The Symposium - Page 2 - Historum

Tennenbaum · March 1st, 2011, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philhellene

Logical derivation and deductive reasoning does have a kind of mathematical proof. Statements can be presented as if A then B, or X and Y therefore, etc. It can get to be a headache but it is demonstrable, amd ultimately useful as well.

1) Logic is based on unsupported assumptions. It, like mathematics is internally coherent, though.

2) The real world often defies logic.

Tennenbaum · March 1st, 2011, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philhellene

EDIT: looking at my post again I fear there might have been some equivocation.

There are two kinds of tautologies that are discussed in that link I posted. One is a rhetorical tautology while the other is a logical one. While he did not make the former the latter was precisely a generic, open ended statement that is vague enough to be always true.

"That is one certain point of view" or something similar is a blank damp squib. Nothing meaningful can be derived from it, it makes no assertions or takes no stance. It is painfully dull and utterly flat, the type of thing common in everyday communication, but often seen as banal.

I somewhat bristle also at your accusation that my OP is tautological though, and am waiting for a detailed explanation.

LOL. Nothing meaningful can be derived from it? I'd say that something simple and absolutely true can be derived from it.

Your post is not the only perspective on the subject of debate. Some do not agree with your assumption that your is the right way to go about it.

**Toltec** · March 1st, 2011, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philhellene

"That is one certain point of view" or something similar is a blank damp squib. Nothing meaningful can be derived from it,

by you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by philhellene

it makes no assertions or takes no stance. .

to you, to me it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by philhellene

It is painfully dull and utterly flat, the type of thing common in everyday communication, but often seen as banal.
.

in your opinion, in my opinion, the opposite.

**Toltec** · March 1st, 2011, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philhellene

Logical derivation and deductive reasoning does have a kind of mathematical proof. Statements can be presented as if A then B, or X and Y therefore, etc. It can get to be a headache but it is demonstrable, amd ultimately useful as well.

One can get a headache when one chooses to see the world metaphysically. I prefer simple reality instead.

Tennenbaum · March 1st, 2011, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toltec

One can get a headache when one chooses to see the world metaphysically. I prefer simple reality instead.

The truth of the senses, instinct, and emotion that reason denies.

philhellene · March 1st, 2011, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tennenbaum

I know what a tautology is, thanks. Now, I'd like to point out that the overuse of rhetorical trickery is often used to avoid addressing a point. This is what you just did.

I didn't mean to offend you, there's no need to get sensitive or defensive. What was the point that I avoided addressing? I am seriously having difficulty in understanding the point of your post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tennenbaum

Wittgenstein claimed that the only true statements are tautologies, btw.

And Buddha said that the greatest virtue is to be free of passion. So it appears that one tautology does deserve another one. It gets us nowhere though. I believe you also made an argument from authority as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tennenbaum

An argument based on emotion and sophistry is not necessarily false, and an argument based on reason is not necessary true.

To be fair, I don't recall saying that those arguments always were false. If I had that would have been a false statement. What I did was present some well known logical fallacies, and discussed them briefly/gave examples. What about that exactly do you find so objectionable? Was it the particular examples or the way they were presented? And do you have anything to contribute or are you determined to make spurious arguments?

philhellene · March 1st, 2011, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tennenbaum

1) Logic is based on unsupported assumptions. It, like mathematics is internally coherent, though.

2) The real world often defies logic.

1)Logic is not based on unsupported assumptions. It is based on deduction and derivatives. A rock is a rock and not not a rock, at no point does a rock cease to be a rock, etc. Two individuals with independent stimulus can witness the same event and arrive at a consensus, its the basis of rational discussion. It is based on and supported by evidence, and at its best can be utilized to predict future outcomes (like the truth about falling rocks). I would not call those unsupported assumptions, I would call them educated assumptions if anything.

2)That statement baffles me, it can be argued that individuals behave irrationally, but logical statements and truths are not contingent upon the behavior of anyone/thing. A rock remains a rock and not not a rock. The real world, if it exists at all, could not even be identified as real unless one was relying on some form of observation/deductive correlation---which all animals do to some extent.

philhellene · March 1st, 2011, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tennenbaum

LOL. Nothing meaningful can be derived from it? I'd say that something simple and absolutely true can be derived from it.

Can you then tell me what it is/was?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tennenbaum

Your post is not the only perspective on the subject of debate. Some do not agree with your assumption that your is the right way to go about it.

My post(s) are certainly not the only perspectives, I am aware of that. I only may have issues with the way in which you derive your critcisms. And what makes you think that what I am discussing here is solely my opinion? BTW logic and logical fallacies existed long before I was even born.

Tennenbaum · March 1st, 2011, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philhellene

I didn't mean to offend you, there's no need to get sensitive or defensive. What was the point that I avoided addressing? I am seriously having difficulty in understanding the point of your post.

I already explained it. And I'm not upset.

Quote:

Originally Posted by philhellene

And Buddha said that the greatest virtue is to be free of passion. So it appears that one tautology does deserve another one. It gets us nowhere though. I believe you also made an argument from authority as well.

Wittgenstein didn't say every tautology was true, only that only tautologies are true. And since I am arguing that the tools of reason are not the best way to debate, why would you think I care if you think I am arguing from authority? I see nothing wrong with that at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by philhellene

To be fair, I don't recall saying that those arguments always were false. If I had that would have been a false statement. What I did was present some well known logical fallacies, and discussed them briefly/gave examples. What about that exactly do you find so objectionable? Was it the particular examples or the way they were presented? And do you have anything to contribute or are you determined to make spurious arguments?

Logical fallacies are just tricks to win arguments. They have no real bearing on anything at all.

I am contributing, thanks. Do you have a problem with me challenging your assertions you think are beyond reproach?

philhellene · March 1st, 2011, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toltec

One can get a headache when one chooses to see the world metaphysically. I prefer simple reality instead.

I agree, which is precisely why I choose not to see the world metaphysically. Are you implying that I am making some sort of appeal to anything metaphysical?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tennenbaum

The truth of the senses, instinct, and emotion that reason denies.

Once again, I am not exactly sure what that means, your post was not a complete sentence so it was even a bit difficult to read. Are you making an assertion that reason denies certain experiences, experiences that might be valid or useful or cherished?

If that is what you're asking, I have a question, and I promise it's not to be capricious or sneaky. It's a kind of socratic question---was the statement you made a reasoned statement?