Why is logic accepted as the means to truth? Why should I trust in logic?
you cant even define truth without citing logic
but logic is any set of consistent ideals so it is theoretically subjective
Logic = thinking using truth and facts.
>>313801
No. Logic is the form or structure of language. You can say false things about imaginary beings and still have logic validity.
>all rwabs are tucktuck
>gurgur is a rwab
>therefore gurgur is tucktuck
>>313683
>Why is logic accepted as the means to truth?
BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT IS: A DEVICE; A TOOL OF CONSCIOUSNESS FOR COGITATION; IT IS NOT THE ONLY DEVICE THOUGH; IT IS ONLY USEFUL FOR STRUCTURAL THINKING, AND FOR ORDERING AND ORGANIZATION OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT.
>Why should I trust in logic?
YOU SHOULD NOT; ONE DOES NOT TRUST A TOOL, BUT USE IT.
>>313965
But I must trust in its ability to help me perform a task, that is, finding truth.
Because it's unchanging and the same for everyone.
>>314020
what is this truth you speak of anyway?
>>314030
I have no idea. I'm trying to find it. But now I feel like Rorty is glaring at me because I can't look for something when I have no idea what it looks like.
>>313683
It isn't THE means to truth, it's a means to truth and is arguably the basis for any statement being true if you're a coherentist. As another anon has mentioned, it is the structure of language and is thereby the basis for any rational thought.
>>313691
Truth is that which most people agree upon in a given domain. I don't necessarily agree with that definition but there's an example of a definition of truth that doesn't cite logic.
>>314020
>But I must trust in its ability to help me perform a task...
TRUST IMPLIES FAITH; LOGIC DOES NOT FUNCTION, NOR DEPEND, ON FAITH, BUT ON ONE'S OWN APTITUDE AT IMPLEMENTING IT; LOGIC IS A FUNCTION THAT OPERATES CONSCIOUSLY; ID EST: IT IS NOT AUTOMATIC, LIKE INTUITION, BUT MOSTLY —NOT ENTIRELY— DELIBERATE.
>... that is, finding truth.
TRUTH IS NOT REALIZED SOLELY VIA LOGIC, BUT VIA LOGIC, INTUITION, SENTIMENT, AND EMOTION, IN CONCURRENCE, AND DIRECTED BY CONSCIOUSNESS.
>>314043
>I can't look for something when I have no idea what it looks like.
You took he words right off of my mouth son.
I suggest you meditate on what you feel you're missing before using words with certain meaning which are not necessarily the ones you should be using, it generates unneeded noise and much cerebral wanking which rarely produces anything worthwhile.
If you want my two cents on the matter anyway, there are two types of truth: collective truth, which is defined by tools shared by mankind such as logic and egoistic truth, which is identity, or rather, the self.
That of course entails a lot of questions and other problems but life is too short to be wasted on silly metaphysics, I'd rather go lick some pussy.
I didn't even think about it too hard anyway, feel free to debate, I'm not really interested in "truth" to begin with.
>>314124
I've definitely had similar thoughts to that. I've been engaged in cerebral wanking for awhile now, as in asking "What is truth?" and getting really needlessly anxious about it. It hasn't done shit.
>>313801
Logic is a tool that is used to determine the validity of statements. But those statements have in them discrete elements that are relatively simple compared to real world elements.
It's not as flexible or applicable as most think it is.
>>314165
>It hasn't done shit.
Wew lad, you don't say?
Thinking too much on abstract concepts tends to do that.
But hey, if you're into that sort of thing there's a lot to choose from, I heard an all time favorite was "Justice" or some shit
.
Not like you don't have your hands full already, but if you feels like wasting some more time of your life you can still try.
From Anon to Anon though, you shouldn't really worry too much about this kind of stuff, it's part of the limits and beauties of being a social animal with self awareness but you could really put that time to much better use, like general arts and crafts, creation in all its forms is exhilarating.
>>314228
I don't agree that it's a waste of time. I enjoy thinking. It's just that the question of truth has been bothering me.
>>314239
>It's just that the question of truth has been bothering me.
but why dawg?
It ain't that much of a problem really?
And you're not even sure you're looking for truth in the first place.
>>313683
>the means to truth
It isn't. It is a model of thinking that allows one to derive additional accurate data from existing accurate data. Nothing more.
>>314269
I'm philosophically inclined. Sue me.
>>313683
>Why should I trust in logic?
You're literally using it right here. You're asking for reasons to use a system of using reasons.
It's like saying "Why is public transportation important? Someone please use a bus to come over to my house and explain it to me."
>>314335
>>314327
Truth does not exist as anything more than a concept in a human mind. That concept is 'An accurate account of an event or idea'. Since every individual has a different viewpoint based on their past experiences, what is true for one person might not be true for another. Thus it is subjective.
Maybe you are looking for facts?
>>314364
The traditional definition of truth is "corresponding to facts or reality".
>>314054
>OP:Why should I trust in logic?
>Ctrl-f kant
>mfw
Because our experience is created through the structures of the mind which follow a logical process, therefore all observable phenomenon will follow logic purely because of how our mind processes things. Unless pic related shows up Logic cannot observably fail.
>Truth is that which most people agree upon in a given domain. I don't necessarily agree with that definition but there's an example of a definition of truth that doesn't cite logic.
There is so much wrong with this statement. If all mathemeticians started saying 2+2=5, would that make it true? You're also using logic to define truth.
>>314376
That definition doesn't take into account how often people's 'truths' are incorrect. If it corresponded to facts or reality, how could it be wrong?
Isn't this kind of discussion masturbation?
>>314396
What about dreams? Shit's not logical in dreams.
>>314419
Life is masturbation, but there is nothing better to do, so why not?
>>314417
Yet again people are failing at the basics.
There are plenty of different types of truths, A priori, Analytic, Synthetic, emprical, etc. We can define certain a priori synthetic truths that actually relate to the world, like triangle's having 180 degrees or the pythagorean theorem.
>>314430
So the solution is to assign different classifications in order to specify which type of 'truth' an individual is referring to? Why not just use a different word?
>>314419
>masturbation
A simple exercise which establishes the basics and leaves us pleased without achieving anything of importance?
Pretty much, welcome to /his/.
>>313683
logic = coherence
truth must be consistent
>>314421
I would disagree. Things are strange our out of place in dreams, but I have never, for example, had a dream where causality broke down. Even if it did, the break in causality is caused by causal events in the real world. I would also argue that our mind's structure is altered during a dream so obviously we are not normally processing events so logic may appear to break down, which makes perfect sense. Dreams also arent real, from what we can tell.
>>314477
Im saying that you need to know what kind of truth we're looking for before we go searching.
The reason why we don't use different words is because all the different types of truths are true, but they are true in different ways. Ask a linguist if you want to know the real answer I suppose. It doesn't really matter what words we use if we are refferring to the same concept.
>>313876
loved the syllogism 10/10
>>313683
>Why should I trust in logic?
Cause it works.
>>314376
PROPOSITION
JUSTIFICATION
BELIEF
that is the traditional definition of truth. In epistemological discipline
proposition - it says something about somethng
justification - (biggest problem of traditional definition of truth) the system upon which it derives its validity
belief- the subject who enounces adds an element of subjective belief
my epistemology is rusty... its been years since ive talked about philosophy... ever since i joined the workforce
history major philosophy minor was WAAY too useful
.. that was sarcasm haha
>>313683
because people say so, without knowing why and you are ready to have faith in anything.
