When someone refuses logic?

[run]

I have an INFJ friend who claims he's not under the bounds of logic,
and that he can just believe whatever he wants

He says some weird stuff, like "maybe the world just poofed into existence out of nowhere", which defies the principle of sufficient reason. And, "I am a moral skeptic, but right now I will pick a side and defend moral relativism" -- If you are a moral skeptic, defend skepticism. And the best of all

Me: "Those two statements are incompatible."
Greg: "I can say whatever I want!"

He didn't argue that they weren't incompatible. He argued that it didn't matter that they were incompatible.

Problem is, anything I say to show to him that he has to follow logic, also involves logic.

The thing that worries me is, what if people like him end up with power of some kind?

 

[Quinlan]

The thing that worries me is, what if people like him end up with power of some kind?

You think they don't already?!?

 

[Katsuni]

That's... an interesting take on it. I don't think I've seen anybody who actually admitted to such before.

Alot of straw fundamentalists basically hold that viewpoint, but that's because they're generally supposed to, as they're being used as a strawman. But they don't outright SAY it.

For someone to completely reject logic, either they're joking, just don't care anymore, or have completely given up on any desire to even try to make sense and are completely accepting of the fact that they are speaking total nonsense, and it doesn't bother them at all.

I'm hoping they're joking. Since otherwise they really don't have any restrictions left, as continuity and cause/effect relationships would no longer apply, and in short, they'd have no reason to listen to anyone, or anything, be it reason, common sense, laws, traditions and so on, meaning more or less, they have no morals left and can just "do whotever they want". Which... is... well, dangerous. That would be hazardously insane, and quite easy to slide into criminally insane since they don't view their actions as having any logical reprocussions.

I can't see that going over well in general if they aren't just being nonsensical for the sake of saying so.

If they're just going "I'm right because I'm always right and therefore, by circular reasoning, I must be correct", then they're not likely taking themselves seriously. If they truly believe it though yeu may have a major problem on yeur hands.

 

[r.a]

you just don't understand how his worldview works. in the end, nothing of anything matters except for the bigger picture.

for me, playing both sides is more of a social experiment than a true belief or bias, because none of these details matter in the bigger picture. and that bigger picture has more logic than most people might comprehend, but is almost impossible for me to translate it into something coherent for others. so i believe whatever i want, play sides to get people outside of their comfort level and to learn from human interaction, and know deep down that alot of details that other people strain their brains about really don't mean anything in the end, because all that exists is movement. we are all moving together as one, regardless of many various individual details.

that might not make sense to 99% of people.

 

[run]

For someone to completely reject logic, either they're joking, just don't care anymore, or have completely given up on any desire to even try to make sense and are completely accepting of the fact that they are speaking total nonsense, and it doesn't bother them at all.

I'm hoping they're joking. Since otherwise they really don't have any restrictions left, as continuity and cause/effect relationships would no longer apply, and in short, they'd have no reason to listen to anyone, or anything, be it reason, common sense, laws, traditions and so on, meaning more or less, they have no morals left and can just "do whotever they want". Which... is... well, dangerous. That would be hazardously insane, and quite easy to slide into criminally insane since they don't view their actions as having any logical reprocussions.

I can't see that going over well in general if they aren't just being nonsensical for the sake of saying so.

If they're just going "I'm right because I'm always right and therefore, by circular reasoning, I must be correct", then they're not likely taking themselves seriously. If they truly believe it though yeu may have a major problem on yeur hands.

Oh he believes in things. He just has no reason. He doesn't see how logic should apply to philosophy, since it's not science and directly observable. All I know to say at this point is "Why shouldn't it?"

He knows he could be wrong.

 

[r.a]

The thing that worries me is, what if people like him end up with power of some kind?

muahahahhahahahhaha!!

just you wait till i have the worlds armies at my command...

 

[aphemix]

The thing that worries me is, what if people like him end up with power of some kind?

what if the world just poofed into existence out of nowhere?

 

[INTJ123]

You think they don't already?!?

no kidding, they already brainwashed supposedly "logical" thinkers into believing this very thing!

What else is the BIG BANG THEORY? THE UNIVERSE CAME OUT OF NOTHING!

So who is really illogical, the one saying he's not using logic and saying the universe came from nothing?
OR the one who claims to be logical and also claims the universe came from nothing?

Either way it's the same picture, the universe came out of nothing....supposedly.

 

[Katsuni]

I've got a rather complex solution to that big bang problem of "something from nothing".

We already know that there's opposing force particles that occur from 'nothing' near the edge of the event horizon of a black hole, these obviously aren't popping into existance from nowheres, and it's unlikely they're being channeled through the black hole itself since they wouldn't be outside of the event horizon if that's the case.

Therefore, we have to assume that something about the supermassive gravitational pull, or intense radiation, or something is at play there, possibly a number of factors, which's forcing them to occur.

Since yeu can't affect 'nothing' with anything, that also means that these particles must therefore already exist as well. Just not in a visable or measurable state for some reason.

My best guess so far is that they exist as a dormant perfectly neutral aspect of each other, for example if we went with string theory, then imagine a string that has absolutely 0 energy, and absolutely no vibration of any sort. It's a theoretical one dimensional object, so it literally would not exist for all intents and purposes unless it somehow gained an energy charge.

Now if we have two of these next to each other, and yeu make one vibrate, there needs to be an equal and opposite force SOMEWHERES, which likely would be translated into affecting the one directly next to it, making it vibrate in an identical wave, but opposite in the waveform.

Sooooo if we assume that the entire universe, before the big bang, was just an immense field of these flat strings or particles or whotever yeu want to use, it's not that the universe was 'bunched up into a tiny ball' at all... that density of matter and energy already exists around us at all times right now then, but instead SOMETHING just made a ripple, and that ripple effect bounced off all the others nearby, cascading now that there was finally movement, allowing the others to release pent up non-thermal non-kinetic energy, and it just meant that particular section of the universe all opened up at once.

With that theory however, there could be a limitless, infinite range of this dormant matter and energy, with vast quantities of energy stored and not in use in any way though, this could very well mean that outside the edge of the universe where the expanding particles have reached, ANOTHER big bang could technically occur, sending waves against the ones that're already being sent out, and who knows wth would happen if those collided.

In any case, yeu can't "really" make "something out of nothing" in our own understanding of things, but if yeu have enough guitar strings all next to each other, in a tight bundle, and pluck just one of them, it'll push all of them away from each other and cause them all to vibrate while doing it.

Then we're just stuck with the question of how did a string even get plucked in the first place if time didn't exist, and there was no motion, no way for energy to be released? It couldn't've just happened on its' own >.>

 

[INTJ123]

well they look at black holes because they "theorize" that it is a mini version of the big bang(if and when it theoretically explodes), this in itself could be a totally wrong assumption, the simple fact is, the big bang theory is just a theory and is not proven with hard facts, hawking radiation is just a theory it's not proven yet either, everything is a huge assumption in big bang theory. Yet they try to tell you it as if it's a fact and you should believe it because it's logical, but no it's not logical it's actually a logical fallacy to assume anything.

I'm not satisfied with your complex solution either it didn't solve anything for me.

I mean just take a look at your post and look how many sentences you start with, "my best guess" "if we assume" "we have to assume". Is that logical?

 

[Wiley45]

Run, sometimes I've said stuff like your OP mentioned when I just got frustrated and tired of trying to deal with raw logic, which is incredibly difficult for me. It's not that I didn't actually care, it's just that thinking that way was such a brain twist that I had to stop for a while, whether two days or two months.

Also, I don't know how your INFJ friend works, but I have a lot easier time when I can focus on one concept and study it, and then come back to an INTP and discuss it after I'm informed. INTP's run me around in circles and make me hate myself for my incompetence otherwise. I'm not good on my feet with that sort of thing. I need to really immerse myself in it before I can say something without making a fool of myself.

 

[Colors]

I have an INFJ friend who claims he's not under the bounds of logic,
and that he can just believe whatever he wants

He says some weird stuff, like "maybe the world just poofed into existence out of nowhere", which defies the principle of sufficient reason. And, "I am a moral skeptic, but right now I will pick a side and defend moral relativism" -- If you are a moral skeptic, defend skepticism. And the best of all

Me: "Those two statements are incompatible."
Greg: "I can say whatever I want!"

He didn't argue that they weren't incompatible. He argued that it didn't matter that they were incompatible.

Problem is, anything I say to show to him that he has to follow logic, also involves logic.

The thing that worries me is, what if people like him end up with power of some kind?

Why does it matter whether he thinks the world poofed out of nowhere? See I like these sort of thought trains. Sure, it's probably not true, but it doesn't hurt to try it on- and it allows seeing the world from a bit of a new angle. Logic isn't always true.

 

[simulatedworld]

What's funny is that Js wonder the same thing about you for valuing internal logical consistency over external goal/schedule completion.

That's the difference--the fact that you don't organize your external world into structured, scheduled, digestible pieces is just as illogical to Js as it is to you that they refuse to logically structure their inner worlds.

They don't need internal logic because they're too busy applying logic to their external schedules and goals.

 

[r.a]

They don't need internal logic because they're too busy applying logic to their external schedules and goals.

where it counts when dealing with a world with no shortage of detail-oriented, rationally-centered people and societal constructs.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Yes I'm slowly learning this myself.

 

[INTJ123]

I have an INFJ friend who claims he's not under the bounds of logic,
and that he can just believe whatever he wants

He says some weird stuff, like "maybe the world just poofed into existence out of nowhere", which defies the principle of sufficient reason. And, "I am a moral skeptic, but right now I will pick a side and defend moral relativism" -- If you are a moral skeptic, defend skepticism. And the best of all

Me: "Those two statements are incompatible."
Greg: "I can say whatever I want!"

He didn't argue that they weren't incompatible. He argued that it didn't matter that they were incompatible.

Problem is, anything I say to show to him that he has to follow logic, also involves logic.

The thing that worries me is, what if people like him end up with power of some kind?

I wonder, if you would turn around and try to prove the big bang right after expressing how logically ridiculous you think the idea of reality poofing into our existence is.

Why is it that you have to show him he "HAS TO FOLLOW LOGIC"?
I don't think you have to right to tell anyone else what they have to do.

I think this is more about the op rejecting anything other than logic than his friend rejecting logic. Maybe he was just mirroring your actions to try to show you how stupid you were being. The infj is not that stupid, for a feeling type they are quite adept at using logic, at least the one I know.

Look into the world of quantum mechanics and you will see that logic does not run the universe. And hey if the big bang is by some chance true then he was more inline with the truth than you....

 

[run]

No he doesn't *have* to follow logic, but making up stories isn't philosophy.

 

[simulatedworld]

^ What if they illustrate philosophical concepts?

 

[Kalach]

I have an INFJ friend who claims he's not under the bounds of logic,
and that he can just believe whatever he wants

He says some weird stuff, like "maybe the world just poofed into existence out of nowhere", which defies the principle of sufficient reason. And, "I am a moral skeptic, but right now I will pick a side and defend moral relativism" -- If you are a moral skeptic, defend skepticism. And the best of all

Me: "Those two statements are incompatible."
Greg: "I can say whatever I want!"

Look him square in the eye and tell him, "Snorrkle!' Make it sound convincing.

"What?" says he.

"Just following your lead, buddy, and feeling pretty good about it too. Black beans eat the blue peter."


Not a whole lot of communication goes on if one eschews meaningful connections, aka logic, between utterances.


Besides which, he's actually just voicing what it is to be Ni dominant: intuition comes first, expression comes second, and one gets to feeling as if one is prior to logic. Which one isn't. If you want to ping him on his foolishness, claim that there is no reason to love. Observe not just disillusion, but that literally there is no reason behind love, it's just inherently random.

 

[laughingebony]

intuition comes first, expression comes second, and one gets to feeling as if one is prior to logic. Which one isn't.

Is logic inherent within the universe, or is it simply our way of describing patterns that seem to occur in nature?