User Tag List

First 3456715 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 176

  1. #41
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    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.

  2. #42
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    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?

  3. #43
    Senior Member Spurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    xNxx
    Posts
    239

    Default

    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.

  4. #44
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Is authority the ultimate logic?
    In both ways in which this can be (aptly) interpreted, there is much truth in this statement.

  5. #45
    Senior Member Spurgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    MBTI
    xNxx
    Posts
    239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    Is authority the ultimate logic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post

    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.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spurgeon View Post
    You're off the hook. Carry on.
    Love the expression. I'm stealing it.

  7. #47
    Cheeseburgers freeeekyyy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    1,387

    Default

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

    _______

    RCOEI
    Melancholic-Choleric
    Respectful Leader

    Johari Window|Nohari Window

  8. #48
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spurgeon View Post
    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.

  9. #49
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,582

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    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.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  10. #50
    Nips away your dignity Fluffywolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,422

    Default

    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!
    ~Self-depricating Megalomaniacal Superwolf

Similar Threads

  1. [ISTJ] Why Charles Augustus Magnussen is the ultimate ISTJ gone crazy ?!
    By Probabilist in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-01-2016, 02:16 PM
  2. Which Enneagram Type is the Ultimate Diva?
    By Elfboy in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-19-2014, 12:18 AM
  3. Logic: The ultimate fun killer
    By Virtual ghost in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 01-17-2009, 01:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO