[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 729 KB, 978x1306, Screenshot_20180316-152141.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10855188 No.10855188[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

is logic subjective

>> No.10855190

is tiddies subjective

>> No.10855192

>>10855188
By definition no

>> No.10855211

>>10855192
define logic

>> No.10855225

>>10855188
if logic were only subjective, what would be the point of trying to communicate with other people?

>> No.10855229

>>10855188
Logic is not, but the language used Is.
>>10855192
True

>> No.10855230

>>10855211
A system by which one attempts to establish a universal consistency between propositions

>> No.10855235

Yes since there is no objectively correct system of logic.

>> No.10855239

Axioms and premises established for logical arguments can be subjective, but logic is not.

>> No.10855243

>>10855188
Who is this seminal fluid druid?

>> No.10855244

>>10855235
Yes there is, by definition all but one is wrong

>> No.10855247
File: 56 KB, 645x773, 363743745.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10855247

>>10855225
>people all understand ideas the exact same

>> No.10855251

If by "subjective" you mean
>Pertaining to subjects as opposed to objects
than logic is certainly subjective.

>> No.10855254

>>10855244
Can you explain further? What is the exception?

>> No.10855257

>>10855254
Dunno but its one of them

>> No.10855262

Truth is a function of social practices and normative discourse, which doesn't mean reasoning is "subjective", but it's relative to a specific cultural tradition. There was no cosmic inevitability that Aristotelian logic would develop as it did, but there were myriad reasons why it made sense inside that tradition. Also, it's questionable to what extent individuals can meaningfully break away from these long-established systems of thought, in my opinion it's a very rare event.

>> No.10855269

>>10855247
if ideas are a thing to be shared then it's not wholly subjective, bitch.

>> No.10855273

>>10855247
Correct. Some understand ideas wrongly

>> No.10855274

If I come up with a system of logic the things I claim will be true to that system weather you agree with it or not.

>> No.10855279

>>10855274
They won't since there will inevitably be an inner contradiction and your system will fall apart if it is imperfect

>> No.10855293

>>10855188
Yes.

>>10855192
Definitions are, though.

>> No.10855297

>>10855279
You could claim the thing about every system of logic in that case. There is no objectivity

>> No.10855300

It still utterly blows my mind that the logical positivists didn't realize this: >>10855247

How can you seriously think
>I know, I'll have a special Way Of Speaking that allows for completely rigid "TRUTH" to magically exist WITHIN the sentences themselves!! My random human words will be a perfect magical mirror of reality!!
without immediately thinking "wait why would words mirror reality or contain truth"

>> No.10855312

>>10855297
By definition you can not. You may be able to say it about every existing system of logic but not the perfect logic which by definition exists

>> No.10855317
File: 1.24 MB, 400x218, 1457782139424.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10855317

>>10855297
there is objectivity. if rules for logic were purely subjective, why do you assume anyone here would understand the ideas you present with your posts? you come here, and share ideas, with the assumption that we all adhere to enough of the same rules of language and logic that we can make communication possible.

>> No.10855325

>>10855300
>"wait why would words mirror reality or contain truth"
Because Great Men imitate God.

>> No.10855327
File: 19 KB, 561x600, 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10855327

/sci/ here. I hope to god you are all being ironic because this is some of the stupidest shit I've ever read. Logic is objective no matter what your pseudo intellectual hipster ass tries to make believe. In every single universe basic truths like 1 +1 = 2 will still exist in an objective logical system no matter what.

>> No.10855332

This is why humanities fags should not try to into logic.

>> No.10855336

>>10855327
How can 1 + 1 = 2 be true if a 1 isn't even real, man?

>> No.10855337

>>10855300
words were never meant to be the "thing" but a tool to communicate our understandings of the thing. even by disagreeing, you assume to understand what the thing is that you disagree with.

>> No.10855338
File: 72 KB, 550x354, Potatoes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10855338

>>10855325
S P I N O Z A
P
I
N
O
Z
A

>> No.10855341

>>10855336
Like race and genders?

>> No.10855347

>>10855327
>1 +1 = 2
That's not axiomatic. And you make an assumption of 'every single universe' being similar enough for 1+1=2 to be coherent. You make an assumption from within your intuition/logics of this universe, you are this universe, you are incapable of grasping the intuition/logics of another.

>> No.10855349

>>10855327
>/sci/ here
And there goes your license to discuss philosophical problems.

>> No.10855357

>>10855341
Every rational person can make out the differences between races and genders

>> No.10855358
File: 7 KB, 235x214, 1515543441039.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10855358

>>10855347
>Heh but whattabout space magic?

>> No.10855359

>>10855341
No, like letters and numbers. They're signs which are meaningful to humans, but you could argue they're not real since they don't actually exist in the universe. Don't actually know much about this shit, but it's a point of view to take into consideration.

>> No.10855363

>>10855359
>Don't actually know much about this shit
Clearly

>> No.10855368

>>10855359
They don't have to exist they just have to be consistent. Objective does not mean it has to exist "out there" it just has to be accessible and consistent regardless of perspective

Numbers and letters may not exist but they are used to represent such relationships consistently

>> No.10855373

>>10855368
Fair enough.

>> No.10855374

>>10855347
You're talking as if these items have a seperable identity, they don't. It is interior to the definition of 2 that it is 1+1. There is literally no fathomable universe in which this could not be the case.

>> No.10855377
File: 11 KB, 429x410, 1511735397565.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10855377

>people still talking about any "essential difference" between the "apparent" and "real" world after Nietzsche
>people still talking about human inventions like the maths and logic as if they are not human inventions
>people still taking this to be a cause for disparaging the sciences and society in general
Read some philosophy, you cretins.

>> No.10855382

>>10855377
>people still talking about human inventions like the maths and logic as if they are not human inventions

They're not, they're discoveries. If they were inventions it would be implied they could be invented any other way than that which they are.

>> No.10855388

>>10855188
no. i can count from zero to one. so can my piece of shit computer. logic is not subjective.

post more dirtyfoot heifers

>> No.10855394
File: 1.29 MB, 1136x640, 1485307729270.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10855394

>>10855377
>Uhm haven't you read Nietzsche!?

>> No.10855405

>>10855359
uh bro you need to examine your definition of real before you step to a dangerous motherfucker like my boy math

>> No.10855411

>>10855377
>God is just human Imagination at work
>Math is just human Imagination at work

Do you see why your point doesn't matter?

>> No.10855412

>>10855382
Sounds like you haven't yet understood the first point in my post then:

>people still talking about any "essential difference" between the "apparent" and "real" world after Nietzsche

>> No.10855417

>>10855412
Nietzsche was incorrect

>> No.10855418
File: 38 KB, 499x338, 3a781d22db098994a74622cebabc3efc211dab2d69fe55212ad2138e5b15e0c6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10855418

>not adopting a coherentist theory of truth
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/

>> No.10855424

uh bros the real interesting question is whether a life in a solar system different from ours, one that does not experience a day-night cycle like ours, would begin to build their conception of math off 0-1/on-off/yes-no like we did, or whether it would be some three-symbol system, or 15, or whatever appeals to their senses and natural habitat.

>> No.10855425

>>10855417
You'd like that to be the case to get out of having to actually read him.

>> No.10855430

>>10855257
can you prove that?

>> No.10855433

>>10855424
They would have a base 10 system as well, no question

>> No.10855439

>>10855377
math and logic as tools to describe objective phenomena is a human invention, but the things they try to describe are not. and it's why we have scientific and technological progress.

>> No.10855445

>>10855430
Easy.

10+10=20 everytime.
But change the logic of the language system
And you can have
10+10=1010 everytime.

"Logic" is a path system that stays the same everytime, and has no deviation.

Dependent wholly on the language used.

>> No.10855448

114. If you are not certain of any fact, you cannot be certain of the meaning of your words either.
115. If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of
doubting itself presupposes certainty.
116. Instead of "I know...", couldn't Moore have said: "It stands fast for me that..."? And further: "It
stands fast for me and many others..."

87. Can't an assertoric sentence, which was capable of functioning as an hypothesis, also be used as
a foundation for research and action? I.e. can't it simply be isolated from doubt, though not
according to any explicit rule? It simply gets assumed as a truism, never called in question, perhaps
not even ever formulated

88. It may be for example that all enquiry on our part is set so as to exempt certain propositions
from doubt, if they were ever formulated. They lie apart from the route travelled by enquiry.

91. If Moore says he knows the earth existed etc., most of us will grant him that it has existed all
that time, and also believe him when he says he is convinced of it. But has he also got the right
GROUND for this conviction? For if not, then after all he doesn't know (Russell).

92. However, we can ask: May someone have telling grounds for believing that the earth has only
existed for a short time, say since his own birth? - Suppose he had always been told that, - would he
have any good reason to doubt it? Men have believed that they could make the rain; why should not
a king be brought up in the belief that the world began with him? And if Moore and this king were
to meet and discuss, could Moore really prove his belief to be the right one? I do not say that Moore
could not convert the king to his view, but it would be a conversion of a special kind; the king
would be brought to LOOK at the world in a different WAY.
Remember that one is sometimes convinced of the correctness of a view by its simplicity or
symmetry, i.e., these are what induce one to go over to this point of view. One then simply says
something like: "That's how it must be."

96. It might be imagined that some propositions, of the form of empirical propositions, were
hardened and functioned as channels for such empirical propositions as were not hardened but fluid;
and that this relation altered with time, in that fluid propositions hardened, and hard ones became
fluid.

97. The mythology may change back into a state of flux, the river-bed of thoughts may shift. But I
distinguish between the movement of the waters on the river-bed and the shift of the bed itself;
though there is not a sharp division of the one from the other.

98. But if someone were to say "So logic too is an empirical science" he would be wrong. Yet this is
right: the same proposition may get treated at one time as something to test by experience, at
another as a rule of testing.

>> No.10855452

>>10855433
uh bro i think you meant to say if man was meant to see the electromagnetic spectrum he would have been born with conductive eyestalks

>> No.10855453

>>10855439
The "things" they describe are not objective either. "Objective" things cannot be known.

>> No.10855455

>>10855244

Which one? Traditional syllogistic, first order predicate calculus, higher order, modal, temporal, plural, fuzzy, paraconsistent logic and so on?

>> No.10855461
File: 19 KB, 223x346, Sextus Empiricus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10855461

Just a reminder, humans strive towards objectivity and all refuting of logic eventually becomes a refinement of the practice. The subject may not be able to know anything objectively, but the group always moves towards a complete understanding, though that completeness is limited by the bias' of those agents.

Pragmatism, learned judgement, Scepticism.

>> No.10855465

>>10855312
why must something you have defined ‘exist’?

>> No.10855466

>>10855452
Life takes the path of least resistance.
It's not going to happen like it is in your fantasy land.
Life is optimal, creative thought is artistic in design, it is not going to reflect into nature.

>> No.10855470

>>10855188
In the context of logics, it is subjective, for propositions are only true within given systems, and these logics I just mentioned are systems of different axioms, rules of inference, etc.

>> No.10855484

>>10855461
uh bro is this the nuh-uh school of philosophy? or the im rubber youre glue whatever you say bounces off me and sticks back to you school?

>>10855466
im saying you lack imagination. it is terribly presumptive to assume life on another world will be anything like ours. it may emerge from a different chemical soup, using a completely different set of genetic components, and nothing on earth can be expected to be analogous then. there is no 'fantasy' but reality... it is all possible.

>> No.10855510

>>10855453
we assume objectivity by definition because we can recreate scientific phenomena.

if I drop a ball 100% of the time it will fall to the ground. anyone there to witness it...and would disagree would need to get their eyes or their head checked by a doctor.

>> No.10855533

>>10855510
I'm not arguing against assumptions and what is or isn't a practical approach to the world. Of course no one would disagree there except if they were playing devil's advocate for the sake of a laugh. But if you want deeper wisdom about life, which anyone who is stating the "objectivity" of anything as plain obvious fact has clearly not obtained yet, you have to explore beyond the assumptions.

>> No.10855550

>>10855188
From a multi-dimensional perspective, it could be, though we don't know and never will. From a universal one, no.

>> No.10855556

>>10855188
No

>> No.10855564

>>10855188
I might have to leave this site with all the hot women being posted. I think it’s affecting my brain chemistry or something.