Thread: Improvement (For those that practice logic)

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Self referential fallacy. Most do not take into account two factors, the convention of names, and the fact that predication is the inverse function of abstraction. The principles of any logic are the same, no matter if arithmetic or common grammar.
Not being aware of first principles, and normally people are not, does not mean that their lack of comprehension dictate the fundamental principles of grammar.

Most believe that a convention of names rests upon their abstraction, which is a fallacy. The convention rests with the standard from which the abstraction is made. Standards of Weights and Measures are an example.

If one truly follow the principles of common grammar, the results will be the same for everyone, just as the resluts of 3 + 2 will always be the same.

A reason one does not see this, is because they were not taught, and were not bright enough to figure it out for themselves.

In the simple, grammar consists in giving your word and being bright enough to keep it.

Can you explain plainly what, specifically you're getting at here? You're using jargon like "convention of names" and "predication is the inverse function of abstraction" without explaining them.

"Most believe that a convention of names rests upon their abstraction, which is a fallacy." - I don't even know what this means. And neither does google, by the way. If you look up "convention of names" in google, the results consist of:

1) An abstract reference in a linguistics book, about Chinese linguistics

2) A reference to the "getpid" system call on the postgre SQL message board

3) An article about the law of Kamma/Karma

4) Something about Sun Microsystems freeware enhancements

I'm assuming you didn't invent the term, so I'll go with what was said about linguistics in China:

Code:

The conventionality of names, of course, is the conventionality of the initial choice of names for a certain purpose. It does not alter the nature of correspondence or the nature of what the names correspond to. Thus, Xunzi's theory does not allow us to infer that we can legislate reality to the world through the convention of names.

source

I'm not sure what exactly were you getting at, and that's pending discussion, but this passage (which, remember, is just someone's opinion, as are all "factual" statements in a philosophy book, which is also just my opinion) seems to contradict what you say here:

"If one truly follow the principles of common grammar, the results will be the same for everyone, just as the resluts of 3 + 2 will always be the same."

Like I said, I am still unsure as to the nature of your argument, because you've riddled it with exactly the amount of jargon I would expect from a philosophy student writing a paper, but my feeling is that the answer is a simple, "...and you are neglecting the human factor."

Do you not realize that Standards of Weights and Measures is actually a convention of names?

When you asked your mother, "What is that called" did you not realize that you were participating in a convention of namees?
I do understand your confusion, no one who reads Plato's Parmenides realizes what he is getting at. When you have the same name for a thing, that things form, and that things material difference, you can do nothing but speak gibberish. It evovled in formal reasoning to "Well defined terms." which was never actually upheld.

Your body either abstracts a things form, or a things material difference, what Aristotle called induction. This gives you 3, and only 3 primitive categories of names. You can name a thing directly, or you can name a thing by concatenating the names of that things various form and the matrial differences in those forms.

Oh Crap. Study Langauge and Expertience. The point of writing it was so I would not have to explain simple ideas over and over again.

And no, you will not find it on the net. You have to go back to when people actually used their mind, some 2500 years.

You abstract form and material differences, you name them, the name of a thing is equal to the names of that things various forms and the names of the material differences in those forms, this is a result of the two methods of naming. Thus, predication is the inverse function of abstraction. i.e. you agreed upon a name, and you are stuck with it.

Originally Posted by malac

I just wanted to identify specifically those that I consider competent in debate, so that I may attempt to pull them in a topic and increase my likelihood of debating against them.

Considering you already have them identified, why don't you simply send a PM out to each of those people and see if they are interested in the challenge? Then make a new thread in the appropriate forum where the debates can take place. Seems like the most logical thing to do imho.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Do you not realize that Standards of Weights and Measures is actually a convention of names?

When you asked your mother, "What is that called" did you not realize that you were participating in a convention of namees?

Since I just heard the term "convention of names" for the first time today, no, I didn't realize it was a convention of names when I was 4 years old and asking my mother what stuff is called.

And no, you will not find it on the net. You have to go back to when people actually used their mind, some 2500 years.

That's quite a condescending thing of you to say about EVERY living thing in existence today. If you are unable to explain the concepts you speak of to someone who has never heard of them (at least, in terms of 2500 old jargon), then I question your genuine understanding of them.

Oh Crap. Study Langauge and Expertience. The point of writing it was so I would not have to explain simple ideas over and over again.

Simple ideas, eh? You're defining buzz-words in terms of buzz-words. Yes, I know what an "abstraction" is, though I bet my internal experience of what that word means differs from yours.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

Simple arithmetic is a grammar system. What would the world be like without standards in goods commerce that it brings? Now extrapolate, human social commerce has to be based on just as accurate common grammar. Plato extrapolated further, the foundation of psychology itself. Language, all language, is convered uner the term Logic, Psychologic really is not different than logic. Virtue of the human mind is linguistically determined. Thus, the live and let live, as far as mental functions go, is only the statement, I don't give a rats ass who is mad nor how it affects their life or mine. Which reduces to, I don't care about life at all. I do care, I am a greedy freaking bastard. Calling one man who cared a great deal about mankind, a Nazi, is a statement made by a fool.
His method is getting the user of a language to simply comply with its principles. Principles normal people do not think about, nor realize how much gibberish they speak, think, and do on its behalf. Christ put his method in other terms "Seek first the kingdom of heaven." Just a metaphor.

Plato was one of the few in history who realized to even learn a leanguage was a standardization in human will. This being the case, implied is a standarization in human psychology. The key to a civil society.

It's called a joke, oh long-winded one.

This thread has definitely turned INTO a debate of sorts. I think this is what (in particular) Philosopher and the OP wanted - to allow this thread to show the OP our debating abilities, rather than having him/her take our word for it. If so, very sneaky. If not, well, OP, take your pick in after another page of posts.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

Considering you already have them identified, why don't you simply send a PM out to each of those people and see if they are interested in the challenge? Then make a new thread in the appropriate forum where the debates can take place. Seems like the most logical thing to do imho.

I think what you meant to say is - "seems like the most rational thing to do imho." Yes, I have a list of people already in mind, but I want to broaden that list. However, seeing how this thread is going off topic from my simple request, I'll just look on my own. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Clyde Machine

This thread has definitely turned INTO a debate of sorts. I think this is what (in particular) Philosopher and the OP wanted - to allow this thread to show the OP our debating abilities, rather than having him/her take our word for it. If so, very sneaky. If not, well, OP, take your pick in after another page of posts.

I considered earlier in the day that others might try to show-off their debating skills in this thread. lol

Originally Posted by malac

I think what you meant to say is - "seems like the most rational thing to do imho." Yes, I have a list of people already in mind, but I want to broaden that list. However, seeing how this thread is going off topic from my simple request, I'll just look on my own. Thank you.

I considered earlier in the day that others might try to show-off their debating skills in this thread. lol

In that case, I'd say the only reasons I can think of you'd look beyond this thread for good opponents is because you either want a larger selection to choose from, or because you haven't been pleased with the demonstrations dumped in here after your initial post.

I'm flattered.

At the risk of being immodest, let me suggest to you that one of the best and most important ways of constructing compelling arguments actually has very little to do with any inherent argumentation skills that one may or may not have. Far more important is simply that you genuinely place a huge premium on being lucid and thorough, and that you're willing to revise and work on both the logic and presentation of your arguments until they satisfy stringent standards. If my argumentative posts ever come across to you as being particularly well-formed, this is certainly more due to my having spent a long time constructing them than it is due to any privileged talents on my part. Depending somewhat on the length of post I'm aiming for, it is not at all uncommon for me to spend more than an hour constructing and reconstructing a particular post until the argument is as clear and coherent as possible. Not everyone can be bothered to do this--hell, in all honesty even I don't really have the time, but it's sort of an obsession of mine, for better or worse.

I would be less interested in winning an arguement, than in knowing the foundation of reason itself. It seems to me, that when one goes to the races, mechanics are more important than the number of drivers.

If you want a partner who knows how to do overly legalistic debates involving smatterings of unrelated evidence where speed-talking and knowledge of arbitary rules dictates the victor, I am your man.

NOTE: If ever given a chance to do CX/Policy debate or LD/Lincoln Douglas, especially for a school team, you probably want to pick LD.

Originally Posted by DuB

Depending somewhat on the length of post I'm aiming for, it is not at all uncommon for me to spend more than an hour constructing and reconstructing a particular post until the argument is as clear and coherent as possible. Not everyone can be bothered to do this--hell, in all honesty even I don't really have the time, but it's sort of an obsession of mine, for better or worse.

Well, it does show.

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

I would be less interested in winning an arguement, than in knowing the foundation of reason itself. It seems to me, that when one goes to the races, mechanics are more important than the number of drivers.

You're very ironical.

I have something very interesting to say about logic.

Suppose the world was such, so that from your buttocks up to the top of your head ran a line that needed to be centered, once done, you can have whatever you desire and live a prosperous life.

Suppose also then that this line would only center if you choose certain sentences to be true.

Suppose then that the sentence, "I do not exist" centered the line. What difference then does truth and falsehood make? Or what is logical or illogical? Or what is reasonable?

This would topple logic to its knees as there is simply no need for it.

Originally Posted by elucid

I have something very interesting to say about logic.

Suppose the world was such, so that from your buttocks up to the top of your head ran a line that needed to be centered, once done, you can have whatever you desire and live a prosperous life.

Suppose also then that this line would only center if you choose certain sentences to be true.

Suppose then that the sentence, "I do not exist" centered the line. What difference then does truth and falsehood make? Or what is logical or illogical? Or what is reasonable?

This would topple logic to its knees as there is simply no need for it.

As Aristotle pointed out, all one can do is either assert (true) or deny (false) as the foundation of language, why do you bother yourself or anyone else with your linguistic skillls? I have never known someone to go to a lumber yard, knock over a pile of wood, and then claim that he demolished all of architecture. I don't believe anyone has yet been that naive.

As Aristotle pointed out, all one can do is either assert (true) or deny (false) as the foundation of language, why do you bother yourself or anyone else with your linguistic skillls? I have never known someone to go to a lumber yard, knock over a pile of wood, and then claim that he demolished all of architecture. I don't believe anyone has yet been that naive.

Its just something interesting to raise our awareness towards, that was all I was going for. It is just a different "mode" of thinking and in my opinion, the more modes of thinking we become aware of, the better.

To put it another way, suppose a person's mode of thinking is such so that he always goes here and there asking "why", while another goes here and there asking "how". In my opinion, it is harder to answer the question "why" than it is the question of "how". So then I will suppose that the mode of thinking that makes a person ask "how" will get farther than the other person.
Thus we see the advantage of being aware of different modes of thinking.

Its ok if we do not get all of our "why" questions answered, as long as we get the "how".

Originally Posted by elucid

Its just something interesting to raise our awareness towards, that was all I was going for. It is just a different "mode" of thinking and in my opinion, the more modes of thinking we become aware of, the better.

To put it another way, suppose a person's mode of thinking is such so that he always goes here and there asking "why", while another goes here and there asking "how". In my opinion, it is harder to answer the question "why" than it is the question of "how". So then I will suppose that the mode of thinking that makes a person ask "how" will get farther than the other person.
Thus we see the advantage of being aware of different modes of thinking.

Its ok if we do not get all of our "why" questions answered, as long as we get the "how".

You don't get it at all. If you understood language from its foundation then one will understand that with the same givens, the same processes, one arrives at the same answers. It is only when does not know, that they can imagine various results.
Generalize "Equals added to equals, yields equals." To "Equal processes rendered upon equal things produce equal results." This applies to language. Opinion is not important, has no force of truth. One seeks to show a construction from the very application of a name to abstractions to the construction of things from these very same abstractions.

You don't get it at all. If you understood language from its foundation then one will understand that with the same givens, the same processes, one arrives at the same answers. It is only when does not know, that they can imagine various results.
Generalize "Equals added to equals, yields equals." To "Equal processes rendered upon equal things produce equal results." This applies to language. Opinion is not important, has no force of truth. One seeks to show a construction from the very application of a name to abstractions to the construction of things from these very same abstractions.

First off let me admit that your vocabulary and grammar is on a different level, please discard any mistakes in trying to understand what you are saying.

As I see here you are speaking linguistically and I will suppose then that this somehow ties with the topic of logic from there I then assume that you see logic linguistically while I dont. Second, I dont see any comment of yours to the relevant quote that you quoted. You swerved off topic, its all right though, no big deal. What seems to be the point of your paragraph is that "with the same givens, the same process, you get the same answer." Very well put and no disagreement there and could you be so kind to say where this came out of? I do not remember even hinting at this in my last post, my topic was merely about the "modes" of thinking and how awareness towards a certain mode of logic can be advantageous to a person.

Originally Posted by elucid

I then assume that you see logic linguistically while I dont. .

Logic is the manipulation of names. It covers common grammar, geometric drawings, electronic schematics, arithmetic. etc. i.e. all communicable thought.

It has two fundamental divisions, tautologics and relatiologics--based on the two elements of every thing.

A true formal system pairs a tautologic with a relatiologic, as Euclid did in the Elements. Each, saying the same thing. This creates a thing called knowledge.

Arguing is easy. Find point. Back up point. Provide counter arguments before counter arguments are launched and disable them with more points backing up original points.

I have learned of three points to argue by.

Pathos- which appeals to one's emotions
Ethos- which appeals to one's sense of ethics, right and wrong to you young dream viewers.
Logos- which appeals to one's logic

You might be able to argue that something is wrong because it infringes upon the right's of others, but say that person is starving and has to feed his family is it okay to steal then? Or perhaps you hold up a picture a cute little girl and say that she's starving, that it is wrong to let someone suffer like this because how would you feel if you were her. My last point wasn't so strong but I hope you get the point. When making an informed decision we aren't all vulcans so as humans we must consider these three basics and we do everyday. Try and think to the last time that any of these applied to you.