People operate mentally in all kinds of ways: Fictionally, absurdly, poetically, ironically, day dreaming, dreaming, mystically and insanely.
— TonesInDeepFreeze
And all of those operations are operations of the mind, therefore bounded by the rules of the mind, which we may call laws of thought. — Lionino
Definition of what? — TonesInDeepFreeze
It's plain as day — TonesInDeepFreeze
That is not even remotely constant (2) In this instance, I've been in exactly the right place about what was posts was quoted. — TonesInDeepFreeze
So that is saying that laws of logic may only allude to or be based on laws of thought. — TonesInDeepFreeze
the laws of thought require — TonesInDeepFreeze
Your objection to "If ___, then ___" is a doozy! — TonesInDeepFreeze
In such mental states, people often break the laws of thought. — TonesInDeepFreeze
You're replies don't even come close to a refutation. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Laws of thought are facts of the matter about your mind — Lionino
Let's understand instead 'laws of thought' as the necessary conditions/operations for my/human/any mind. Since they are necessary, they cannot be broken. — Lionino
Laws of thought are facts of the matter about your mind — Lionino
And a fact about minds is that they are often irrational. — TonesInDeepFreeze
A law of thought is necessary for the mind no matter what it is doing, ironising, dreaming, thinking, or whatever. All of these have subjacent operations that are necessary to them. — Lionino
No doubt, just not about English. From your failure to answer a couple of questions I infer you did not understand them or their significance. And your resort to invective and insult merely the droppings of a troll, as we who have been around for awhile have learned to recognize, sometimes the hard way.No, I am saying he is a dimwit, which he is. — Lionino
He doesn't. — TonesInDeepFreeze
If a mystic experiences contradictions as being true, then he's not breaking the laws of thought? — TonesInDeepFreeze
If one dreams that one's great-grandfather is both alive and dead at the same time, one is not breaking the laws of thought? — TonesInDeepFreeze
Or maybe just say:
Laws of thought are the necessary mental conditions for the operation of the mind. — TonesInDeepFreeze
From that definition, it follows that they can't be broken. — TonesInDeepFreeze
So, when a person is utterly irrational, they are still obeying the laws of thought on account of the fact that there are mental conditions necessary for the operation of their mind? — TonesInDeepFreeze
You don't have to feel they are needed nor do you have to request them for me to state them. — TonesInDeepFreeze
I don't require your courtesy. — TonesInDeepFreeze
If a mystic experiences contradictions as being true, then he's not breaking the laws of thought?
— TonesInDeepFreeze
I don't think any such experiences are possible. — Lionino
But, if it is the case that it is possible, definitionally there are no laws of thought that preclude from that happening, because it happened, therefore oen is not breaking laws of thought. — Lionino
if by irrational you mean things of the sort of believing the colour green is sweet and that the moon is made of cheese. — Lionino
coming off as senile. — Lionino
"senile" is to guffaw. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Although one might question if some of the further evolutions of this way of thinking might not just succeed in freeing language from coherence and content. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.