Logic??????

Question

Existence cannot be explained logically.
All logic is based on the predicate of existence.
Thus, logic is not logical.
Is this good logic.
P.S. i recognise the irony involved, so dont point it out.
P.P.S. If you cant explain existence from your own point of view then dont answer.
P.P.S. no logic.

Am all right Jack-If the first premise is correct, then the second is also correct.
Without existence, there would be no logical thought. If you Kant explain existence, then dont cop-out using anothers logic.

Jack- "every 'rational being' exists as an end in himself" Logic???
"the fact that the human being can have the representation 'I' raises him 'infinitely' above all the other beings on 'earth'. What is the logicians eplanation of 'I', not the definition! How can something be defined if it Kant be understood? What is logical about the usage of 'infinite' when he Kant define it or understand it? He refers to the "human being" when "i" is singular, or is it? The universal will? Is this based on 'I' or 'we'?

Whitebrinches- I'm not sure about the whole "heart" business, but i 'think' i know what you mean. BUT, try explaining to a logical??? thinker that a "priori" is not logical is another matter! How can "propositional knowledge" be knowledge???? It doesnt even work in the theory of language. As a proposition is capable of being true OR false, it KANT be knowledge.

Hi high- Truly logical cop-out. So what is the answer to something we cant understand- acceptance? surely you would like to think about what you are accepting before you go there?

JACK! You should try asking some questions, is that not the way to learn? Or do you have all the answers? I suppose logic would say NO. You should think about accepting e-mail, so persons can explain their views. Existence is not logical? As logic refuses to tackle existence, surely it doesn't have a say in all things it considers as existence. It's almost like: Well 'I' can't answer that so 'we' will ask something else.

adicapona- 'I' accept that it is not an answer.It is the basis of logic and therefore not an answer, but, yes, an assumption of the existence of "N". Where "N" stands for NOTHING? Nothing is an entity! That is "logical".

"continuance". of what? Nothing? Nothing must be a continuance as it contains everything infinite.

Jack-- Philosophy as defined:The study of knowledge, thought and the meaning of life. Although logic is great fun, i dont believe it to fall into this category and should be concerned with other logical studies, such as mathematics, which also has great problems with infinity. Instead of tackling it, these disciplines find a way around it. Philosophy should look at all possibilities and theories and rule out none. Logic is great, just in the wrong category in my opinion i think?

Goapy- "is this sound logic"? That your "logic" is the only way you know how to answer a question. The power of deduction eh. All those numbers and no facts. If you realise that there are no "facts" in your "logic", you would then understand that "is this good logic" was a crack at sarcastic humour. I presupposed your "reply" as you have no other answer. Why don't you just go the whole hog and call your logic "fact"?

Goapy- "the question" is open, which leaves the "answers" open. This is something we cannot do through "logic". Logic deduces and answers.

Too narrow and too broad. So the definition i give is illogical? O.K. How about- philosophy: the search for knowledge, esp the nature and meaning of existence. ?
I could no doubt give more definition if you wish?
"not a philosophical question" ?? Everything pertaining to existence is a philosophical question. Infinity? nothing? Question? Answer? What if you ask the wrong question? What are the right questions? Maybe find out what the question is, BEFORE giving an answer. My question is logic?????? The category of philosophy is the only place to look if you are not looking for an answer? "I" am not looking for "answers". As mentioned, some questions cannot be answered. Logic attempts to deduce an answer out of a question and therefore does not deal with, or cannot deal with, unanswerable questions. So why do logicians concern themselves with philosophy? Surely clarity of thought cannot be achieved by these means? Give a logical definition of philosophy please. I am struggling?

Jack-- Sorry, my point: There is little in logic as far as philosophy goes (definition remains open). Philosophy is not logical it IS spiritual. Maybe it is not for me to categorise logic but is it for you to categorise my thoughts? I can only put my thoughts in the category of philosophy. I find logic gets in the way. I dont want to use the word "enlightenment", but i have. I do not want to be "enlightened" to the wrong questions.

Answer 1

Okay, I've tried to answer this question a few times now and I've come to realise that my knowledge of philosophy is sadly lacking.

I want this statement to be true because it sounds cool. I love the idea that logic is illogical but I don't think it is. Problem is I can't quite explain it myself but it's something to do with logic existing in it's own right with the 'existence' of us or the rest of the universe being completely by the by.

Seeing as I have no real knowledge of what I'm talking about I'm going to shut up now. Have fun.

Answer 2

Existence is real , its explanation by human being is the goal of the humanity.
This world is real to our senses, perception and mind.
Each person sees and feels only part of this reality, depending on his intellect and studies.
The absolute truth is the total knowledge needed to understand the reality so that all people will know how to explain it. As long as reality exists, there is a need to investigate it in order to reveal the absolute truth.
The mathematics and sciences are the logical tools used by the man to study all the different subjects in the reality and to reveal the absolute truth.
The statement :"existence cannot be explained logically" is a false statement, since you as human being explain everything in this existence by logic only; using science and maths.

As long as existence is real and perceived in the mind of human beings, the main goal of humanity is to explain it, i.e to reveal the absolute truth.
The fact that the truth is not yet discovered is another question; sciences and mathematics are tools to help us find the truth. These tools are developed constantly and continuously during the time, until we, the human beings will find the absolute truth.
Maybe science is not enough as a tool, and maybe that humanity needs also faith to reach the absolute truth. And then science and mathematics will be part of the reality.
After that you will be able to explain (with your logical brain) the concept of existence.

Answer 3

Yes, but...

Existence can be observed only through individual/personal experiences.
All observations are affected by our life experience, thus by definition no two individual observation can be identical.
Two (or more) observers must find a way to adjust their experiences in order to communicate with each other and a language is born.
All languages are approximations of observations.
Thus, all languages are inaccurate and all communication is based on a certain, generally accepted level of inaccuracy.
Logic is a tool of communication to organise this inaccuracy.
Thus, since unique observations made by individual observers are communicated through commonly agreed language, which in turn is an inaccurate way on expressing unique observations, and logic is a way to communicate these observations in a way that an individual experience can be understood by (hopefully) all observers, all logic is inaccurate and therefor liable to fault.

The last observation includes this answer.

Answer 4

I think that existence goes against logic in many ways. You can't explain much about this earth or the way people act using logic. That's why I believe in creation and in GOD. He made all of this and has a plan for it all. I know this sounds corny. Popular Christianity has just about ruined the idea of GOD for many people. But there is alot to be learned through study of the Bible.
Just my two cents!

Answer 5

It logically impossible for matter and energy to create itself.

It is logically impossible for earth to have existed forever due to the fact we can track causes and events which proves that an unlimited causes could not exist that would cause and event. That makes my head hurt just thinking about this.

It is also proven that we all could not have evolved from the same creature due to the Cambrian explosion. (That is when hundreds of new creatures appeared out of nowhere, there is no sign of any links between jellyfish and land animals)

The only truly logical thing says something above matter, energy, and our understanding could have caused the creation of earth and this universe.(Many Scientists have come to this conclusion to like Allan Sandage "The Greatest observational cosmologist in the world" quoted from Case for A Creator

Answer 6

You "recognise" the irony (that you're using an argument [logic] to argue that logic is not logical), and I suppose it is fine to ask that we not point it out, but I just did anyway.

But then to ask if your argument (logic) is good logic, and require that we not use logic to answer, makes it impossible to provide you with an answer. Sorry, you don't get to use logic and then ask that we not use it.

Asking 'is this good logic' presupposes that there are such things as 'logic' and 'good logic', which you have asserted is not the case. What else other than logic can be used to evaluate the degree of 'goodness' of logic? If logic is not logical, what is good logic?

==============================...

dti42, I thoroughly enjoy sarcasm, and I will grant that your "Is this good logic" is a good bit of sarcasm... nice work!

But if I grant that your question is rhetorical sarcasm, does an actual question remain? Please filter out the rhetoric and sarcasm and pose your question directly.

And as far as my being unable to answer your question without using logic... if you ask it without using logic, I will respond in kind.

Answer 7

No it is not good logic, since your using logic to prove the non-existence of logic.

Logic is a construct of human reasoning. And it is quite evident that the universe operated quite well without us here.

~X~

Answer 8

Logic can't comprehend existance,let alone the source of existance,it can only discribe or define "it". It is the same with,God,unconditional love,humility, Peace,and silence . If you want to know all these things you must experience them within your heart,where they all merge into "the one". forget logic,listen to an follow your heart. "the mind is not for thinking,the mind is for receiving thought".

Answer 9

before
n=n or n+1=n+1
'n' is assumed..
the existence of an 'assumption' is evidence of a previous entitiy..

[this is not an answer]

Try 'picturing' the big bang?


(my only solution is to place the camera {pov} inside the explosion-and be unsatisfied)

Answer 10

Logic does not have to be logical for it to be used as an adjective, just as the term artificial intelligence is oxymoronic.