Theorem of Feel

[SolitaryWalker]

Note: This is not another Feeler bash thread.

The question that I am concerned with is whether or not it is desirable for people to believe in things that are not supported by an argument. Theorem of Feel leads us to feel justified in doing so. The first section is concerned with a discussion of Logic, the reader who is concerned with the practical implications of the theorem of Feel is advised to skip it.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I. What Modus Feel is

To make my point more clear, consider the following diagrams. Symbolic Logic and Mathematical Logic offer several acceptable rules of inference. Arguments that abide by such rules are regarded as valid, arguments that do not abide are regarded as invalid. A valid argument is one where the conclusion is entailed by the premises. In simpler form, what this means is that the conclusion is supported by the premises, hence if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be. Logic, unlike science is not concerned with factual accuracy, it is merely focused on the chain of reasoning. If the chain of reasoning is legitimate and we do have accurate information, then following the chain of reasoning prescribed by Logic should lead to a true conclusion. The simplest way of looking at this is as follows; there are good reasons for us to make some of the conclusions that we make, yet for other conclusions, there are no such reasons, as they are simply 'unfounded'. Logic is concerned with establishing and listing the legitimate chains of reasoning for all possible ventures of thought.

If one discovers a chain of reasoning that is legitimate, it can rightly be regarded as a Theorem of Symbolic or Mathematical Logic. Hence, he is free to give the Theorem any name he desires. For example, Augustus De Morgan (1806-1871) Augustus De Morgan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia discovered that the expression of (not A and not B) is equivalent to not (A or B). Or is used in an inclusive sense, in other words when it is stated that A or B is true, it is implied that at least one is true. To get a clear understanding of this notion, imagine a waitress asking you if you would like coffee or tea, a response that you would like to have both certainly would be relevant to her question. She certainly would not suggest to you that when she asked you if you want one or the other that you must have one and not the other. On that note, (one or the other) is not the same expression as (one and not the other). Hence, in the case of DeMorgan's theorem what we have is as follows not (A or B) is equivalent to not A and not B.

As previously established, not (A or B) means that it is not the case that at least one of the two (A or B) must be true. This amount to the claim that both A and B are false.

Hence, this is a theorem of Symbolic Logic.

Lets consider other theorems such as Modus Ponens, or Modus Tollens. According to Modus Ponens, if A then B, A is true, therefore B must be true.

Modus Tollens, if A then B, not B, therefore not A.

The following are instances of Modus Feel: If A then B, A, therefore Z.

If A then B, not (A and B), therefore B.

A or B, Z, therefore not A and not B.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. How Modus Feel is practiced.

In other words, the conclusion is always true irrespectively of the premises. How could this be? The simplest answer one can think of is the force akin to magic. There is no need for a reason, on fiat we assume that the conclusion is true and to hell with the reasoning process.

I am certainly not concerned with whether or not Modus Feel is an acceptable rule of logical inference, but with whether or not we should encourage this kind of reasoning.

In other words, is it desirable for ordinary people to reason in a deductively valid manner, or is it better that they simply think however they would like to. Which rules of reasoning are to be preferred? The Modus Feel ones or those that entail deductively valid answers?

Those who espouse Modus Feel often argue that all rules of logical inference are arbitrary. If A then B, A, therefore B is not any more tenable than If A then B, A, therefore Z. This view is captured in the following famous quotation or a renowned social critic "Logic is the art of going wrong with confidence. "
Joseph Wood Krutch ( Joseph Wood Krutch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

It has an appeal to those who wish to feel they have the answers without conducting a careful analysis of whether or not they truly do. Logical Reasoning to such thinkers is merely another rhetorical tool. It has no objective merit, it is simply something that feels convincing to some people. It is on the same level as alchemy, black magic, preaching of religious revelation or political propaganda. This is exactly the notion that has been reflected in the following quotations.

"Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice."
Elbert Hubbard

"It is always better to say right out what you think without trying to prove anything much: for all our proofs are only variations of our opinions, and the contrary-minded listen neither to one nor the other."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832)

"Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do. "
James Harvey Robinson

"Logic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge. " Benjamin Jowett

What is the underlying theme among all of these statements. They seem to think that Logic is not a tool for understanding the world but a tool for affirmation of our prejudices and foisting them upon others.

How would a proponent of such a theory go about defending it? The obvious challenge that he must answer is if it is truly the case that all uses of logic are merely attempts at persuasion and not at acquisition of the truth, would it not be the case that such a statement about logic is also another attempt at persuasion? He may reply that Logic is merely an attempt at persuasion, but what he is using is not logic. It is merely an appeal to an intuition and he somehow knows that his intuition is a true one. Very well, I would respond, explain to me how such an intuition is used, so I can rely on that intuition to get knowledge for myself. He would refuse as what I am asking him to do is to engage in logic. Simply put, he would dismiss any request to explain his views in a way that is objectively understood as logic which amounts to either self-deception or deception of others. It is mere casuistry in the eyes of such a mystic. I would then proceed to dismiss him as a mere quack. But he would importune me to listen to him, would finally propose to explain his views. He would then say that he has a feeling that God exists, or that Black Magic exists and his feeling never strayed him wrong. I would then ask him to describe what such a feeling is, and identify such a feeling within myself.

After having done this, I will introspect myself and discover that I associate that same exact feeling with the conclusion that is the opposite of his. The mystic would attribute this to my own obstinacy and obstreperousness, sheer defiance of the truth. He may even quote the Biblical verse regarding how the fool in his heart says there is no God. Hence, the reason why I do not believe in what he believes in has nothing to do with the truthfulness or the falsity of the matter he believes in, but because there is something wrong with me. Quite handily, some religious zealots believe in Predestination. Some have been chosen by God to be saved and others have been chosen to be damned. Apparently since I do not believe, I must have been chosen to be damned.

Believing is simply an ability to think that things are true, despite the fact that you do not believe that it is possible for anything to be true. It is, at the bottom a mere prejudice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Plausibility of Modus and Theorem of Feel

This view is certainly untenable, because it it self-contradictory. For the very least the mystic asserts that it is true that he has a certain feeling that compels him to believe in some things, yet this is impossible to reconcile with the thesis that there is no truth. The mystic maintains that his feeling is truth preserving and argues that mine is not simply because I am wicked and he is righteous, yet offers no supporting evidence for this assertion. It is arbitrary in the strictest sense of the word.

----------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Utility of the Modus and Theorem of Feel

As aforementioned, Modus Feel can not be an inference of logical thought, nor can the theorem of Feel be used to contribute to the body of scientific knowledge. However, despite this, I am not yet prepared to regard mysticism and feeling as a pretense for an epistemic vehicle as completely unacceptable. There is a distinction between what is true and what is good. It is far from clear that knowing the truth is good for all people.

It is a fact of our biology that we are born with certain instincts which are intensified significantly throughout the course of our lives. One of such instincts is the wish to feel good. Even the most ardent of massochists will admit that they feel that pain is good and that is the reason why they welcome it into their lives.

We all would like to believe that we are wise, competent, compassionate as well as have a bright future. Unfortunately, intellectually honest discourse leads us to hold a contrary view regarding ourselves. It is true that many are able to live with the realization that their future is less bright than they would like for it to be or that they are not as intelligent as they wish were, the bottom line is, they accept their own shortcomings and still manage to be happy. This is by no means an easy process. Many do arrive at some of such realizations, yet they do so with great damage to their self-esteem. Accepting one's own short-comings without losing self-respect is something that very few are able to accomplish. For the very least, even the most self-disciplined people wish to have a reason to believe that their future will be pleasant. They may well have accepted that they are not intelligent or not compassionate, and so on, yet despite this, they think their life may be enjoyable. Hence, it may be very useful for them to be intellectually dishonest and turn to superstition in order to arrive at such a conviction. They may well endorse the belief in karma and by spurious means assume that their karma is a good one. In addition to this, it would be far from ill-advised for such persons to endorse superstitious beliefs to the effect of their grandmother practices magic and she can guarantee their happiness in the long run. It is not happening at the present moment, may not happen in ten years, but their absolute faith in their grandmother's abilities will doubtlessly convince them their time will come. Eventually the person in question may become disillusioned with his grandmother, however powerful she may be, she is not all powerful. There is a need for a back up plan, how about God? God obviously likes the grandson or the granddaughter of the person in question and he is all powerful, he will certainly guarantee his happiness because of this. How will he do this? He will grant eternal life. This way the person in question will have every reason to continue hoping. He could well live with the conviction that his time will never come in this world, but eventually it will! To his mind, this assertion is irrefutable because it must happen at a place and a time where noone could observe this, perhaps even in a different world that is unintelligible to us. When it is pointed out that if the world is unintelligible, he cannot talk about it meaningfully, and therefore there is no substantial reason to hope that his time will truly come. Yet, he will appeal to the theorem of feel to shrugg of this challenge and convince himself to believe in whatever he would like to.

Who are the most successful practitioners of the 'Feel' method, and what are the consequences of their work? Politicians, preachers, lawyers, leaders of military units, self-help authors, social workers? Certainly these people have inspired thousands of individuals to surrender their lives for a vain cause, a la Hitler. Yet, preachers, social workers and self-help authors have changed many lives for the better by intellectually dishonest means. They often have done this by putting forth rationally untenable proofs for how special their clients are and how much they deserve to have a good life and therefore are bound to get what they deserve eventually. Or quite simply, they may have convinced even the most hopeless of individuals to endorse a false belief that they are not hopeless and as result have given them confidence to better their lives.

The Feel method is a craft, it is morally neutral. It can be used to manipulate people to their benefit or to their deteriment, or it could also be used by its practitioners to deceive themselves and delude their followers into doing so themselves. The use of it could be completely innocent and self deceiving or it could be used in a carefully calculated manner to deceive others, it could be altruistic (as in the case of a social worker in question) or self-serving (as in the case of Hitler).

The question is, what kind of practioners are we more likely to find out of all the persons who use the 'Feel' method? More importantly, what are the consequences of their work likely to be? I suggest that by evaluation of these consequences we should decide whether the Feel method is congenial or not, and accordingly if the use of it should be encouraged or discouraged.

 

[Synarch]

I love when you post. It's such a treat!

 

[Synarch]

We all would like to believe that we are wise, competent, compassionate as well as have a bright future.

I think many people would like to believe the exact opposite.

Unfortunately, intellectually honest discourse leads us to hold a contrary view regarding ourselves. It is true that many are able to live with the realization that their future is less bright than they would like for it to be or that they are not as intelligent as they wish were, the bottom line is, they accept their own shortcomings and still manage to be happy. This is by no means an easy process. Many do arrive at some of such realizations, yet they do so with great damage to their self-esteem. Accepting one's own short-comings without losing self-respect is something that very few are able to accomplish. For the very least, even the most self-disciplined people wish to have a reason to believe that their future will be pleasant. They may well have accepted that they are not intelligent or not compassionate, and so on, yet despite this, they think their life may be enjoyable. Hence, it may be very useful for them to be intellectually dishonest and turn to superstition in order to arrive at such a conviction. They may well endorse the belief in karma and by spurious means assume that their karma is a good one. In addition to this, it would be far from ill-advised for such persons to endorse superstitious beliefs to the effect of their grandmother practices magic and she can guarantee their happiness in the long run. It is not happening at the present moment, may not happen in ten years, but their absolute faith in their grandmother's abilities will doubtlessly convince them their time will come. Eventually the person in question may become disillusioned with his grandmother, however powerful she may be, she is not all powerful. There is a need for a back up plan, how about God? God obviously likes the grandson or the granddaughter of the person in question and he is all powerful, he will certainly guarantee his happiness because of this. How will he do this? He will grant eternal life. This way the person in question will have every reason to continue hoping. He could well live with the conviction that his time will never come in this world, but eventually it will! To his mind, this assertion is irrefutable because it must happen at a place and a time where noone could observe this, perhaps even in a different world that is unintelligible to us. When it is pointed out that if the world is unintelligible, he cannot talk about it meaningfully, and therefore there is no substantial reason to hope that his time will truly come. Yet, he will appeal to the theorem of feel to shrugg of this challenge and convince himself to believe in whatever he would like to.

Who are the most successful practitioners of the 'Feel' method, and what are the consequences of their work? Politicians, preachers, lawyers, leaders of military units, self-help authors, social workers? Certainly these people have inspired thousands of individuals to surrender their lives for a vain cause, a la Hitler. Yet, preachers, social workers and self-help authors have changed many lives for the better by intellectually dishonest means. They often have done this by putting forth rationally untenable proofs for how special their clients are and how much they deserve to have a good life and therefore are bound to get what they deserve eventually. Or quite simply, they may have convinced even the most hopeless of individuals to endorse a false belief that they are not hopeless and as result have given them confidence to better their lives.

Rationally untenable ideas can still be effective practically.

The Feel method is a craft, it is morally neutral. It can be used to manipulate people to their benefit or to their deteriment, or it could also be used by its practitioners to deceive themselves and delude their followers into doing so themselves. The use of it could be completely innocent and self deceiving or it could be used in a carefully calculated manner to deceive others, it could be altruistic (as in the case of a social worker in question) or self-serving (as in the case of Hitler).

The question is, what kind of practioners are we more likely to find out of all the persons who use the 'Feel' method? More importantly, what are the consequences of their work likely to be? I suggest that by evaluation of these consequences we should decide whether the Feel method is congenial or not, and accordingly if the use of it should be encouraged or discouraged.

Anyone who seeks to influence others will use the Feel method, because no other method has influence over the passions of men.

 

[iwakar]

Unfortunately, intellectually honest discourse leads us to hold a contrary view regarding ourselves. It is true that many are able to live with the realization that their future is less bright than they would like for it to be or that they are not as intelligent as they wish were, the bottom line is, they accept their own shortcomings and still manage to be happy. This is by no means an easy process. Many do arrive at some of such realizations, yet they do so with great damage to their self-esteem. Accepting one's own short-comings without losing self-respect is something that very few are able to accomplish.

It feels as if you managed to pluck a single, frequent thread of thought from the tangled confines of my mind during its most difficult solitary hours and held it apart for public view. Dazzling.

For the very least, even the most self-disciplined people wish to have a reason to believe that their future will be pleasant. They may well have accepted that they are not intelligent or not compassionate, and so on, yet despite this, they think their life may be enjoyable. Hence, it may be very useful for them to be intellectually dishonest and turn to superstition in order to arrive at such a conviction. They may well endorse the belief in karma and by spurious means assume that their karma is a good one. In addition to this, it would be far from ill-advised for such persons to endorse superstitious beliefs to the effect of their grandmother practices magic and she can guarantee their happiness in the long run. It is not happening at the present moment, may not happen in ten years, but their absolute faith in their grandmother's abilities will doubtlessly convince them their time will come. Eventually the person in question may become disillusioned with his grandmother, however powerful she may be, she is not all powerful. There is a need for a back up plan, how about God? God obviously likes the grandson or the granddaughter of the person in question and he is all powerful, he will certainly guarantee his happiness because of this. How will he do this? He will grant eternal life. This way the person in question will have every reason to continue hoping. He could well live with the conviction that his time will never come in this world, but eventually it will! To his mind, this assertion is irrefutable because it must happen at a place and a time where noone could observe this, perhaps even in a different world that is unintelligible to us. When it is pointed out that if the world is unintelligible, he cannot talk about it meaningfully, and therefore there is no substantial reason to hope that his time will truly come. Yet, he will appeal to the theorem of feel to shrug off this challenge and convince himself to believe in whatever he would like to.

During the various attempts by my loved ones to turn me to their particular version of "the light" since my Christian defection, and in order to help me sort out life's difficulties, I have on occasion been tempted to cast myself into it with a zealot's fury, but have always thought better of it. It feels like "cheating" at life by avoiding responsibility for my sins or credit for my accomplishments. --That and I prefer to achieve answers and conclusions to my own questions rather than receive them prefab and book-bound.

Who are the most successful practitioners of the 'Feel' method, and what are the consequences of their work? Politicians, preachers, lawyers, leaders of military units, self-help authors, social workers? Certainly these people have inspired thousands of individuals to surrender their lives for a vain cause, a la Hitler. Yet, preachers, social workers and self-help authors have changed many lives for the better by intellectually dishonest means. They often have done this by putting forth rationally untenable proofs for how special their clients are and how much they deserve to have a good life and therefore are bound to get what they deserve eventually. Or quite simply, they may have convinced even the most hopeless of individuals to endorse a false belief that they are not hopeless and as result have given them confidence to better their lives.

The Feel method is a craft, it is morally neutral. It can be used to manipulate people to their benefit or to their deteriment, or it could also be used by its practitioners to deceive themselves and delude their followers into doing so themselves. The use of it could be completely innocent and self deceiving or it could be used in a carefully calculated manner to deceive others, it could be altruistic (as in the case of a social worker in question) or self-serving (as in the case of Hitler).

That it simply can be used seems the most significant conclusion. And like logic 'for good or ill' is at the discretion of its employer.

The question is, what kind of practitioners are we more likely to find out of all the persons who use the 'Feel' method? More importantly, what are the consequences of their work likely to be? I suggest that by evaluation of these consequences we should decide whether the Feel method is congenial or not, and accordingly if the use of it should be encouraged or discouraged.

My intuition tells me that the sins of Feel usage rival rather than overshadow the errors of Logic usage.

Your exposition has left me wondering if and what sort of being could exist that utilized Sensing or Intuition, but neither Thinking or Feeling. Is it possible? Or only fantasy like suicidal lemmings or "pre-cogs"? I am off to ponder...

 

[laughingebony]

How would a proponent of such a theory go about defending it? The obvious challenge that he must answer is if it is truly the case that all uses of logic are merely attempts at persuasion and not at acquisition of the truth, would it not be the case that such a statement about logic is also another attempt at persuasion? He may reply that Logic is merely an attempt at persuasion, but what he is using is not logic. It is merely an appeal to an intuition and he somehow knows that his intuition is a true one. Very well, I would respond, explain to me how such an intuition is used, so I can rely on that intuition to get knowledge for myself. He would refuse as what I am asking him to do is to engage in logic. Simply put, he would dismiss any request to explain his views in a way that is objectively understood as logic which amounts to either self-deception or deception of others. It is mere casuistry in the eyes of such a mystic. I would then proceed to dismiss him as a mere quack. But he would importune me to listen to him, would finally propose to explain his views. He would then say that he has a feeling that God exists, or that Black Magic exists and his feeling never strayed him wrong. I would then ask him to describe what such a feeling is, and identify such a feeling within myself.

After having done this, I will introspect myself and discover that I associate that same exact feeling with the conclusion that is the opposite of his. The mystic would attribute this to my own obstinacy and obstreperousness, sheer defiance of the truth. He may even quote the Biblical verse regarding how the fool in his heart says there is no God. Hence, the reason why I do not believe in what he believes in has nothing to do with the truthfulness or the falsity of the matter he believes in, but because there is something wrong with me. Quite handily, some religious zealots believe in Predestination. Some have been chosen by God to be saved and others have been chosen to be damned. Apparently since I do not believe, I must have been chosen to be damned.

In this instance, does your inability to reach the same conclusion imply that the other person's method of finding truth is faulty? Couldn't he have explained himself inadequately?

 

[Polaris]

You seem to be confusing logic in general with particular systems of logic. Logic in itself refers to any kind of system that obeys a set of rules (forgive the tautology). Mathematics, symbolic logic, and the English language are all examples of such systems. When a rule is broken in a system, the thing that broke that rule is illegitimate, but only from that system's current perspective. What is an error in one system can be integrated into another system, or you could even rewrite the rules to accommodate the error. Which brings me to my point--logic doesn't discredit any chain of reasoning once and for all but only from your current reference point.

This view is certainly untenable, because it it self-contradictory. For the very least the mystic asserts that it is true that he has a certain feeling that compels him to believe in some things, yet this is impossible to reconcile with the thesis that there is no truth. The mystic maintains that his feeling is truth preserving and argues that mine is not simply because I am wicked and he is righteous, yet offers no supporting evidence for this assertion. It is arbitrary in the strictest sense of the word.

A piece of evidence is given as much weight as you want to give it, and nothing more: you choose your framework; you set your rules. For the "mystic," feelings are sufficient grounds to believe something. That's the kind of logic that he operates on: his appeal to his feelings is his proof. From your perspective, that's an error of thought, but not from his. I would go even further than that, though. I would argue that everything you believe has the Theorem of Feel at its root. Once you've adopted a framework for evaluating things, the Theorem becomes invalid, yes, unless the Theorem is a part of your framework. But when you made the choice to adopt your framework, there was no set of rules binding you to do so. You made an arbitrary choice, just like the "mystic," and such a choice lies at the basis of everything you believe. Or perhaps you didn't make a choice; perhaps you've always held your current perspective; perhaps it even came on you without your thinking of it. The same can be said of the "mystic" and his viewpoint, can't it? Either way, your views are no more valid than his, unless what you're arguing is that automatic beliefs are superior to beliefs we choose. That certainly wouldn't work from my way of looking at things.

 

[ergophobe]

I'm not sure I agree with your description of Modus Feel. I've read about the difficulty of describing the subjective logic associated with feeling in decision making. Your description makes it seem far more of an arbitrary jump than it is. Internally, it follows the logical patterns you described. Being subjective, it differs across individuals but that does not imply that there isn't an internal logic to the conclusion reached. It's not magical, as you describe it or without rationale.

It is often a difference in presentation of the logic - for decisions or conclusions reached using feeling, a subjective form of logic, an explanation in the form of or akin to the other types of logic are not deemed necessary or appropriate. I'm not sure if that means that there isn't logical base to the decision making process.

I'll be thinking more about this and express the objections better tomorrow.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I think many people would like to believe the exact opposite. .

It is true that some people would prefer to see themselves as lacking virtues rather than as having them, yet I think it is a mistake to say that many of such people exist. The most radical version of holding such views is known as massochism, or derivation of pleasure from initially painful activities. I would find it difficult to argue that many massochists exist. For the very least it seems clear that most people would much rather be praised rather than maligned.

Rationally untenable ideas can still be effective practically.

That is true and I accept this as one reason why Modus Feel may be congenial.

Anyone who seeks to influence others will use the Feel method, because no other method has influence over the passions of men.

For the most part this is true, however the statement that it is not possible to influence how men feel without using the method of Feel is false. In the entire history of the sciences, mathematics and philosophy, we would be able to find at least a half a dozen of instances where men were persuaded more by a rational argument rather than an appeal to emotion.

In this instance, does your inability to reach the same conclusion imply that the other person's method of finding truth is faulty? Couldn't he have explained himself inadequately?

It could be the case that the person in question reasons in a deductively valid manner but does not express his thoughts clearly enough for us to see that his arguments are indeed valid.

You seem to be confusing logic in general with particular systems of logic. Logic in itself refers to any kind of system that obeys a set of rules (forgive the tautology). Mathematics, symbolic logic, and the English language are all examples of such systems. When a rule is broken in a system, the thing that broke that rule is illegitimate, but only from that system's current perspective. What is an error in one system can be integrated into another system, or you could even rewrite the rules to accommodate the error. Which brings me to my point--logic doesn't discredit any chain of reasoning once and for all but only from your current reference point..

That is true. For this reason non-Classical logics exist. You are free to construct more systems of non-classical logic. For instance you could have a system where there is no Modus Tollens, or no DeMorgan's Theorem, or even one that allows contradictions.

The system would have rules for us to follow, they simply would be different from those of a classical system. However, the fact remains that this system does have certain rules for us to follow, in order for it to be used, we must be consistent in how we apply such rules. For instance, if we do not allow Modus Tollens, we must refrain from using that method of reasoning consistently. If we do not, and allow this inconsistency to be a part of our system it would break down.

Consider the following example, suppose we have a system of Logic where contradictions are allowed. It is a fact of such a system that contradictions are acceptable. Yet if all of a sudden we integrate a rule that they are also unacceptable, our whole system would collapse, as it would be impossible to use this method of Logic to derive any conclusion as we have a fundamental difficulty with regard to how we could even start the inquiry. At first we would think that there is a law of non-contradiction, and then we would think there is not. Imagine if not only the rule of non-contradiction was inconsistently established, but also all other rules were (E.G if it was maintained that it is the case that there is a Modus Ponens and also that there is not.). You could be sure we would get nowhere with that system of logic. Bottom line is consistency is an integral aspect of logic, arguably it is the essence of logic itself. Rules like modus ponens, modus tollens, non-contradiction are merely instances of many possible uses of logic.

In other words, all systems must be internally consistent, or have clear-cut rules and stay true to them. This is what all systems of logic have in common.

A piece of evidence is given as much weight as you want to give it, and nothing more: you choose your framework; you set your rules. For the "mystic," feelings are sufficient grounds to believe something. That's the kind of logic that he operates on: his appeal to his feelings is his proof. From your perspective, that's an error of thought, but not from his. I would go even further than that, though. I would argue that everything you believe has the Theorem of Feel at its root. Once you've adopted a framework for evaluating things, the Theorem becomes invalid, yes, unless the Theorem is a part of your framework. But when you made the choice to adopt your framework, there was no set of rules binding you to do so. You made an arbitrary choice, just like the "mystic," and such a choice lies at the basis of everything you believe. Or perhaps you didn't make a choice; perhaps you've always held your current perspective; perhaps it even came on you without your thinking of it. The same can be said of the "mystic" and his viewpoint, can't it? Either way, your views are no more valid than his, unless what you're arguing is that automatic beliefs are superior to beliefs we choose. That certainly wouldn't work from my way of looking at things.

The question is whether or not the mystic consistently follows the rules he accepted. I argued that he does not because he says feeling is evidence of verity regarding a certain proposition. When I tell him that I have a feeling about a view that is contrary to his, he regards me as wrong and shamefully wicked. If he was consistent he would be forced to admit that my view is true. That is the difference between a good logician and a bad one, only one of the two consistently follows his rules of reasoning whether they be arbitrarily chosen or not. Non-Feel methods of reasoning do not proscribe an arbitrary selection of rules of reasoning (hence, that is why we can legitimately concoct non-classical logics), they only proscribe inconsistencies with regard to the use of elected rules.

 

[sculpting]

The question that I am concerned with is whether or not it is desirable for people to believe in things that are not supported by an argument. Theorem of Feel leads us to feel justified in doing so. .

Given that about half the population makes decisions via "Nonlogical" methods, anytime you are approaching that group you have to assume they are doing this already. So to work with, them convince them, interact with them, you have no choice but to accept some level of "belief". The pure logic of the discussion is beautiful, however practically, this will always be present.

Evolution and societal pressures pushed us to find the most ideal solution to achieve species permanancy. So, in spite of its flaws, the thoery of feel may be a very practical biological tool.

A valid argument is one where the conclusion is entailed by the premises. In simpler form, what this means is that the conclusion is supported by the premises, hence if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be. Logic, unlike science is not concerned with factual accuracy, it is merely focused on the chain of reasoning. If the chain of reasoning is legitimate and we do have accurate information, then following the chain of reasoning prescribed by Logic should lead to a true conclusion. The simplest way of looking at this is as follows; there are good reasons for us to make some of the conclusions that we make, yet for other conclusions, there are no such reasons, as they are simply 'unfounded'. Logic is concerned with establishing and listing the legitimate chains of reasoning for all possible ventures of thought..

Ti seems to form very concrete, logical steps, which are easy to diagram and construct. So for a Ti dom, I can see logical arguments as being instinctual. Why would you discuss or deside any other way?

It seems-from what I have understood-NeTi doesnt happen so cleanly. Chunks of the Ti patterns seem to "crystallize" out of the Ne connections. Then the patterns get more solidified and confirmed. Sometimes the different pieces of Ti actually show up out of order, then get connected in the right order??? So the result looks like Ti logic, but did not start there (still gathering data though, very tentative). Much of this seems to occur under the hood of the concious mind.

NeFi is actually a step beyond that. Vague notions, ideas, lumps arise and get pushed back and forth between connections. Whole chunks of pattern poip up, not connected but understood to be connected. Sometimes it is very difficult to back track logical steps in discrete, concrete Ti fashion, but the answer is correct nonetheless (as gauged by results of the solution implementation). The theory of feel begins to emerge? (On this same note whole chunks of totally nutty stuff also get connected-which makes for hysterical jokes at times)

For certain problems-math or physics-I would imagine logic to be the best way to make a choice. No arguments.

But as the problem becomes fuzzier and more ill defined, especially involving human uncertainties, then the theory of feel becomes more applicable. The case of religion is an extreme one, however daily dscisions involving the human aspect almost always rely on some level of "feel".

I think of Fi as being a math function in which I seek to minimize local unhappiness. Perhaps all of the "feel" could be thought of as complex, fuzzy ill defined tools developed by evolution for complex, fuzzy, ill defined problems.

I am certainly not concerned with whether or not Modus Feel is an acceptable rule of logical inference, but with whether or not we should encourage this kind of reasoning.

In other words, is it desirable for ordinary people to reason in a deductively valid manner, or is it better that they simply think however they would like to. Which rules of reasoning are to be preferred? The Modus Feel ones or those that entail deductively valid answers?

It is merely an appeal to an intuition and he somehow knows that his intuition is a true one. Very well, I would respond, explain to me how such an intuition is used, so I can rely on that intuition to get knowledge for myself. .

We are not all designed biologically to be deductive. You can teach the basics of this, but it will never naturally be the default manner in which some make choices. If they tried I would question thier choices and look for errors, due to faulty reason. An example-when I took quantum, I would understand the concepts very well, understand the math, but would make tiny errors in five page long problems and get the problem wrong. I have learned to use Ti, but would you trust me to design the brakes in your car? In the same light would I trust you to design a course of therapy for a mentally ill patient or put together a marketing campaign? Find the right tool for the job, I'd say.

IV. Utility of the Modus and Theorem of Feel
The Feel method is a craft, it is morally neutral. It can be used to manipulate people to their benefit or to their deteriment, or it could also be used by its practitioners to deceive themselves and delude their followers into doing so themselves. The use of it could be completely innocent and self deceiving or it could be used in a carefully calculated manner to deceive others, it could be altruistic (as in the case of a social worker in question) or self-serving (as in the case of Hitler).

The question is, what kind of practioners are we more likely to find out of all the persons who use the 'Feel' method? More importantly, what are the consequences of their work likely to be? I suggest that by evaluation of these consequences we should decide whether the Feel method is congenial or not, and accordingly if the use of it should be encouraged or discouraged.

Agreed. This would be an interesting study. Mother Teresa and Osama Bin Laden could hold hands together on this particular path.

 

[Polaris]

For instance, if we do not allow Modus Tollens, we must refrain from using that method of reasoning consistently. If we do not, and allow this inconsistency to be a part of our system it would break down.

Modus Tollens is the same thing as Modus Ponens, the only difference being the starting point for its application. It's true that some form of Modus Ponens is always necessary in order to have a system, but what you seem to miss is that Modus Feel is a form of Modus Ponens. In this case, A = a conviction and B = the truth. By definition, Modus Feel is used consistently: any departure from Modus Feel is something other than Modus Feel.

Consider the following example, suppose we have a system of Logic where contradictions are allowed. It is a fact of such a system that contradictions are acceptable.

All logical systems allow contradictions. Contradictions are simply put in a separate category from the rest of the data. It's a form of inclusion by exclusion.

In other words, all systems must be internally consistent, or have clear-cut rules and stay true to them.

It's impossible for a system not to have those characteristics. A system is made of rules, and any departure from those rules constitutes a new system.

The question is whether or not the mystic consistently follows the rules he accepted. I argued that he does not because he says feeling is evidence of verity regarding a certain proposition. When I tell him that I have a feeling about a view that is contrary to his, he regards me as wrong and shamefully wicked. If he was consistent he would be forced to admit that my view is true.

In this case the "mystic" clearly gives precedence to his own feelings. I don't see the inconsistency. The inconsistency only exists when you take someone too literally when they say that feelings prove the truth. When someone says that, they're usually referring to what they feel, or else they would also have to accept all the views that oppose theirs.

That is the difference between a good logician and a bad one, only one of the two consistently follows his rules of reasoning whether they be arbitrarily chosen or not.

That's your definition of a good logician. For my part, I don't see anything wrong with someone mixing up the rules every now and then. If you didn't, you would never grow as a human being; you would be stuck with the same perspective, day in and day out.

Non-Feel methods of reasoning do not proscribe an arbitrary selection of rules of reasoning (hence, that is why we can legitimately concoct non-classical logics), they only proscribe inconsistencies with regard to the use of elected rules.

In what way is an elected set of rules not arbitrary?

 

[redacted]

"Modus Feel" is certainly a shitty way to argue. What people often don't realize, though, is that it's pretty easy to convert a Modus Feel argument to a Modus Ponens.

If you can't work backwards (make up premises that entail your conclusion), you suck at argument and shouldn't expect to win any.

 

[Kalach]

Let us perhaps consider INTP vs INFP, Ti as the dominant process for one, Fi for the other. If the dominant process in one works well, does its job, is accurate, has whatever positive evaluation of functioning in general you wish to apply, why doesn't the other?

This is not the question of which evaluation system--true, false, good, bad--outranks the other. It is the question, if one type is genuinely effective at what it predominantly does, why isn't another analogously structured type likewise effective? Why isn't modus feel (introverted) as insightful, accurate and real as modus whatever-the-hell-it-is-Ti-types-use? Why isn't it valid in a proper logical sense?


And let ENTJ and ENFJ be the test cases for modus feel (extraverted) being valid. I don't wanna go up against INFJs, they fight dirty.

 

[redacted]

Let us perhaps consider INTP vs INFP, Ti as the dominant process for one, Fi for the other. If the dominant process in one works well, does its job, is accurate, has whatever positive evaluation of functioning in general you wish to apply, why doesn't the other?

This is not the question of which evaluation system--true, false, good, bad--outranks the other. It is the question, if one type is genuinely effective at what it predominantly does, why isn't another analogously structured type likewise effective? Why isn't modus feel (introverted) as insightful, accurate and real as modus whatever-the-hell-it-is-Ti-types-use? Why isn't it valid in a proper logical sense?


And let ENTJ and ENFJ be the test cases for modus feel (extraverted) being valid. I don't wanna go up against INFJs, they fight dirty.

What you're not factoring in is this: just because someone has a dominant feeling function doesn't mean Feeling can somehow do the same kind of thing as Thinking. In good conflict resolution, you must use Thinking, and you must use it well (as well as Feeling).

Anyway, I kinda think Modus anything is silly, as people just believe what they believe and then make up arguments later to make it consistent.

 

[Kalach]

What you're not factoring in is this: just because someone has a dominant feeling function doesn't mean Feeling can somehow do the same kind of thing as Thinking.

Same kind of thing? What they both do, that'd be the evaluating stuff, wouldn't it? Fi and Ti aren't structured in the same way? Sure, they deal with different entities, but aren't they both systems of subjective evaluation bulwarked, or maybe informed, by Ne?

Ooo, finally a topic that needs both sides of the fence to describe themselves to each other: why are Ti and Fi not isomorphic? And Te vs Fe too?

In good conflict resolution, you must use Thinking, and you must use it well (as well as Feeling).

Well yeah, but who gives a damn? The topic is whether or not Feeling is legitimate as a persistent, substantial, RELIABLE source of judgment, just like thinking.

Anyway, I kinda think Modus anything is silly, as people just believe what they believe and then make up arguments later to make it consistent.

See? Do you see, now? Dirty, dirty fighters. Low and cunning.

 

[redacted]

Same kind of thing? That'd be evaluating stuff, wouldn't it? Fi and Ti aren't structured in the same way? Sure, they deal with different entities, but aren't they both systems of subjective evaluation bulwarked, or maybe informed, by Ne?

Ooo, finally a topic that needs both sides of the fence to describe themselves to each other: why are Ti and Fi not isomorphic? And Te vs Fe too?



Well yeah, but who gives a damn? The topic is whether or not Feeling is legitimate as a persistent, substantial, RELIABLE source of judgment, just like thinking.



See? Do you see, now? Dirty, dirty fighters. Low and cunning.

Feeling is NOT a reliable form of judgment in conflict resolution. It follows rules just like Thinking, but not everyone shares those rules. Thinking is necessary to structure a discussion in any sort of meaningful way (unless the other person can somehow do it for you).

Feeling is also necessary. They just evaluate completely different things.

It's kind of a pointless debate. Both are always necessary. They do different things. A T is likely to be better at one part, an F is likely to be better at the other, but maybe not.

To be clear: Feeling is a reliable form of judgment overall (it always does what it's supposed to do based on its rules ). It's just not particularly useful by itself.

P.S. I'm not fighting dirty. Plus, I'm Ni/Ti-ing, Fe is only flowering up my prose.

 

[Kalach]

Feeling is NOT a reliable form of judgment in conflict resolution.

So?

It follows rules just like Thinking, but not everyone shares those rules. Thinking is necessary to structure a discussion in any sort of meaningful way (unless the other person can somehow do it for you).

Isn't it a sort of corollary then that F Doms don't need to be trusted too much with what they say? Cuz their Thinking parts are at best instinctual, and far away from their dominant processes, and only really get involved properly in discussion if all the preceding processes are involved meaningfully first?

I suspeculate us IJs (and the EPs) need to watch out a little with assertions of thinking and feeling interdependence because we do have the processes closer together than others, and so what of the poor, suffering EJs and IPs? They seem to function anyway.

Furthermore, what I'm wondering about is F and T as dominant processes and why they should or shouldn't be understood as analogous in operation. Sure, no process does anything much if it isn't balanced by something else, but still, how does an F process do anything? Take Fi for example. It's more properly called personal ethics, isn't it, rather than feeling per se? A particular bout of, say, introverted feeling is transistory, presumably, but the result, given some introspection and suffering or joy or whatever, is some addition to the more long lasting process, Fi, an evaluation!

If we're going to go ahead and say "good" and "bad" as primary evaluations are and always will be merely subjective, then in fact we're ignoring the contribution of other, grounding or verifying processes, like something with a little e attached, Ne, Se, Te, whatever. Besides, ask an INTP and they'll say all "truth" is subjective, if not solipsistic... won't they?

Blah blah blah, and how come Fi isn't a process analogous to Ti in its construction of connections between this Fi (or Ti) entity and that Fi (or Ti) entity? From a formal point of view, why does modus Feel not operate in just the same way as modus Think? That is, does Fi have and use an inference process, or does it not? Surely, it does. Surely?

(*Ditto paragraph for Fe and Te inference here*.)

Feeling is also necessary. They just evaluate completely different things.

Yass, indeed. But the nifty thing about symbolic logic is it gives us the concept of "a rule of inference". In symbolic logic these devices are separable from the semantics of the system. Two actual systems that evaluate completely different things can still have the same form of inference at work. (Not that I'm saying Ti and Fi do have the same rule of inference, but it'd be freaky cool if in fact they did, huh!)

 

[Thalassa]

pwned

So?



Isn't it a sort of corollary then that F Doms don't need to be trusted too much with what they say? Cuz their Thinking parts are at best instinctual,

I'd just like to stop you right there and let you know that it's a scientific fact that human beings don't have "instincts."

My gift, to you, as an F dom.

 

[Kalach]

I'd just like to stop you right there and let you know that it's a scientific fact that human beings don't have "instincts."

My gift, to you, as an F dom.

That's nice. But this thought process I'm going through here is an Ni product, can't touch this!

And the jab about instinctual thought processes (a) could have used a better adjective, or, like, say, a phrase such as "under minimal conscious control", and (b) wasn't meant to be taken seriously as a theorem, rather as a kind of reductio to shake Evan's faith in thinking.

Incidentally, if INFJs and INTJs get started on this discussion, it's going to go to poo because both sides will be indulging in tertiary temptation romanticisms, the TJs wondering at the glories of feeling and the FJs getting all logical.


So, INFPs, does Fi use rules of inference or what?

 

[sculpting]

So?
Isn't it a sort of corollary then that F Doms don't need to be trusted too much with what they say? Cuz their Thinking parts are at best instinctual, and far away from their dominant processes, and only really get involved properly in discussion if all the preceding processes are involved meaningfully first?

I suspeculate us IJs (and the EPs) need to watch out a little with assertions of thinking and feeling interdependence because we do have the processes closer together than others, and so what of the poor, suffering EJs and IPs? They seem to function anyway.!)

Muhahaha! I have let many an unwary EFJ wonder into this trap...
It is sooo eaaasssyyyyy..... (Insert Guilt)
Good point about interdependance of the aux/tert functions.

Blah blah blah, and how come Fi isn't a process analogous to Ti in its construction of connections between this Fi (or Ti) entity and that Fi (or Ti) entity? From a formal point of view, why does modus Feel not operate in just the same way as modus Think? That is, does Fi have and use an inference process, or does it not? Surely, it does. Surely?


Yass, indeed. But the nifty thing about symbolic logic is it gives us the concept of "a rule of inference". In symbolic logic these devices are separable from the semantics of the system. Two actual systems that evaluate completely different things can still have the same form of inference at work. (Not that I'm saying Ti and Fi do have the same rule of inference, but it'd be freaky cool if in fact they did, huh!)

Evan said F has rules. But maybe that is Fe, cause my Fi doesnt have clear rules.

Fi-FOR ME- is more like an energy(unhappiness) minimizing function. It evaluates the localized energy (unhappiness) landscape, identifies areas of low potential energy (low unhappiness) and tries to identify the lowest energy(lowest unhappiness) solution.

What drives this is that Fi acts like a mirror. I sense anothers emotional state as I perceive it and then physiologically mimic it. Fi dislikes pain and likes pleasure as much as the next person. Thus Fi is driven to reduce thier pain so I reduce my own pain. It is a nasty evolutionary trick to enforce empathy me thinks. It is localized as it doesnt feel the pain it doesnt see.

So in a problem, Fi will find the lowest unhappiness solution for the localized enviornment. It is very utilitarian in this approach. Just like a complex energy landscape there may be several solutions that are of equal energy that have to be selected from.

Not like Ti, but still quite practical dependent upon the problem at hand.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Given that about half the population makes decisions via "Nonlogical" methods, anytime you are approaching that group you have to assume they are doing this already. So to work with, them convince them, interact with them, you have no choice but to accept some level of "belief". The pure logic of the discussion is beautiful, however practically, this will always be present. .

True, it may be the case that a lot of people will simply have a difficult time reasoning in a deductively valid manner. In fact doing so may be so difficult for them that it would cause them great distress. The distress could be so great that it may not even be worth trying to help them to use this method as the damages will significantly outweigh the assets.

Evolution and societal pressures pushed us to find the most ideal solution to achieve species permanancy. So, in spite of its flaws, the thoery of feel may be a very practical biological tool. .

It may be and it may not be. It is true that Evolution conditioned us to develop certain instincts to adjust to our environment and ultimately survive. However, we must keep in mind that the instincts that we have now were those that our ancestors needed in order to survive in their environment, they may not serve us well in ours. For example, we may have an instinct to look down when we hear something crawling, no doubt our ancestors found this to be a useful instinct to avoid stepping on snakes. We no longer live in an environment where we must fear snakes, hence this instinct is useless. Some instincts that our ancestors needed may not only be useless for us, but also harmful. Perhaps our male ancestors were forced to kill other males in order to reproduce successfully. This tendency may have been passed down to us in the guise of an instinct of hostility towards other men. Accepting this instinct will not lead us to do anything productive or even conducive to our survival and propagation of our species in the present day. This will only cause us to be in disharmony with many members of society with whom we would be much better served cooperating.

In one sentence, I impugn the claim that just because we have certain instincts, it is necessarily the case that they serve us well because evolution led us to have them.

Ti seems to form very concrete, logical steps, which are easy to diagram and construct. So for a Ti dom, I can see logical arguments as being instinctual. Why would you discuss or deside any other way?.

I never mentioned that there is a problem with all instinctual thought, just with instincts being the sole item of justification for our conclusion. Using logic properly by virtue of instincts is not the same as using instincts in a whimsical fashion. Bottom line is, as long as your reasoning remains consistent it can be justified by a non-Feel theorem, whether such reasoning derived from instincts or not is irrelevant.

It seems-from what I have understood-NeTi doesnt happen so cleanly. Chunks of the Ti patterns seem to "crystallize" out of the Ne connections. Then the patterns get more solidified and confirmed. Sometimes the different pieces of Ti actually show up out of order, then get connected in the right order??? So the result looks like Ti logic, but did not start there (still gathering data though, very tentative). Much of this seems to occur under the hood of the concious mind.?.

We cannot control our unconscious thought easily. My suggestion is that we separate the Modus Feel from other rules of logical derivation.

But as the problem becomes fuzzier and more ill defined, especially involving human uncertainties, then the theory of feel becomes more applicable. The case of religion is an extreme one, however daily dscisions involving the human aspect almost always rely on some level of "feel"..?.

Regarding religion, do you mean that Modus Feel offers a good way to attain knowledge, or a good way to do something beneficial to you? The latter may be the case if it is useful to believe in things that are false, but I do not at all see how Modus Feel could get us the truth. It is the case that religion is not like mathematics and physics where answers could be deduced with clarity and precision, but it does not mean that we are free to assume whatever we would like about religion. For the very least, instead of using Modus Feel we could rely on educated guessing (Inductive Reasoning) and see to what parts of Religious inquiry, if to any, we can apply deductive reasoning.

I think of Fi as being a math function in which I seek to minimize local unhappiness. Perhaps all of the "feel" could be thought of as complex, fuzzy ill defined tools developed by evolution for complex, fuzzy, ill defined problems."..?.

Perhaps this is where Modus Feel is useful. Very few people who have made the decision to devote their lives to making others happy have done so by logical reasoning. They have arrived there by following their instincts. Such instincts likely were deceiving these people into believing that they are good by nature, or that they can really be helped and so on. Modus Feel, or intellectually dishonest reasoning could be used to convince people that such conclusions are true. Again, this goes back to the previous problem of whether or not Modus Feel leads to beneficial practical results. I think it just might as it can create devoted philanthropists.

We are not all designed biologically to be deductive. ..

That is true and this was the point you made in your first paragraph. My question is, is it desirable for us to persuade people to go against their nature and try to reason in a deductively valid fashion as much as possible?

You can teach the basics of this, but it will never naturally be the default manner in which some make choices.."..?.

We certainly could inspire people to make choices this way as frequently as possible, but is it worth it?

If they tried I would question thier choices and look for errors, due to faulty reason. An example-when I took quantum, I would understand the concepts very well, understand the math, but would make tiny errors in five page long problems and get the problem wrong. I have learned to use Ti, but would you trust me to design the brakes in your car? In the same light would I trust you to design a course of therapy for a mentally ill patient or put together a marketing campaign? Find the right tool for the job, I'd say....

I would say that deductively valid reasoning is necessary when designing therapy or doing auto-mechanics. It is necessary when doing all tasks, otherwise you are at the mercy of your intuitions regarding the truth of the subject-matter that you are studying. Again, this goes back to my previous point that Modus Feel is desirable only in the regard of convincing people to believe in useful fictions. I cannot imagine how it could be a worthwhile source of knowledge.

Just like in the case of religion, we must rely on deductive and inductive reasoning as much as possible. That is to be decidedly preferred to mere whimsical guessing (Modus Feel). Think about all the tedious reasoning processes counsellors must go through in their classes that prepare them to conduct therapy. Certainly they are taught ways of solving problems about people and their personal lives in a rigorous way, they obviously are not merely being told that they are free to make whatever conclusions they would like about the nature of their patients and their circumstances. The same is the case with mechanics, they obviously are not instructed to assume whatever they'd like about the cars they are supposed to fix. (Modus Feel again).

Modus Tollens is the same thing as Modus Ponens, the only difference being the starting point for its application.?

No, Modus Tollens is distinct from Modus Ponens.

Modus Ponens states the following,

Premise 1:if A then B
Premise 2: A
Conclusion: B

Modus Tollens states this.

Premise 1: If A then B
Premise 2: Not B
Conclusion: Not A

The two theorems differ in premise 2 and the conclusion.

It's true that some form of Modus Ponens is always necessary in order to have a system, but what you seem to miss is that Modus Feel is a form of Modus Ponens..?

Modus Feel cannot be a form of Modus Ponens as Modus Ponens is a term reserved only to one theorem that I have just discussed in this post.

However, lets explore the thought experiment of whether Modus Feel could be a theorem of any kind.

Principle: The conclusion is true regardless of the premises.

Practitioner of Modus Feel A: X is true, premises are irrelevant.

Practitioner of Modus Feel B: it is true that X is false, premises are irrelevant.

Because Modus Feel engenders a contradiction, it cannot be accepted as a Theorem of any system of logic.

In this case, A = a conviction and B = the truth. By definition, Modus Feel is used consistently: any departure from Modus Feel is something other than Modus Feel...?

So your suggestion is that Modus Feel inheres within all theorems of Logic, even Modus Ponens.

For instance, If A then B. A, therefore B. I have a feeling or a conviction that this is a true conclusion, therefore I am using Modus Feel. No, this is not what Modus Feel is. Modus Feel does not consist in merely involving feelings in your reasoning process, as this is what we all as human beings do inevitably. Modus Feel uses Feeling as not just one criterion for justification, but the only. Modus Ponens does not include Modus Feel because it consistently obeys the rules of its system of derivation and does not rely exclusively on Feelings to support the conclusion it propounds.

All logical systems allow contradictions. Contradictions are simply put in a separate category from the rest of the data. It's a form of inclusion by exclusion....?

Exactly, contradictions are put in a separate category. The fact that they are put in a separate category shows that these contradictions are NOT part of our logic system, in other words they are in a category OTHER than the category of our logic system.

The task of a logician is to construct a system where contradictions are placed in a category separate from the category in which all of his theorems are in.

For instance, if a logician has a theorem that Modus Ponens is an acceptable rule of derivation, it is his responsibility to make sure that he lacks a theorem that Modus Ponens is not an acceptable rule of derivation.

It's impossible for a system not to have those characteristics. A system is made of rules, and any departure from those rules constitutes a new system.....?

A system is merely a combination of rules. All rules must be consistent with each other, if they are not, the system is self-contradictory.

In this case the "mystic" clearly gives precedence to his own feelings. I don't see the inconsistency. The inconsistency only exists when you take someone too literally when they say that feelings prove the truth. When someone says that, they're usually referring to what they feel, or else they would also have to accept all the views that oppose theirs......?

This is not what the mystic that I have in mind does. The mystic that I have discussed is like a typical political or a religious demagogue. He does not merely state that he has a feeling something is true and this feeling is something that noone else has to accept. He asserts that others must believe that he has the truth. This is where the contradiction comes in; when others tell him that they also have a feeling, but it leads to a conclusion that contradicts his, he insists that they are wrong. The contradiction his system engenders is as follows, feelings are indicative of the truth and feelings are not. Namely, his feelings are indicative of the truth and the feelings of those who disagree with him do not.

That's your definition of a good logician. For my part, I don't see anything wrong with someone mixing up the rules every now and then. If you didn't, you would never grow as a human being; you would be stuck with the same perspective, day in and day out.?

The bottom line is, if you have contradictory rules, you will fall short of the truth as your system of logic will not allow you to deduce anything successfully. However, as you say, it may still be good despite this. It may help you grow as a person. That is the main question of my discussion, is Modus Feel, or a contradictory system of logic useful to us even if it is completely useless in the regard of acquisition of the truth.

In what way is an elected set of rules not arbitrary?

They don't have to be non-arbitrary, they just have to be consistent. Though the Classical system of logic was designed in a way that would allow us to analyze arguments of the English language. It allows us to analyze them all. Some logics of computer science allow us to construct computers in such a way that they work efficiently. The bottom line is, our logic will execute whatever plan it has as long as it is consistent. Are the foundations of our logic arbitrary? The principle of consistency certainly is not, as it is an elusive, nearly ethereal essence of thought itself, much like mathematical entities. Are theorems like Modus Ponens or Modus Tollens, arbitrary? Possibly, they are constructs that we created in order to analyze arguments of the English language. Is our wish to analyze the English language arbitrary? To a degree yes, as there is nothing inherent in nature that makes it necessart for us to do such analysis, but it is certainly useful to us.