いくこ

What would be the threshold that separates us from what we can consider natural and what does a natural faculty mean to you? — armonie

Boy, big question.

I will talk about that through the lense of cultural history and history of ideas.

In classical (i.e. pre-modern) culture, it was always understood that man had dual nature, animal on one side, but transcendent on the other (sometimes depicted in terms of being 'between animals and angels'.) Again in Western classical culture this latter faculty was associated with reason, language, philosophy, and (in some respects) religion. (This was actually the background to Rene Descartes' dualism of physical and mental, but his form of dualism introduces many unsolvable problems which I don't want to go into right here.)

In any case, as a consequence of the European Enlightenment and of the overall drift towards secularism, it has become increasingly assumed that man can be understood as purely natural phenomenon along the same scale as the rest of the natural world, albeit with highly evolved abilities, but which are nevertheless understandable along the same axis, so to speak. Whereas the traditionalist view is that the human is different in kind from animals, largely because of the faculty of reason (hence, the traditional designation in Greek philosophy of the human as 'rational animal'). There was an ontological distinction between human nature and the rest of the animal kingdom.

On the whole, I agree with the traditionalist view, in that I think that through language, reason (and other faculties which are generally deprecated in secular culture), that the human transcends any purely biological analysis (whilst plainly acknowledging that physically, we are very much a product of evolution.) But I believe that when humanity evolved to a certain point, then they 'transcended the biological', so to speak. So I argue that the ability to grasp transcendentals (in the philosophical sense intended by Kant for instance) cannot be understood solely through the lense of biological evolution, as that theory is not actually concerned with such questions at all. But because of the way that evolutionary theory has become the defacto creation myth of secular culture, then it must insist that humans have a naturalistic explanation, and that there is no such ontological distinction as the traditionalist view envisaged.

It is of course a wildly unpopular and completely politically-incorrect attitude, but nevertheless that's what I feel about it. Interestingly, however, it is very close to the views of the scientist who was credited as the co-discoverer of the theory of natural selection, namely, Alfred Russel Wallace.

They think so much that relativism kicks in but they are unable to handle it. That's why they say crazy things. That quote was from Chesterton but could have been from Jung. — Gregory

Yeah i think that about sums it up. I find that many people who embrace relativism in its many and numerous forms mistake it for some enlightened and open minded point of view. Thats not to say some things involve alot of relativity and ofcourse just about everything can have a spectrum applied to it.

what is the difference between "reason" and "logic"? — Antidote

There's the application and there's the formal study. When the ancient Egyptians built the amazing structures we call the Pyramids, they applied logic. But the Greeks, Aristotle et al, made a formal study of logic itself.

If there's a difference between reason and logic then one such difference is that the former is like the tools used by the Egyptians to build the Pyramids and the Greeks subjected the tools themselves to formal inquiry, refining it into something better or so it's claimed. In other words reason is the application of what is prescribed as good thinking by logic and logic is the study of reason.

Ok so that I'm clear on this, what we are really describing by "application" is expression. And describing "formal study" is definition. If so, then we are really describing just logic and not reason. Because these are the attributes of logic. Logic does seem to have a place thats for sure, but only within reason, and certainly not without it.

We can happily say that the pyramids were built before the Ancient Greeks were about, and the Ancient Greeks invented logic by definition so it would appear, unless I'm mistaken, the cart is before the horse again.

If I use your last example, we are saying the Egyptians "knew" how to apply what we now call logic (if logic is within reason then reason knows everything about logic) and the Greeks then tried to describe it or define it. The Greeks of course may have had a very good reason to do such a thing, or not.

Reason is a tool to describe, and an ability to perceive descriptions of, cause-effect relationships.

Logic is a tool in language that describes rules of relationships between numbers, sets, and objects (people included, as much as immaterial or phantasy objects) that are true at any time, anywhere, in any possible, or imagined world.

Reason is an ability that manifests in each person to different measures. Logic applies to all person's thinking equally. To absorb logic properly, one must have a reasoning ability to a certain minimum limit. You can tell a ten-year old child that 5 + 7 is the same as 7 + 5, and he will believe you, but you can't tell the same to even an intelligent animal, like a dog, because the dog's reasoning ability has not hit that lower minimum required limit to absorb the logic.

Some people make errrors in reason, yet they can't be shown their own errors, due to their limitations in their ability to reason.

----------------------

That said, many arguments (or all) among people start not because the topics are diverse, with many possible resolutions, but because the people who argue have different limitations to their ability to reason. Even very, very intelligent people can have limitations to their ability to reason, for instance, if they are obsessed or believe a religious dogma that stands in the way of their ability ot accept reason that leads to the contrary solution or resolution to their accepted one which had been dictated to them by their religious dogma.

---------------------

People on this website hate me for being an atheist and decrying religion. They went as far as telling me in public spaces and in private email that I am a fucking asshole.

I don't hate religion. I hate inability to reason.

Those who are not able to reason well, due to mental (intellectual) limitations, I don't condemn. I feel pity for them.

Those who are not able to reason well due to the limitations of their religion, I show them precisely where they make a mistake in reasoning. They hate me for that. They can't stand the fact that their own world view, their very philosophy is being threatened by unassailable reason and logic.

I normally abandon all arguments sooner or later, after I have had my say. I abandon the arguments becasue 1. I don't think I can change anyone's thinking, values, or ability to think and 2. They can't change mine.

If I am found in the wrong, in terms of logic, insight, facts, or reason, I capitulate. I do admit I was wrong. There are many instances on this website of my having done so, so I am not simply or falsely boasting.

What a beautiful way to describe it, I definitely agree. From what I gather, there is an infinite spectrum of vibration, always one greater, always one lesser. — Antidote

I'm not sure I follow you here.

Do you mean to suggest that the "common ground" I mentioned might be characterized in terms of an "infinite spectrum of vibration"? How does that story go, on your account?

Reason must be purpose. And I only turn to purpose for a reason usually to learn something I don't know. Have you looked at Egypt much or before? — Antidote

I agree that animal rationality is guided by animal purposes, and that the reasoning of discursive sentient beings, including human animals, is informed by their purposes.

I recommend caution in weighing the role of purpose in reasoning: Imbalanced clinging to some purposes might lead one to forsake truth, sincerity, and good sense, for instance, and thus unravel the conditions required for reasonable discourse.

How is Egyptian history or culture especially relevant in this regard?

Definitely so, logic is the lesser of the two by far but then it would be, logic was man made. I see logic at the beginning but then its soon surpassed by reason in the gap between. — Antidote

I'm not sure I follow here either.

It seems to me the conventions of formal logic help us to define our terms so as to speak and reason more clearly and consistently. Their utility is overrated by some and underrated by others.

These conventions are of least utility where the speech acts that we call assertions, and that we evaluate according to the distinction between truth and falsehood, are of least utility.

For instance, when we stop conversing and chant AUM.

I'm not sure how I might reasonably apply the term "reason" or "reasoning" in such contexts.

This is what I want to understand. Have you heard Kasabian - Days are Forgotten? Great tune. I think Plato's Republic - Book 1 gives an insight but I'm open and if the fiction can be put right then its something I guess. — Antidote

Plato and his contemporaries understood the political character of philosophical discourse.

Plato clearly thinks it's acceptable for philosophers to tell golden lies, allegedly for the sake of the common good. He mentions and perhaps seems sympathetic to the tendency among other schools or cults in his day to hide layers of their discourses behind the discourses they present to the public; surely we shouldn't discount the likelihood that his Academy followed a similar custom.

I wonder whether we should treat his dialogues more as advertisements for the Academy and acts of public propaganda than as accurate expressions of his considered view.

But how on Earth would we ever be able to answer such questions definitively?

It seems to me a similar set of problems of political motive and intention apply to all the major ancient schools; to ancient, medieval, and modern Christian philosophy; to classical modern philosophies like Cartesianism and Kantianism... straight through to the present day.

As well as to polytheistic mythologies promoted by Bronze Age elites.

Thanks for the musical reference. Nowadays I listen to a lot of Nikhil Banerjee, among others. Raga Malkauns is a perennial favorite.

Ok so that I'm clear on this, what we are really describing by "application" is expression. And describing "formal study" is definition. If so, then we are really describing just logic and not reason. Because these are the attributes of logic. Logic does seem to have a place thats for sure, but only within reason, and certainly not without it.

We can happily say that the pyramids were built before the Ancient Greeks were about, and the Ancient Greeks invented logic by definition so it would appear, unless I'm mistaken, the cart is before the horse again.

If I use your last example, we are saying the Egyptians "knew" how to apply what we now call logic (if logic is within reason then reason knows everything about logic) and the Greeks then tried to describe it or define it. The Greeks of course may have had a very good reason to do such a thing, or not. — Antidote

Well, the "cart is before the horse" is probably a good place to start understanding the reason-logic distinction: horse riding was known to humans much before equestrianism became an established discipline". Well, what about building carts? Carts were built before engineering became a subject of study. Likewise, reason existed before logic, the study of reason.

That sounds like a very nice comparison. So we were perfectly capable before logic was invented.

So we were perfectly capable before logic was invented. — Antidote

I would've liked to reply "yes" but unfortunately, no, we weren't perfectly capable before logic as the long list of logical fallacies will attest to.

The logically-illiterate and even those who are experts and authorities on the subject are prone to committing fallacies and succumbing to cognitive biases that impede and block logical thinking. In other words, humans are prone to jumping to conclusions and this needs to be remedied and critical thinking in general, logic in particular, does just that.

The intriguing aspect to this tendency to "illogic" is that its existence and persistence in humans may have given our ancestor-hominids a survival advantage. For instance every rustle in the grass simply can't be a lion but it's safer to make this inference. The following reasoning is the fallacy of affirming the consequent

1. If lion then rustling of leaves
2. Rustling of leaves
Ergo
3. Lion

Reasoning like the above may make you the laughing stock among logicians but many a logician would probably end up as snacks for lions. Really turns the meaning of fallacy on its head, doesn't it? What now of logic?

Thats fair, so the logically illiterate and the experts are opposite ends of the spectum, meaning everyone. And i agree, but maybe its over complicated. We all make mistakes, with or without logic so mistakes simply happen. Then the counterpart to this is that mistakes allow us to learn.

It does turn fallacy on its head, i suppose it means that logic can answer some questions but it cant answer all questions. Reason must be superior to logic.

What could possibly be superior to reason? is the million dollar question. Reason crystallizes, so to speak, in logic; it's the heavyweight champion insofar as thinking is aimed at gaining knowledge. I respect it as all must if only to stay alive but as a Jedi once said, "there's always a bigger fish".

Very good, got to hand it to those Jedi's!

Logic thinks of something. The secret is to think of everything arising from nothing. Such is impossible materially, but possible beyond extension. Hegel says "The Category, which had the significance of being the inmost essence of existence -of existence indifferent to whether it is existence at all, or existence over against consciousness - is now the essential nature of simple unity of existence merely in the sense of a reality that thinks...Where is understanding to be able to demonstrate necessity, if it is.incapable of doing in its own case, itself being pure necessity." The world is contingent, see?

I won't pretend to be able to follow that as it seems rather complicated in terms. The blind are not particularly good guides for the blind. As I said before, I'm rather stupid in most respects.

It sounds somewhat like René Descartes who framed being within thinking, instead of thinking within being and came up with "I think therefore I am" which is reductionism and puts the cart before the horse. I fancy that whenever logic is used on its own it has a terrible habit of turning things back to front. How would this be related in simple terms, as in, if you were trying to explain it to a child?

The brain comes from nothing, consciousness comes from the brain, and your soul is the Forms

いくこ

とでしか、