Originally Posted by Tennenbaum

This is what I am doing, OP.

Originally Posted by Tennenbaum

I thought it was reason that led the Greeks to call the sensual world an illusion.

Originally Posted by Tennenbaum

I thought it was reason that led the Greeks to call the sensual world an illusion.

Originally Posted by philhellene

As far as I can tell an axiom is used as a springboard in a discussion, a kind of hypothesis in which a topic is analyzed and dtermined to be either true or not true. In the context of what we were discussing, it would be I think a little intellectually dishonest to call them simply an "assertion". The connotation presumably being that it will always be unsupported or baseless.

Originally Posted by Kuon

So would you perhaps be saying that the Greek's useful illusion led to...illusion?

Originally Posted by Tennenbaum

In this context we are speaking of the axioms all logic is built upon. To assert that logic can be used to "prove" these axioms is a circular argument.

We don't treat them as unsupported assertions because they are not provable and logic is useful.

Originally Posted by philhellene

So far you have not discussed any kind of alternative or significant consideration that I am aware of. All you have been doing is somewhat flatly contradicting everything I say.

Originally Posted by philhellene

Reason can be used to make many arguments, what is not on trial is reason itself but the way in which it is used, the conclusions made, or the way they were reached.

Originally Posted by philhellene;

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority"

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

Arguments from authority are a particularly tricky one though, because it would seem that from birth we are conditioned to respect and believe authority. Our first teachers are often our parents, a supreme authority for much of our lives. Because the parents rear their young, they have an earnest incentive and desire to teach, but for the sake of protecting them or getting them to behave, they can and often do fabricate things to get their children "in line".

It is not particularly difficult to fool a child either, they have a certain kind of naive outlook borne from innocence and can be easily indoctrinated/influenced at a young age.

There are many benefits from listening to a parent or adult who is teaching you, a teacher or parent may arm the child with all the knowledge they require to form into an intelligent adult. The dark side of this is that we may often believe and accept something told to us, often without a thought of skepticism, as long as it comes from a "respected" authority figure.

Fast forward to the uture, what kind of authority figures do we respect and listen to? Politicians? Preachers? Sometimes they are much closer and much more familiar, like an older friend or aunt/uncle. It is not always clear that something they say may be fase, it may seem intuitive and true. There is also no reason to assume tht they are always lying, or attempting to deceive. Sometimes, they honestly may not know any better.

It benefits us all to foster a modicum of skepticism. Even children, at their most gullible, have a degree of doubt. If you tell them you have a puppy in their garage they may believe you. Replace puppy with pet dragon, and they will call you out on it, on suspicion alone. Humans develop a heuristic for detecting not only what is "true" but even what is "likely" (or not).

Such determinations, if we make them purely on our own, may be false, but at least they are ours. A position in which an assertion hinges completely on the say so and testimony of another is a weak one indeed. It is the reason why anecdotal evidence is the weakest form of evidence in science. Unfortunately for us, eyewitnesses are considering a convincing form of evidence in law.

Originally Posted by philhellene

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.

Originally Posted by Kuon

Logical fallacies are just tricks used to win arguments? Yeah, I can agree with that. I've indulged in quite a bit of that myself. At least the attempt to win arguments anyhow...
Still, they are quite useful for identifying when someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

The thing is with logic, especially the classic Greek application of it - just like the rest of Greek culture in many ways I suppose - is that it represented a kind of anchor in the chaotic sea of the irrational mind, and in the larger scheme of things: a solid bulwark against the existential turbulence. When everything in the world tended toward disorder, the Greeks favoured an imposed order.
Logical systems were perhaps all part of that.

Still, it's a useful tool, one of many.

Originally Posted by philhellene

I agree, which is precisely why I choose not to see the world metaphysically. Are you