TTI Forums

Last night I had a heated discussion about the nature of logic or rather how we can know about it and develop it in our minds. Granted, we were both drinking a little bit, so our arguments were both lacking when it came to sound logical reasoning.

My position was that logic was metaphysical existing independent of all human interpretation and the physical or causal world. We simply discover it using our higher level thinking process. Though, since we are just human and often are swayed from a purely logical thought process we are unable to properly administer logic on all occasions.

The other person's argument (from my perspective) seemed to be that they believed logic was something invented from our own observation of the physical world, and is purely developed from our own interpretations not having any basis in an abstract or metaphysical realm, though, we as humans use logic in these realms. They explained logic to be something similar to math, and like a system humans developed by observing the workings of physical reality. Thus, since it was developed under the presence of emotion, that emotion is inescapable with logic.

My rebuttal was to point out that it is true we cannot escape our emotional desires when trying to logically develop a thought, but what about the paradox that humans would have to use logic to have developed it as a system. This would be evidence that logic existed before humans discovered it. However, I don't think that this point was well taken. They didn't seem to understand it.

The other person, to prove their point, was talking about queer theory (which I've only heard of and it sounds like postmodern pretension) and claiming that they were not a logical person. I used some "why" questions a few times and then pointed out that they were trying to use logical deduction to come to those conclusions; it just wasn't very good logic. Still they were nonplussed.

Thoughts? How can you explain logic to a person like this?

Hmm, I'm not a very deep thinker or logical person, though of course like everyone I employ logic frequently. (even if its flawed)

Not that I can really explain why, but it seems to me that logic, like math exist whether or not humans exist, sort of a fundamental law of the physical universe we live in.

Perhaps some of the people who've studied logic far more than I can explain why.

Neither.

I suggest reading what Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff has written on this. In short, Logic is a method. It is not a physical object nor exists in things themselves. There is no logic without a human mind; it's not a Plato's Form but it is also not a random creation based on nothing.

Perhaps, you were really asking if Logic is based on reality or based on nothing. This is a complicated manner, though. Here is just a few short quotes to give you places to look into.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/logic.html

Galt’s Speech, Atlas Shrugged

All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.

Hieder wrote:My rebuttal was to point out that it is true we cannot escape our emotional desires when trying to logically develop a thought . . .

Meh, I sympathize but you have accepted your enemy's premise.

There is no dichotomy between reason and emotions. There is no division that keeps a human mind constantly in a state of an internal fight between his emotions and his logic. Do not conceed the entire sphere of emotions to idiots who want their emotions to have power over reality.

The Objectivist view on the matter of emotions is essentially this:

“The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness wrote:Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are “tabula rasa.” It is man’s cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.

Oleksandr wrote: Perhaps, you were really asking if Logic is based on reality or based on nothing. This is a complicated manner, though. Here is just a few short quotes to give you places to look into.

It does seem I've mislabled what I really meant to say specifically with the use of the terms physical and metaphysical since the word "reality" would contain both of these. To rephrase:
My argument was that logic is based in reality separate from our cognitive process. It exists even if we don't.

Their argument was that logic is subjective to how we interpret what we can experience in reality, thus it is subjective person to person.

It makes more sense to think of logic as a method rather than a principle of the universe. But can you say logic is THE method? The universe works a certain way and these mechanisms lend itself to a single correct way to interpret and predict. This is the mindset behind the idea of unified physics.

Hieder wrote:It does seem I've mislabled what I really meant to say specifically with the use of the terms physical and metaphysical since the word "reality" would contain both of these. To rephrase:
My argument was that logic is based in reality separate from our cognitive process. It exists even if we don't.

You have run into a very big (false) issue in philosophy. There is no short answer here but I will give a few quick pointers from what I have studied myself.

In technical terms (to help you look for references elsewhere), the issue is a false dichotomy between Subjectivism vs. Intrinsicism. For example:

Is logic arbitrary OR has nothing to with human mind?
Does one set randomly what is good and bad OR are values revelations that a human has no choice over and given him by some outside mystical authority?
Is art arbitrary and anything goes OR is it some hard-set rules that one has to follow no matter what?
Is stealing always wrong (ala commandments) OR is it all up to your random feelings?
Do human ideas exist by themselves (Plato Forms) OR do they have nothing to do with reality (Kant)?
Is human just a body without any mind (Behaviorism) OR is it just a soul without any real body (Descartes)?
What should you live for in life? For whatever the hell you want OR one purpose given to you by somebody else (society) and/or something else (supernatural being)?
Etc, etc.

You can literally look anywhere today and always get 2 of these false options. The only solution to all these problems is to discover the only correct alternative: Objective.

Here's a short quote which has more links.

Intrinsic:

There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.

Subjective:

In metaphysics, “subjectivism” is the view that reality (the “object”) is dependent on human consciousness (the “subject”). In epistemology, as a result, subjectivists hold that a man need not concern himself with the facts of reality; instead, to arrive at knowledge or truth, he need merely turn his attention inward, consulting the appropriate contents of consciousness, the ones with the power to make reality conform to their dictates.

And finally, the correct approach, Objective:

The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man’s consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man’s consciousness, independent of reality.

The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objec ... alues.html
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/intri ... alues.html

To go deeper, you have to start looking at the references in the links.

Well done Olek! You've given me a different perspective to think about for this thread. You've made a very clear presentation of these three aspects. And done a great job of illustrating how the exclusivity of the two false premises makes either impossible to hold true under all circumstances.

BTW As I read your post, I was reflecting on our world’s focus to distill everything down into some sort of digital signal. As you phrased it is silly to use either of the extremes as our rubric for judging the world around us. Do you think the “yes or no”, binary tools used so extensively today lead us in these false directions?

musashi wrote:BTW As I read your post, I was reflecting on our world’s focus to distill everything down into some sort of digital signal. As you phrased it is silly to use either of the extremes as our rubric for judging the world around us. Do you think the “yes or no”, binary tools used so extensively today lead us in these false directions?

Heh, you got a completely wrong understanding of what I was describing. The issue is that people give up on answering "yes or no" questions.

In essence, Subjectivism and Intrinsicism are the same as they both hold that knowledge is impossible for humans (one simply gives up on knowledge while the other claims some mystical source).

The only way to get to certainty is through Objective theory of thought and values. There are such things as absolutes but they do not come from mystical revelations nor feelings. Certainty and absolutes (such as an absolute that individual rights are good) come from reason and facts.

See more here: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/certainty.html

Oleksandr wrote:Heh, you got a completely wrong understanding of what I was describing. The issue is that people give up on answering "yes or no" questions.

In essence, Subjectivism and Intrinsicism are the same as they both hold that knowledge is impossible for humans (one simply gives up on knowledge while the other claims some mystical source).

I was reflecting on the black and white contrast between the extremes you described. Hard to frame those extremes in perspective as yes or no questions. Each perspective is definitely mutually exclusive, so in that sense Subjective and Intrinsic are binary. And you stated it very well; opposite sides for the same bad coin.

I especially liked how you identified the common connection with so many of the past questions we’ve thought about.

In the past I think where I have had my difficulties with the Objective perspective is at this bit

Oleksandr wrote:(Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.)

I do agree that an Objective perspective is far superior, to either the Subjective or Intrinsic. But these derivations and processes of reason always seem to trip me up. Rarely do I find absolute and completely defined standards. And when I do find a nice standard - consensus on the standards seem to be even more fleeting.