Is LOGIC the ultimate authority?

[xisnotx]

Logic is subjective yes, but it differs from feeling, at least how "feeling" is understood by most, in that logic attempts a sort of impartiality. It seperates the process of feeling, or sensing, from the feeling or senses themselves, and emphasizes the process, looking for consistency. Personal logic is nothing more than a process of logic that has yet to be identified as occuring outside of ourselves, and therefore limited in scope in it's practical ability in the real world. It's why many Ti users deem feeling as inferior, because they want to prove that their process of feeling is correct and they do that by looking to see if their process of feeling has occured in others. If it hasn't they conclude that the process of feeling that led to that feeling was flawed, and therefoe the feeling is wrong, which, ironically is illogical.

Logic is subjective when two parties don't agree agree..and objective when two parties do agree. Another way if saying this is..two people's subjective logic becomes objective logic (outside of those two people) when both agree that that is the case. "Logic" as is commonly understood, is simply the extrapolation of this to as many people as possible. This is why people disagree as to what exactly is logical, because anything can be assumed to be logical given the right persons.
Logic scales to people.

 

[xisnotx]

I, again, take the pragmatic approach. You can point out that an arbitration is behind logic, but I can point out than an arbitration is at the root of every approach, and I challenge you to find an arbitration that grows into a more effectives systems than logic.

Historically, yes. But going into the future we have no idea what systems of consciousness will manifest themselves to be most effective in the real world. The fallacy of time, you could call it.

Technology, for example, could usurp our own abilities of logic (some argue that it's inevitable, and others that it's already happened albeit in a crude form) and then we'd have to force ourselves to consider other forms of consiousness as being more pivotal to human development, lest we become slaves to technology, ala the matrix.

The question, then, becomes what other forms of consciousness can manifest themselves to be most effective in human development, and to what ends, and whose to say?

 

[Spurgeon]

OK, so the reason I posted this thread is that I'm not sure whether I agree with the statement or not.
I'm still not sure, but thanks to those of you who are actually adressing the topic.

 

[Zarathustra]

Answer: it all depends on what you mean by "ultimate authority".

And this is what you will always find: it always depends on your definitions.

And the reason for that: because definitions are the same as assumptions.

They are the axioms of language.

Ultimately, authority is about being correct.

But being correct is all about having the right axioms.

And, in many types of inquiry, axioms are fluid.

You can't just depend on using the same one(s) all the time.

You've got to read the situation correctly, and apply the correct one at the right time.

This is related to inductive reasoning, and goes beyond the tenets of simple deductive logic.

Logic can't assure that you have made the right decision.

It might be able to help you rule out certain wrong ones.

But, at some point, a leap of faith about what axiom correctly applies to a particular situation is necessary.

Because, at some point, you need to make a decision.

And logic cannot always get you the whole way.

The ultimate authority is about being correct.

Hence, the brilliance of Kalach's response (which is actually a lot truer than the original construction).

Is authority the ultimate logic?

In both ways in which this can be (aptly) interpreted, there is much truth in this statement.

 

[Spurgeon]

Is authority the ultimate logic?

Hence, the brilliant of Kalach's response (which is actually a lot truer than the original construction).



In both ways in which this can be (aptly) interpreted, there is much truth in this statement.

If possible, could you please break it down for us, then?

How is it truer than the original construction?

and

What truth is there in this statement?

I honestly don't see it.

Frankly, I think you (and Kalach) are full of it. Please prove me wrong.

Nevermind.

This is just too much navel-gazing for me.

I'm just not interested enough.

You're off the hook. Carry on.

 

[Jaguar]

You're off the hook. Carry on.

Love the expression. I'm stealing it.

 

[freeeekyyy]

Logic doesn't prove anything; it only draws conclusions based on assumptions.

 

[Zarathustra]

If possible, could you please break it down for us, then?

How is it truer than the original construction?

and

What truth is there in this statement?

I honestly don't see it.

Frankly, I think you (and Kalach) are full of it. Please prove me wrong.

Nevermind.

This is just too much navel-gazing for me.

I'm just not interested enough.

You're off the hook. Carry on.

Feeble minds, feeble minds.

In my facebook profile, I have a quote:

"The truth is always the strongest argument." -Sophocles

The funny thing about this quote is that it can be (aptly) interpreted in two ways.

Interpretation 1: That which is correct will be the strongest argument.
Interpretation 2: The strongest argument will be considered "the truth".

I think the first is what usually strikes people immediately.

But the second is completely understandable, based solely off the wording.

Now, moving on to Kalach's post: "Is authority the ultimate logic?"

Now, if you actually had an enlightened view of logic, you would understand that all kinds of things have a logic.

Feelings, which might seem completely irrational to an observer, actually have their own internal logic.

Behavior that would seem completely irrational from an outside observer generally (always?) has its own internal logic.

Even things that might be completely unsound (let's say, astrology, or a religion) have their own robust and consistent internal logic.

And the reason for this is that logic only really deals with one of the three kinds of truth (LINK): internal consistency/coherency.

That is why logic can tell you all kinds of things that are valid; but it can't tell you whether or not something is sound.

Validity (and most people don't know this) just means that a conclusion correctly follows from the premises.

Soundness (which most people confuse with validity) means that the premises are actually correct, AND that the logic is valid.

Ultimately, soundness itself is the true authority, the ultimate authority -- as I implied in my previous response.

It doesn't matter what authority you or any other thing claims: the only true authority is what is correct.

As such, Kalach's construction can be interpreted in two ways:

Interpretation 1: Authority (i.e., actual authority, or soundness) is the ultimate logic (i.e., the logic that is true/sound).
Interpretation 2: Authority (i.e., political authority) makes its desired logic the ultimate one (i.e., the only permissible one [at least in an authoritative regime]).

I'm not sure if Kalach was intending the second one at all, but he usually likes to play with words/concepts.

It's an understandable interpretation based solely on the wording, and rather relevant, in light of where he's living.

It also points to the truth about logic that I mentioned before: that many (all?) things have their own internal logic.

And, by pointing to this, it also point to the difference between validity and soundness, or logic and true authority.

Regardless, I'm sorry you were incapable of following an authoritative opinion (in the first sense of the term).

This is probably because you're an NTP.

 

[Coriolis]

Ultimately, soundness itself is the true authority, the ultimate authority -- as I implied in my previous response.

It doesn't matter what authority you or any other thing claims: the only true authority is what is correct.

As such, Kalach's construction can be interpreted in two ways:

Interpretation 1: Authority (i.e., actual authority, or soundness) is the ultimate logic (i.e., the logic that is true/sound).
Interpretation 2: Authority (i.e., political authority) makes its desired logic the ultimate one (i.e., the only permissible one [at least in an authoritative regime]).

Permissibility is not the same as soundness. This kind of authority doesn't make one right, it just gives one the right to be wrong (and to make everyone else follow suit). Also happens frequently in workplaces.

 

[Fluffywolf]

MANKIND is the 'ULTIMATE' AUTHORITY. The 'ULTIMATE' AUTHORITY are the DESCISION MAKERS. MANKIND makes all DESCISIONs. MANKIND is FALLIBLE. Therefor 'ULTIMATE' AUTHORITY is FALLIBLE.

PS: 'ULTIMATE' in 'ULTIMATE AUTHORITY' can be neglected, because AUTHORITY is DOMINANT by nature, therefor ULTIMATE is already assumed!

AUTHORITY has spoken.

PPS: sorry, I just had a can of POWERTHIRST!

 

[Spurgeon]

Feeble minds, feeble minds.

In my facebook profile, I have a quote:

"The truth is always the strongest argument." -Sophocles

The funny thing about this quote is that it can be (aptly) interpreted in two ways.

Interpretation 1: That which is correct will be the strongest argument.
Interpretation 2: The strongest argument will be considered "the truth".

I think the first is what usually strikes people immediately.

But the second is completely understandable, based solely off the wording.

Now, moving on to Kalach's post: "Is authority the ultimate logic?"

Now, if you actually had an enlightened view of logic, you would understand that all kinds of things have a logic.

Feelings, which might seem completely irrational to an observer, actually have their own internal logic.

Behavior that would seem completely irrational from an outside observer generally (always?) has its own internal logic.

Even things that might be completely unsound (let's say, astrology, or a religion) have their own robust and consistent internal logic.

And the reason for this is that logic only really deals with one of the three kinds of truth (LINK): internal consistency/coherency.

That is why logic can tell you all kinds of things that are valid; but it can't tell you whether or not something is sound.

Validity (and most people don't know this) just means that a conclusion correctly follows from the premises.

Soundness (which most people confuse with validity) means that the premises are actually correct, AND that the logic is valid.

Ultimately, soundness itself is the true authority, the ultimate authority -- as I implied in my previous response.

It doesn't matter what authority you or any other thing claims: the only true authority is what is correct.

As such, Kalach's construction can be interpreted in two ways:

Interpretation 1: Authority (i.e., actual authority, or soundness) is the ultimate logic (i.e., the logic that is true/sound).
Interpretation 2: Authority (i.e., political authority) makes its desired logic the ultimate one (i.e., the only permissible one [at least in an authoritative regime]).

I'm not sure if Kalach was intending the second one at all, but he usually likes to play with words/concepts.

It's an understandable interpretation based solely on the wording, and rather relevant, in light of where he's living.

It also points to the truth about logic that I mentioned before: that many (all?) things have their own internal logic.

And, by pointing to this, it also point to the difference between validity and soundness, or logic and true authority.

Regardless, I'm sorry you were incapable of following an authoritative opinion (in the first sense of the term).

This is probably because you're an NTP.

No need to get so personal.

That's a very good explanation, but I already know all that.

I was simply trying to save wasted time and effort.

Also, regarding my type--I'm open to the opinions/observations of others.

It was only a week ago that I switched to INTJ, so I'm still pretty open to NTP. It's the NTPs on this forum you're gonna have a hard time convincing, though. Good luck with that!

I'm really quite interested in exploring my type further. I just don't think it's relevant to the topic of this thread.

 

[Zarathustra]

No need to get so personal.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it you who brought "you're full of it" into this conversation?

That's a very good explanation, but I already know all that.

I was simply trying to save wasted time and effort.

Then why are you still asking this question?

These things don't add up...

Also, regarding my type--I'm open to the opinions/observations of others. INTJ is certainly not set in stone.
I just don't think it's relevant to the topic of this thread.

Different types tend to have different views of/approaches to logic, so it's rather germane.

NTPs tend to be more reverential toward logic due to TiSi imperatives.

NTJs tend to find this reverence a bit ridiculous, as Ni(Te)Fi(Se) is more flexible and sees TiSi as rigid.

We tend to focus on empiricism, getting the assumptions right, and inductive reasoning.

You guys tend to focus on rationalism, basing things off (your subjective) first principles, and deductive reasoning.

 

[Spurgeon]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it you who brought "you're full of it" into this conversation?

OK. Fair enough.

As for the rest of your post--and for just about every post I've seen of yours:



Tiresome and pedantic. That's the only way to describe it.

Your intuiton seems to be in hyperdrive (No, that's not a compliment--I mean you seem to overanalyze people's motives to a pathological degree)
and you seem to have endless time to waste on pointless debate.

It's just not worth the time and effort to respond to all of your little nitpicky arguments--especially since you're not even serious half the time.

You're an intelligent clown, at best.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

LOL

 

[Zarathustra]

You're an intelligent clown, at best.

Once again making it personal, after requesting that it not be...

It's just not worth the time and effort to respond to all of your little nitpicky arguments...

I haven't seen a single intelligent post from you in this thread.

Is there a moment when you're actually going to address the topic?

Or are you just waiting for the right moment to bring your proselytizing into this?

 

[Spurgeon]

Once again making it personal, after requesting that it not be...





I haven't seen a single intelligent post from you in this thread.

Is there a moment when you're actually going to address the topic?

Or are you just waiting for the right moment to bring your proselytizing into this?

 

[Jaguar]

LOL

So, I'm reading all this horse shit, right?
I get to your post with nothing more than three letters in it, and enjoy it more than any post in the entire circle-jerking thread.

 

[Spurgeon]

So, I'm reading all this horse shit, right?
I get to your post with nothing more than three letters in it, and enjoy it more than any post in the entire circle-jerking thread.

I agree.

I'm ashamed that I've even wasted so much time with this guy, and with this thread.

I wouldn't mind if the whole thing were just deleted right now.

 

[Zarathustra]

 

[Zarathustra]

I wouldn't mind if the whole thing were just deleted right now.

Yes, it was a dumb thread.