Not yet no. What do you know of the study of law though?
Dear bloomj31,
Logic is applicaple to everything. Language, truth and reason, chemistry, psychology, economics, etc. You should probably backtrack and just admit that logic is a prerequisite of knowledge in general.
TRIVIUM = LANGUAGE
In. That. Order.
You cannot understand anything without logic (save simple symbols; i.e non complex concepts like, rock or dog). Not even the order of words.
I know that it has a helluva lot to do with “rhetoric” which you cannot understand without having first been exposed to logic.
I don’t see why you think any of this necessitates the formal study of logic.
Are you sure that children require instruction in logic to learn spoken language? Are you sure that the understanding of grammar isn’t to some degree innate?
I don’t think political arguments have to be based on anything necessarily logical or rational. They just need to emotionally resonate within the audience. Look at how Obama structures his speeches. He doesn’t always talk about how he often just talks about what. People like what they hear because they think it will be good for them. They are programmed to show deference to authority figures so they believe what they’re told.
Legal arguments are formed around legal questions, not logical or moral principles. Answering the question involves citing precedent, tradition, statutory law whatever. But in the end it’s all up to the judge. If you study the history of the Supreme Court, for example, you will find that judges are often heavily influenced by their own personal feelings on issues. Not to say this is good but it is what it is.
Um. To understand the use of language, yes. “Given enough literacy to work their machines, but to little to read.” Grammar probably is innate to a degree; I’m not willing to try and refute Chomsky right now. But to understand that, “interest rates drop due to increased savings” you must understand logic.
You really shouldn’t parade that kind of ignorance. Just read this. It is short.
So what?
That doesn’t mean I necessarily need to formally study logic.
I’m not interested in economics, I’m interested in understanding and manipulating human behavior, something which may not be based on any kind of consciously rational process whatsoever. To understand why this is I think it’s important to understand how reason and logic are only sort of program running in the human brain and how there are many others which the “conscious self” is not aware of. That’s why the studies of cognitive neuroscience and evo psych are so important.
To manipulate and persuade and control one must first understand what it is one is attempting to manipulate persuade and control. Human brains weren’t designed by evolution to understand themselves, they were designed to facilitate survival in an environment that no longer exists.
Human beings are using an outdated system to think about completely unfamiliar problems, there’s weakness there.
You are an idiot.
You think you can just jump into understanding things of which you admit that there may not be a “consciously rational process whatsoever.” So, what the fuck could you possibly take away from it?
If there is no rational process, it cannot be understood. It will change everytime. There are an infinite number of possibilities each of which is equally valid. Two words: TRUTH TABLE.
Correlation/Causation is a mini application of a truth table for god’s sake.
YOU NEED TO STUDY LOGIC. You are not a scientist and you will be laughed out of a University if you say things like that to a professor. Or, if you were my student I’d recommend you switch majors to physical therapy or children’s lit.
Yeah, kid. You’ve got it all figured out on the mises.org forums. Where is your nobel prize or your pulitzer?
Oh there is a rational (for a reason) process, just not a rational process driven by the “actor” itself. The human brain wasn’t evolved to understand itself.
Well I think you’re an idiot. You’re just another hysterical crackpot libertarian. I have no reason to listen to you.
And you say you’re not a psychopath.
You’re a 16 year old kid that thinks he is a scientist that is going to go out into the world and control people because they “do not understand their own brain.” But you do…you understand everything. And you don’t even need logic to do it.
You’re a loser, kid. Read books, don’t think you know it all.
I’m not.
People play these games with each other every day and have done so for as long as humans have existed. We’re just animals after all. You (or anyone) could be consciously passing moral judgment on other people and then participate in the activity yourself and not necessarily make the connection or find fault in yourself.
We all seek to manipulate one another to our own selfish ends all the time everywhere. That people like you may have rationalized your own means and ends to be some sort of holy quest for an egalitarian society or freedom or whatever just shows how delusional and ignorant human beings can be about their own condition.
This is why I’ve never found the argument for freedom very compelling. It’s always sounded like a way of rationalizing some other more pressing desire. Evo psych and cognitive neuroscience are helping me to understand what those pressing desires probably are.
I’m not 16, I’m 26 years old. I don’t understand everything, but I’m trying to study the things that will help me get what I want from other people. A formal study of logic doesn’t seem to be required.
I don’t think I will necessarily be able to control people. But I do think they can be controlled and manipulated.
So you say. I see no reason to take you at your word. I won’t even apologize for saying that. Now I predict your response to this will be some variant of “lol k”.
Only a psychopath would believe that everyone is always lying to everyone else.
Aristophanes, psychopaths/sociopaths (they’re really one and the same) typically embrace who and what they are, as they see themselves as superior to others.
Well if I am a sociopath, which I highly doubt, then there’s no real cure for it. I wouldn’t be able to do anything other than embrace it. It’s a brain condition like schizophrenia, so I may as well just find a way to apply myself and get what I want.
I know, I just wanted to be specific. He’s not a serial killer (yet).
I alos gonna post this again…
You are a sociopath.
ALL of which you, bloomj31, fit. And you embrace it.
Pitiful.
And sick.
You must not know any schizos. I do. It is not like being a sociopath. Being a politican or a Nazi scientist is not like being mentally deficient.
You have been presented with a textbook example of your own brain, which you say you cannot understand, which is utter rubbish, and you can do something about it. The problem for you is that it involves admitting that you are wrong.
Not that they are necessarily lying (although deception and self deception appear to be universal human traits,) but they’re all looking for ways to get what they want from other people and that in the real world they’ll do whatever it takes to get what they want, even if it might be something they’d condemn in others. Particularly when they don’t think anyone will notice or that they won’t get caught. If they have reason to believe that cooperation is the best way to accomplish their goals that then that’s what they’ll do. If they have reason to believe that violence is the best way to accomplish their goals that then that’s what they’ll do. But people are first and foremost programmed to think of themselves and then in concentric circles about the people closest to them. This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.
So, you can know it about yourself.
This is your case for it being a non issue that you want to 'manipulate" people? Because it is part of evolution? You are then an extreme social darwinist, no?
The research I’ve done on sociopaths leads me to believe they’re far more common than one might initially expect and that most of them are not killers. The serial killers are just extreme cases.
They’re frequently suggested to have utter disregard for the laws and social norms of a society but I find myself driven to uphold the law and social norms of the society. I view freedom as antithetical to modern norms. Most people I know simply don’t profess an interest in freedom.
Sociopaths can function normally in society. They could be your banker, your lawyer, your state politician and you would never know it. In fact one can imagine how shrunken empathy could be useful in those professions.
There is no treatment, no cure for sociopathy. Not that I would want to cure something like that if I were a sociopath. I would think of it as a sort of gift, not a curse. But I don’t think I’m a sociopath, but then perhaps I am. Makes no real difference to me tbh.
So, you are what, casing the mises forums? Ask around a bit and you will find otherwise.
What society do you live in? The land of the free? The one with the declaration of independence as its founding philosophy? The one with the Statue of Liberty as its prime symbol?
hahahahahhahahahahhhahahahahahahahahhahahahsahsahhahahahah
Two posts from you is all it took. We all notice. Especially in the case of bankers, lawyers, and politicians…you are not living in reality.
Wow, kid. I feel bad for any girl you mind fuck. If you like girls, they might not be strong, stoic, and unempathetic as you prefer. But, then again, there was Ayn Rand?!!
Yeah, kowing that Ted Bundy and yourself have virtually identical personalities is no big deal.