic "touch" the world as it is?


Or, option three, is it a stupid and misguided question?

Sorry, quatona, for all the quotes, I felt like I needed them to make my point. Actually, its not even a point, its more a question.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If logic is a necessary condition of consciousness and thought (i.e. we can think no other way.

This wouldn't be my view. While we certainly do try to "make sense" out of the world, and one idea may lead to another, this may involve only the flimsiest of attempts at logic. What we can find is a jumble of poorly integrated ideas that cannot survive any rigorous critical examination using logic. We see this sort of thing at CF every day.

Is it possible that the logic we use and the order we see are constructs "written" on reality by the nature of our consciousness and not a true reflection of the "thing out there." As Hussuel has pointed out . . .

I'm not sure what it would mean to say that one's understanding is "not a true reflection" if you have the right understanding. It may not be a perfect reflection (if one understands what a galaxy is, one still does not have an entire galaxy in one's imagination) but it may nevertheless be true.

Is it possible, as we encounter concepts and use logic, we are doing the same thing. Reducing things to something more manageable?

Concepts by necessity omit details. That's what makes them concepts. The process of abstraction is useful precisely because it makes our perceptions of things "more manageable" and useful. We could never have gotten men to the moon without concepts.

So, is logic a construct consciousness forces phenomena into, or does logic "touch" the world as it is?

When done right, logic doesn't "force" phenomena into anything -- it gently caresses them like a lover. Logic as a method of thought forms a cognitive relationship between the human mind and the world. It is an attempt to use the power of abstraction well enough to get one's mind into a kind of harmony with the world, so that e.g. one may act in the world and expect certain results, or at least understand why one didn't get the results one wanted.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Sorry, quatona, for all the quotes, I felt like I needed them to make my point. Actually, its not even a point, its more a question.

No problem - I think the quotes were well chosen and helped illustrating your questions

is not an example of the world behaving "illogically" but is an example of either unclear definitions or something being different, but only at different times or under different conditions. However, I would like to push the discussion a little further, if I may. If logic is a necessary condition of consciousness and thought (i.e. we can think no other way.0 Is it possible that the logic we use and the order we see are constructs "written" on reality by the nature of our consciousness and not a true reflection of the "thing out there."

Yes, all our ideas are our constructs, abstractions. If there are " things out there", it is safe to assume that they are reflections of these "things out there". I wouldn´t know what a "true reflection" is. The term "reflection" by its nature already means that it is not identical with "the thing".
The same, btw., goes not only for our conceptualizations, but also for our immediate perceptions: They are "but" reflections (assuming for a moment there are "things out there" at all).

Is it possible, as we encounter concepts and use logic, we are doing the same thing. Reducing things to something more manageable?

Of course. That´s the very purpose and nature of conceptualization. That´s why we deal with reflections of these assumed "things out there":
1. It´s all we have (as soon as we assume that there is a "world out there" and we are perceivers of this world, this problem is inevitable.
2. We find ourselves in need of "managing the world out there" We are looking for relevances of this world in regards to us. This is only possible if we operate with something manageable.

So, is logic a construct consciousness forces phenomena into, or does logic "touch" the world as it is?

I don´t know and I don´t care. Logic is all we have.
Do our eyes force phenomena into the world or do they touch the world as it is? If assuming that there is a world out there I see no reason not to assume that logic and our perception "touch" the world as it is. As long as we are aware that this is a "touch", a "reflection" and do not assume congruence (which I think hardly any philosopher does), I don´t see the problem.
I´m sort of a pragmatist when it comes to these things, you know.

Or, option three, is it a stupid and misguided question?

I wouldn´t use such harsh words, but, yes, I think this "criticism" of logic is inadequate.
Mainly because it hits itself in the back: What I see your and the philosophers you quote here do all the time is: Using logic to question the value of logic. Every word you speak is an admission that you are accepting logic for an appropriate tool of approaching "the world". The problem with this is obvious, no?

 

[quatona]

Suppose you're shipwrecked on an uninhabited world . . . if the ship were a western ship, you'd probably feel that your intellect tells you more about what is really there in the outer world, and that your emotions tell you more about what's going on inside. If your background were oriental, you'd be more likely to reverse this and say the beauty and terror was what is really there, and that your instinct to measure, count, classify, and pull to pieces is what was inside your mind.

So, is logic a construct consciousness forces phenomena into, or does logic "touch" the world as it is?

In deriving this question from the above (I think, by and large accurate) quote I think you display a misunderstanding of "logic".
The Eastern way of looking at things (if accepting such a broad stereotype for the sake of the argument) isn´t any less based on logic than the Western.


(On a sidenote: Many "Eastern" philosophies - contrary to the claim of the quote - regard emotions the greatest obstacles for getting in touch with reality.)

 

[Received]

Without language there would be no logic. I think if you think of it that way it makes things a lot easier. How can objectivity be illogical? It's objectivity; illogicality is negation: that which is illogical doesn't exist (and this is really the benefit of logic: it proves, negatively, what cannot exist -- but not what can, which is why logicians are sensitive in pointing out that nothing can be proven, only disproven); and objectivity, in being objectivity, cannot contain negation. Negation implies non-objectivity.

You guys make me want to read Wittgenstein.

 

[quatona]

Without language there would be no logic.

Please explain.

You guys make me want to read Wittgenstein.

Not exactly the worst thinkeable effect for my posts to have.

 

[Received]

Well, when we say something is logical we're saying this (obviously) through language. Language is (ideally) a referent for objectivity. Logic is the correct matching of this reference-process; the correct matching of the sign used and the objectivity it refers to. Of course, logic only exists as a relation between multiple signs. "A tree" -- well, that isn't logical or illogical. "A tree is a cat" -- why, that's illogical; it's using multiple signs that "clash" by virtue of their referents in objectivity not lining up with the signs themselves.

 

[Received]

Without language there would be no logic -- that is, because logic is based in signs and their should-be correct relation to objectivity, and signs literally constitute language, without language you -- wouldn't have logic. You'd have sensations, but sensations in themselves cannot be illogical. Things are illogical when things "clash" as mentioned above. Objectivity, sensations entailed in this, doesn't clash -- cannot clash, because it's objectivity. Things that clash imply a negation of objectivity.

 

[Silenus]

I wouldn´t use such harsh words, but, yes, I think this "criticism" of logic is inadequate.
Mainly because it hits itself in the back: What I see your and the philosophers you quote here do all the time is: Using logic to question the value of logic. Every word you speak is an admission that you are accepting logic for an appropriate tool of approaching "the world". The problem with this is obvious, no?

I just want to clarify this here, that neither I nor the people I have quoted, as far as I know, are attacking logic. I didn't start this thread to undermine logic. I just, after reading a different thread, wanted to start a discussion on how logic and reality "interact." I am a strong advocate of logic but I was interested in hearing how people discuss this question for my own clarity. I just do';t want to be painted as anti-logic. Not my bag at all . . .

 

[Silenus]

recieved

so logic is the aspect of conciousness that "hammers" the sybols of language to the reality they refer to?

 

[quatona]

I just want to clarify this here, that neither I nor the people I have quoted, as far as I know, are attacking logic. I didn't start this thread to undermine logic. I just, after reading a different thread, wanted to start a discussion on how logic and reality "interact." I am a strong advocate of logic but I was interested in hearing how people discuss this question for my own clarity. I just do';t want to be painted as anti-logic. Not my bag at all . . .

Ok, thanks for clarifying, and my apologies for making assumptions!

 

[quatona]

so logic is the aspect of conciousness that "hammers" the sybols of language to the reality they refer to?

It´s just that loaded terms like "hammering to" time and again strike me as inadequate, you know.
There is an allegedly objective reality (if assuming there is), and here are our concepts of it. Nothing is hammered to anything. The allegedly objective reality is unaffected by our concepts (except that, strictly speaking, our thoughts must be considered part of this objective reality)

 

[elman]

My questions concerns how formal logic relates to reality. As I have read posts on these forums, I have notices that everyone appeals to logic and reason to justify the truthfulness of their claims. This seems obvious and appropriate to do.

However, is the world logical? i.e. does logic apply to the universe as it exists or is logic simply the rules humans use to create understandable communication, to create efficent language?

Or is it both?

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

What is our alternative if we are to search for truth?