What is wrong in this logic?

Question

YOU CAN NEVER ANALYZE THE THING THAT CANNOT BE VIEWED AS YOUR SELF.

You can never analyze nothing because your self cannot be viewed as nothing.

Answer 1

"I think therefore I am"
~Rene Descartes

Answer 2

Both are wrong dear.

1. If a thing is not your self, then your self can easily view it. It's like looking at the sky, the sky is not your self, so therefore it can be viewed by yourself.

2. The self is not nothing, but you can view nothing with yourself. This gets more complicated based on how you define "self" and "nothing". If you are talking about the big self (God) and the big nothing (a logical absurdity), then you might be on to something, but only because Self views Self.

Those statements do not really concern logic, just a problem with syntax. You say "you can never analyze nothing..." what you are basically saying, if you were speaking normally, is that you can't analyze anything/ there is nothing to analyze, which is completely false and wrong. You analyze everything with your self. What you are referring to is a "state of nothing" which is an interesting thought but an absurdity because "state" implies something, so there can not ever exist a complete state of nothing. Even space is space, something. And truth is just that, true things which include the universe.

I think you're getting ruffled by semantics dear. This "nothing" that you are viewing with your mind is actually your soul. Be very very careful in how you discern your mind around this object, because it is your most precious nature. If you are as young as you seem I would consider taking careful steps with your philosophical future, because quite frankly you are starting to make me concerned.

Answer 3

Let's analyze your argument from PURELY formalistic perspective.

Your argument goes something like this:
1. For all X, I can analyze only Such X that i can view as M.
2. I cannot view M as N
3. Therefore N cannot be analyzed.

Do you see the logical flaw?
The 3. cannot be properly drawn from 1. and 2.
Now if you would replace 2 with
2. I cannot view N as M ("Nothing cannot be viewed as myself" as opposed to "myself cannot be viewed as nothing")
Then 3 would be proper.

If you fix this problem -- then your would also have to PROVE that assumptions 1. and 2. are correct in the REAL world.

Answer 4

If I am a lady and I want to analyze a whore and her lifestyle, her day-to-day activities and her problems then do I have to view myself as a whore ?

In other words do I have to become a whore to analyze what a whore is all about ?

This is what is wrong in this logic.

For the second question the answer to that is in an Indian saying in Hindi language which is "Bandar Kya Jane Adrak Ka Swad ?" which can be roughly translated into English as :
"How does a monkey know what the taste of say ... White wine is ?"

Such logics and their derivatives are usually propogated by the ones whose failures can be described by the saying "Fox finally gave up and said Grapes are sour (since he was unable to reach to the grapes and taste them)"

I believe this answers all your questions presented as parts of the present question.

Answer 5

Yes it is true. We can never analyze nothingness. Our self is everything that we experienced, it is called knowledge. Our self has a limit and we cannot analyze anything beyond our periphery The unknown is alien to our limited self. We can only imagine the unknown but our imagination is still the projection of our self.

Answer 6

Can the analyzer be the same as the thing being analyzed ? Think about it..

Answer 7

It's a very interesting statement!
In order to analyze a thing you have to form an understanding of it and in order to understand a thing you have to see it as relating to some part of yourself. Otherwise it remains foreign to you and can only be guessed at, not truly analyzed or understood.

Answer 8

Where's the beef! AND the logic?

Chew the meat and spit the bones darling... all this mumbo jumbo is so relative and really depends on the indivisual. These are not universal truths and therefore not logical.

Seems to me, that this actually counteracts and contradicts reasoning? But you obviously were in some way effected by it or you wouldn't have quoted it?



Read Finite and infinite wisdom By; James P. Carse.

That will really do a number on your head room...

Answer 9

ahh... but nothing is the absence of anything, or something, or everything. therefore, if your self is defined as nothing, then analyzing another would be impossible.... however, analyzing nothing doesn't necessarily mean you are defining it as such. rather, you're quantisizing it's absolute state, whether the validity of such a state exists on a particular level or degree...

ciao...

Answer 10

That seems to me to be a backward version of Rene Descartes plausible deniability. Deny everything except the self, "I think therefore I am".

You can't analyse anything that is not real, according to Descartes. Nothing, not even God can be confirmed. The only thing that is real is you.

But.....You are fictitious to me in my mind, how do I know I'm talking to you? I'm real, you, this keyboard, computer, everything is not here. Only me....lol

Crazy right? me or you? Or my mind?

Answer 11

What logic? I don't see any logic. I just see claims that aren't necessarily true. :)

Even if the first statement if true, who says that your self cannot be viewed as nothing? Maybe you ARE nothing. Maybe you don't exist. Maybe "you" are an illusion, changing at every instant.