If you believe something to be true, or maybe even know it, and you were not capable of being able to be persuaded that it was in fact NOT true. Would that suggest that you illogically hold on to its truth?
For Example
I know the world is a sphere. however, I could be convinced otherwise if there was enough evidence, such as i simply take a journey and see the edge. or maybe my believe can be shaken by seeing some photographs of the world being flat from a satellite and they are verified to be accurate by NASA.
Something along those lines.
2007-10-25 18:10:18 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
no no rackoff, I am saying the opposite of what you just said. I am saying that it is Illogical to not be persuaded to believe something else even with proper evidence and facts being right there.
2007-10-25 18:31:27 · update #1
There are always two sides to things. Going on the logic of your question it would mean that whichever side of the argument someone chose it would be illogical if they could be persuaded otherwise. So, if two people (with differing views) were persuaded to think the opposite then are you saying that would be illogical? i think not
2007-10-25 18:16:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, not at all. In this situation, it opens a fragment of argument that the third person 'you' were not capable of being able to be persuaded that his truth was in fact not true. Subjectively, there is an underlying logical, relevant, and genuine reason why 'you' were adamant that he can't be persuaded. A reason, or fundamental determining factor or principle that only 'you' can comprehend. Having mystical speculations in this matter,' you' believed in all his idea that there is, in support to his belief that which may possibly been absorbed and built out of subjective observation.
He is is holding his idea logically. In this matter,no one, or no authority should determine man's thinking in all sides of the perceptive view.. The human mind builds its own ideas and thought patterns. In other words, man was demanding the right to think for himself and reach its own conclusions independently of authority, or another party.
His ideas as such, may not be recognized in accordance to plurality, universality, and moral or ethical law, but it doesn't mean to follow that it was illogical to assume or hold his own truth. This is what Philosophy is all about.
2007-10-25 19:04:59 · answer #2 · answered by oscar c 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You say, "I know", but that is only an idea.
You speak of LOGIC nad ILlogic. Both are ideas. Logical ideas AND illogical idea are not contradictory or exclusive of eachother. An illogical IDEA can also be very logical.
"Logic" is a very precice type of thinking, a traineing, a skill. It involves many other ideas.
If something is a truth, it is not shown to be false by facts. If you have a *belief* about something and find facts which...Facts? Is that where you are stalling? Facts are just ideas. Facts are observation which have been repeated in a particular set and setting. Facts are not logical nor illogical. Facts are just beliefs which lots of people agree about.
There is always the possibility that everyone is lying to you with their proofs that your facts are wrong.
Just what is "proof" anyway?
2007-10-25 18:59:32 · answer #3 · answered by bahbdorje 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say yes. I illogically hold on to the truth, or maybe that is why I call it a belief, that there is "something" out there that created us (humans). But so far there is no explanation of that "something" that fits just right. Maybe the truth is too big, and complex for us humans to grasp and comprehend, without losing our minds. But I do believe.
2007-10-25 18:17:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that if you believed something in the face of clear proof to the opposite, then that would be an irrational belief.
A rational belief holds something to be true so that progress can be made toward a goal but still is not blind to evidence to the contrary.
It's a good question. Have a star.
2007-10-25 22:07:26 · answer #5 · answered by Matthew T 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes because we don't know the cosmic aspect of reality. Knowledge has been continuously revised by new scientific evidence. For example, what we know to be true today will invariably change tomorrow when far advanced instruments are refined or invented that can probe magnified images never before seen to disprove what we falsely or wrongly held on to.
2007-10-26 01:34:15 · answer #6 · answered by Lance 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no it does no longer recommend which you 'illogically carry on on your certainty'...you may particularly do it logically when you consider which you nevertheless have confidence or be conscious of that however you think of is genuine an occasion of 'illogical protecting on' for me may be being obdurate (you think of/have confidence/be conscious of it is not genuine to any extent further, yet you nevertheless insist it to be genuine just to coach your component) what you think of is your actuality and in basic terms simply by fact somebody is exhibiting you some 'evidence' or arguments, it does no longer recommend they are appropriate/genuine/valid and you may desire to have confidence them...in case you be conscious of your certainty, there is no longer something incorrect in protecting directly to it :) good luck :)!
2016-10-14 02:05:08 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Where are these facts of which you speak? Facts are always changing.
Which is more logical, to change with the facts or let the facts change you?
2007-10-25 18:39:00 · answer #8 · answered by ___ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you know that shooting stars are actually the poop they release from the space shuttle burning up in the atmosphere..hmmm
2007-10-25 18:15:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋