Carly Fiorina kicked out of HP

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Asher
It sure as hell isn't based on logic. If it was, Christians would have no qualms with two men having sex in the privacy of their own homes.

To me, it's obviously based on emotions. Perhaps fear of "God", perhaps sexual insecurity, etc.

Logic is just a tool.

If you put in the wrong assumptions, you end up with the wrong conclusions.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Not yet. Fermat's last theorem remained unproven until recently. What's the difference. That's not science.

You're not honestly comparing a mathematical theory to a philosophical one? One is actually possible to prove without a shadow of a doubt, because the system was devised by man, and the other is impossible to prove...

I don't understand what this means.

I don't expect you to, how many years now have you been taught how to think. You're reaching conclusions using the methods taught to you.

You're not a truly open thinker...

[Agathon]

You're not honestly comparing a mathematical theory to a philosophical one? One is actually possible to prove without a shadow of a doubt, because the system was devised by man, and the other is impossible to prove...

Can you prove that it's impossible to prove, with something like Gödel's proof?

[Nostromo]

If you put in the wrong assumptions, you end up with the wrong conclusions.

garbage in, garbage out

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And reason does not exist? Why then does slavery not exist anymore when it was accepted in the year 1000?

Reason is based on our own history and experiences. If reason did exist as an absolute entity, why did slavery ever occur at all?

Clearly something has changed over time...reasoning changes in social situations and morals. If this was not a relative phenomenon, it would have to be absolute. If it was absolute, why did it change?

Believing that something is clear indicates you believe in its absolute truth. As a relativist, absolute truth is something that I do not accept.

... but you didn't.

Because it's not something you can use logic to prove. Which I've already been over.

It's not based on logic -- which is a tool devised to help us under stand things -- it's based on observation and reality. Of course it is a paradox to say all is relative, but that doesn't make it not the case.

It only does when you're a Philosopher who is trying to make his field seem useful.

So called "out of box thinking" is disjointed, not logical, and easily defeated (as your arguments have been).

Imran: humans are not logical, neither is our world. Our system of understanding it should not be purely logical, either.

The sooner you types realize that, the better off you'll be.

You both continue "owning" my arguments and "defeating" them using philosophical constructs. Which is just really amusing to me, because it's my argument that those very constructs do not correspond completely to our real world.

And the fact that you can't see that further cements my opinion that these courses are probably doing more harm than good to university students, who are being prevented from true thinking ability and reduced to trying to force everything into a logical system.

[Agathon]

You both continue "owning" my arguments and "defeating" them using philosophical constructs. Which is just really amusing to me, because it's my argument that those very constructs do not correspond completely to our real world.

If that is true, how could we even know it?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Can you prove that it's impossible to prove, with something like Gödel's proof?

"prove it's impossible to prove"?

Listen to yourself...

You can't prove it one way or the other. Why? Because it's not logical. Humanity and our world does not exist within a logical system. You cannot prove anything one way or another in our real world.

That's why Philosophers have adopted this logic system. You can prove things true or false inside that system, but that doesn't fully correspond to the real world.

If it did, we'd all be like Spock.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
If that is true, how could we even know it?

If it's true that our world is not logical?

Where is the logic in genocide?

[Asher]

I'll make it simple.

1) Do you agree that emotions are not logical?
2) Do you agree that humans are emotional?
3) Do you agree that human emotions affect human action?
4) Do you agree that human action affect and is affected by the "real world"?
----
5) Human actions and behavior do not correspond to logic in all cases
----
6) Logic can therefore not be used to prove anything about human behavior

[Agathon]

Where is the logic in genocide?

Where is the logic in a supernova. Logic isn't about the world.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Where is the logic in a supernova. Logic isn't about the world.

I think you just agreed with me without realizing it.

We don't use logic to define a supernova, why do we use it to define human behavior/morals?

[Agathon]

I think you just agreed with me without realizing it.

No. The world operates according to causal laws. The mind operates according to logical laws (actually it is more accurate to say that it is subject to logical norms, but that's another issue). Trying to reconcile the two is one of the main philosophical problems.

[Agathon]

The mind is the brain. The brain is part of the world. The brain operates according to causal laws too.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
No. The world operates according to causal laws. The mind operates according to logical laws (actually it is more accurate to say that it is subject to logical norms, but that's another issue). Trying to reconcile the two is one of the main philosophical problems.

The mind operates according to logical laws, eh?

What logical laws are followed by serial killers?

[Agathon]

What logical laws are followed by serial killers?

You can't be free and caught at the same time.

This will have to wait until tomorrow as I'm being booted off the computer. Wives!! Damn!!