Also no one answered me about experiencing things like math. I think I know why, because it’s several levels abstruse. First, math is one of those words that means a whole bunch of things. So I brought it to something very specific: the number 6. I wanted to obviate responses like, “It’s right there on the paper!” or “There are six letters in the word pollen.” But then I think there’s nothing to experience, which is why I think mathematical formalism is problematic (read: gibberish).
Good call on the square/rectangle analogy. What can I say? I’m a product of public education that has since expired 15 years LOL. I remembered that from Geometry, but after looking it back up, seems to be more of a generality than anything. Oh well. My point still stands, though, that causation is dependent on logic, but not the other way around.
As for the “logic is confined to things that already exist” quote, I did a Ctrl F and still couldn’t find where I put that, but no bother, I’ll address it anyway. I would say, how do you distinguish between existence and reality? I view the two to be the same, but as you sometimes say, this might be a semantical issue.
As for the emotion example, it’s completely plausable and accurate. It’s a contradiction, albeit in a different “genre,” let’s say, than logic. Humans are very contradictory. I think we’ve talked about this before, though. You disagreed with me in the past too, ha ha.
On secularizing philosophy… Well, what I meant was really a strict categorization of philosophy. Perhaps that would have been a better way to put it.
Ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics, et cetera… I don’t bother with the strict categories. There’s the pursuit of truth, and I’m not going to limit myself to only thinking in terms of logic, only in terms of ethics, et cetera. Way too bland for my imagination and creativity. And who established the rules of philosophy? Who says causation, primarily being a metaphysical concept, cannot reference or beg logic?
Reminds me of an argument I had with an old philosophy professor in my Existentialism class. She claimed that Nietzsche’s concept of the eternal recurrence was not metaphysical when I claimed it was, but I’d only mentioned it in passing anyway. What can I say? She was a bitch and more people hated her than liked her.
In any case, what I mean (which is the important part) is that I don’t limit my imagination and discussion of topics to strict categories of philosophy. I say they all have a purpose, and that is to determine or discover knowledge.
lso no one answered me about experiencing things like math. I think I know why, because it’s several levels abstruse. First,math is one of those words that means a whole bunch of things. So I brought it to something very specific: the number 6. I wanted to obviate responses like, “It’s right there on the paper!” or “There are six letters in the word pollen.” But then I think there’s nothing to experience, which is why I think mathematical formalism is problematic (read: gibberish).
I see it as a way of describing language, that is describing the way we describe things. 1 can mean 1 individual atom (tho even that is problematic, but we can set it aside) or one person; ie, a collection of cells and microbes that we can roughly label as a singular entity. 1 is just a type of noun like democrat; is that someone who believes in democracy, or a member of the Democratic Party, or the guy’s name?
I, for one, still see your point as being in contention. Since your square/rectangle analogy was faulty, I think you’ll need to back up your point with other arguments before I’m convinced.
Sorry, it looks like I misquoted you. I was referring to the following (from this post):
In saying that logically, existence is contradictory, I mean to say logic in relation to causation mandates an eventual cause of all reality, and this is something logic cannot offer because it is confined to things that already exist. [Emphasis added.]
I presume that the “it” in “it is confined to things that already exist” refers to “logic”. When I quoted you, I should’ve put “logic” in angle brackets. I’ll see if I can edit the post to be accurate here.
So let me get this straight. You bring up a scenario that, you allege, demonstrates how humans can be (emotionally) contradictory. I question whether that scenario supports the larger point. Rather than present additional arguments to attempt to convince me otherwise, you simply re-assert that your scenario is “completely plausable [sic] and accurate”. Do you expect me to be convinced by this? Or what is your purpose here?
I think so. “Secularizing philosophy” suggested to me a meaning of “taking the inherent religious element out of philosophy”, which would imply that there is in fact an inherent religious element to it. Anyways, I don’t see how I was strictly categorizing philosophy, but it depends on how you define the term.
As I pointed out in another thread, the so-called Laws of Thought are thought to have been originally formalized by Aristotle.
It seems that you define “philosophy” as “the pursuit of truth”. Is that a fair statement? If so, then how do you define “truth”? Do you distinguish between “empirical (or existential) truth” and “logical truth”?
I wasn’t challenging the notion that concepts can’t be evaluated by logic. Certainly they can. What I was challenging was this statement of yours: “logic in relation to causation mandates an eventual cause of all reality”. This does not necessarily follow - it depends on the definition being used for “causation”. If you had a particular concept in mind when you used the word “causation”, it would’ve helped had you made it explicit. It still would help, in fact.
With all due respect, this looks like a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy.
Do you think knowledge can come from imagination?
Doesn’t the popular analogy of General Relativity begin imagine yourself travelling at the speed of light?
My example of abuse victims actually had nothing to do with the idea of contradictory emotional states. Rather, it had to do with events that strongly contradict previously-established knowledge and/or expectations, namely the abuse itself. Child abuse is probably the most contradictory situation, because the expectations involved are instinctive - built-in from before birth.
Sure. A father may feel strong anger - which he may even call “hatred” - about his son for the latter’s squandering of a college nest-egg. I don’t see how that contradicts the father’s parental love for his son. They’re not mutually exclusive, so the former doesn’t obviate the latter.
Actually, I’d say that the reason we avoid contradictions in words is because we avoid contradictions in general. I don’t think that human language would be possible without first having a non-contradictory instinct. I also don’t think this instinct is unique to humans.
This is a fascinating thread…As to the matter of whether there was a “first cause” of all causes, it may take another 6-month thread of debate to establish whether Time is Infinite both forward and back.
In that case, I don’t disagree. Information can contradict what information came before, which just means at least one of the pieces of information was incorrect. What I am saying is that it is impossible/meaningless for someone to have a logically contradictory thought in their mind.
About a father feeling anger even though he loves his son, it just comes down to what exact subjective sensations he is experiencing at each moment. I don’t know whether him feeling anger makes his love inexperiencable in that moment or what, but however it happens I contend there won’t be anything “truly” (that is, logically) contradictory happening.
I think you are using the word contradictory in two slightly different senses here. With regard to instincts, it seems you mean contradictory=“at odds with, or in opposition to,” which seems slightly different than the sense of a logical contradiction. I might even say I have contradictory instincts: to go talk to the girl, and to not. But that is in the sense of “in opposition to.” I think logical contradictions are just verbal nonsense (miscommunications).
First we have to define “time” and “cause.”
I don’t see how it’s impossible for me to think “A = !A” or “A != A”.
I’m not sure how this is any different from what I said, to be honest. 
No, that’s actually not what I mean with regard to instincts. I mean it seems we have an instinct against thinking logical contradictions - or at least, against thinking things which seem like logical contradictions.
I think we agree on the rest, but I was just making sure. But as for this:
If so, please tell me how to experience that so I can do it, too! I can picture the text “A = !A” in my mind, and I can hear the sound of someone saying “A aquals not A,” but those are just symbols. What sensations does a logical contradiction entail? I mean, can I visually experience seeing a ball that is entirely green, but at the same time not green at all? Can I auditorily experience a high-pitched ringing sound while at the same time not hear any high-pitched sounds at all? That is what I am saying is impossible (but I think it’s clearer to say it is meaningless).