what is the difference between philosophy and logicality?

Question

i'm confused.

philosophy seems to be the unemotional explanation of ..whatever we're explaining.

but.. isn't that what logic is?

and i think they are reffered to as two completely different things...

if i'm going to take philosophy, i think i really need to know the difference between logic and philosophy..

plase someone explain??

Answer 1

As noted below, logic is branch of philosophy.

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).[1]

Logic (from Classical Greek λόγος logos; meaning word, thought, idea, argument, account, reason or principle) is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstration.

Traditionally, logic is studied as a branch of philosophy, one part of the classical trivium, which consisted of grammar, logic, and rhetoric. Since the mid-nineteenth century formal logic has been studied in the context of foundations of mathematics, where it was often called symbolic logic.

Answer 2

Logic develops truth from truths allowed. Philosophy tries to discover those truths that lie outside of the developments logic gives. I know of no philosophy that does not transcend logic in some way.

Those first truths, such as 'Je pense, donc je suis,' or 'Existence exists,' or 'the universe is regular' are not arrived at through logic, but they are the philosophical beginnings that produce something logic can operate on. Logic itself produces no philosophy; philosophies almost always produce a logic, or quickly adopt some logic. (Not all logics are the same, as you'll discover in your studies).

In some sense, 'philosophy' is doxography, a listing of beliefs (documented and undocumented mental immigrants doing the scutwork in your skull). Clever philosophies check the credentials of those belief-like things.

You can have a philosophy that denies any power to logic. But philosophies that touch the insistently real world, that deal with a dynamic universe, that deal with apparent change, etc., cannot go long without logic. Logic of some kind is essential to critical examination of belief--and I believe that philosophy is worthy that is self-critical. A living philosophy can hardly avoid self-criticism--those that do are merely dogma, dead philosophy.

That is not intended as a dismissal of dogmatic belief; an observation, but I admit that I find demonstratedly dead philosophy unappealing as a candidate replacement for my shabby philosophy, nowhere near complete.

If some guy tells you, "Logic demands that you believe thus and so," tell him to get bent. Philosophy gives you that right. If, however, the logic is sound, and you wish to really yank his chain, you have to nod, tug at your beard and say, "While the argument is valid, I nonetheless do not believe that." You have just enjoyed the one-up advantage of the philosopher over the logic-chopper.

Answer 3

The flaw is the word, "seems". That is not an empirical measure of anything. Individual context, as perceived by someone, is inherently influenced by experience and emotional response to that experience. Therefore philosophy is the context regarding the human condition in relation to a context.
Logic is there regardless of human perception or interaction with it.

Philosophy is developed, rather than logic, which is pre-existing, and more properly descrived as discovered or uncovered.

However, all knowledge is interrelated - but knowledge can be subjective as well.

Answer 4

Philosophy asks 'why', logic answers 'why'.

Answer 5

One is idealism one is pragmatism.