Is Truth supposed to be logical?

[dimreepr]

Nothing we do happens in a vacuum, read my signature.

[JohnDoeLS]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Nothing we do happens in a vacuum, read my signature.

Okay. 

[Sensei]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I don't want to win, I want to learn.

Seeking for knowledge, is seeking for truth..

 

Objective knowledge. It needs to be verified by student during studying subject, not just read 3rd party books about the subject.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Sensei

[koti]

Would you two Romeo's stop arguing about something which you essentially both agree on?

 

Edited August 5, 2017 by koti

[Gees]

10 hours ago, JohnDoeLS said:

Is Truth supposed to be logical?

No. Truth is supposed to be true.

Quote

For right and wrong, factual correctness is defined by a standard. Does it make sense?

No. I have no idea of what you mean.

Quote

Does your mind see the bridge of connections for why? What if the Truth was illogical as the rest of the world?  Truth means facts.

No. Truth is not always factual; facts are not always true.

Quote

Things that are true to counter mysticism and baseless things, that was it’s purpose back in 600 BC when it was first established, and of course, still so now.

I did not know that truth was established in 600 BC. Please explain.

Quote

But what is considered to be the truth? Is it something that is factual or something that is sensible?

Why do you say THE truth? Are you talking about some absolute truth? The only absolute truth that I can think of, relevant to  philosophy, would be universals, but you don't appear to be talking about universals.

Truth is a measure of what is thought to be real. imo

Quote

Let’s put it in a context so we can establish a proper standard for right and wrong.

Truth, facts, and "right and wrong" are three very different subjects. One must have a care when attempting to mix them.

Quote

If one were to kill someone and take his resources for the necessity of his own survival, is it right or wrong? Does Truth cover that? What is rightfully considered to be the logical thing to do or the RIGHT thing to do?

Now you are talking about a moral issue. If you want to study truth or facts, then the philosophy forum is the correct venue. But if you want to study a moral issue, and are only using truth and facts to support your argument, then this is an ethics or religious issue.

What is it you want to know?

Gee

[JohnDoeLS]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

No. Truth is supposed to be true.

No. I have no idea of what you mean.

No. Truth is not always factual; facts are not always true.

I did not know that truth was established in 600 BC. Please explain.

Why do you say THE truth? Are you talking about some absolute truth? The only absolute truth that I can think of, relevant to  philosophy, would be universals, but you don't appear to be talking about universals.

Truth is a measure of what is thought to be real. imo

Truth, facts, and "right and wrong" are three very different subjects. One must have a care when attempting to mix them.

Now you are talking about a moral issue. If you want to study truth or facts, then the philosophy forum is the correct venue. But if you want to study a moral issue, and are only using truth and facts to support your argument, then this is an ethics or religious issue.

What is it you want to know?

Gee

3

This is a question on whether if there can be a definitive conclusion to moral questions, in other words, a truth. That's why I asked if the truth is supposed to be logical if it is logical for us to kill a person to survive, is it what should be true to the matter, that our life matters more than the others. I swore that I read that truth was a way to debunk mysticism and baseless things a year ago, either way, this doesn't matter. When I say the standard of right and wrong, I am referring to the criteria of truth, for something to be correct, a criteria must be met. My point is, are there absolute truth to moral quandaries? Can we go by an absolute truth? Or are there none at all? And if there is, what if it's illogical? We can technically sustain ourselves currently, even without transportations, and work, we can be sustained by nothing but medicine, food, shelter and water, of course, that's not what we want, so what is the truth to life? Survival or pleasure? Is there an illogical truth to existence, life and moral questions? 

[Gees]

JohnDoeLS;

Well, I have a better idea of what you are looking for. You want a standard that measures the truth of moral behavior. People have been looking for this standard for centuries, and longer. Since I spent a few years working in law, I am not sure that you are going to find your answer in logic. At least not in the way you are looking for it.

I think it would help if you considered what morality is; it is laws and rules guided by emotion. This is why morality is usually regulated by religions, because religion is the Discipline that studies emotion.

An example:

You are on a ship with nine other people, ten in all, sent off to explore and colonize a planet far, far away. This will be a very long trip. There is an accident and supplies are lost; there is now only enough to support nine people for the duration of this trip. What do you do? If you can't turn back, the rational and logical thing to do would be to determine which person is most expendable, and find a nice way to dispose of him/her, ensuring the survival of the others. Morality would disagree: It is better for each person to sacrifice and eat less, take shorter breaths, and do whatever is necessary so that, although weaker, everyone might survive.

Most people would agree with the former solution stating that it is the only rational thing to do. At least nine of the explorers would have the opportunity to reach a new home. But is this true? After disposing of the one member, you will awaken all of the paranoia, fears, jealousies, and insecurities in the other members. Like this:

"The leader of this group is attracted to that member's mate. This is the real reason he was chosen for disposal."

"That member was of a different race than most of the members. So am I. Will I be next?"

"He was never very popular. Neither am I. What can I do to ensure that I am not the next casualty?"

If you consider that the members will have months to think about their fears, and bounce them off each other, it is entirely possible that emotion will sabotage the entire trip, and no one will make it to the new planet. So either choice could create disaster and sabotage the trip.

I wrote the above to show that logic is nice, it is a useful tool, but emotion is real -- it is very, very real -- and should never be ignored.

 

So why and how does emotion guide laws and turn them into morality? I have never asked this question before, so I will give it my best shot in helping you find a standard.

If we look to the physical body, we find that we are full of hormones, and these hormones work with emotion to activate our survival instincts. Survival instincts protect the "self". I suspect that this is the source and justification of morality. Laws and regulations continue this principle and help to protect the "self".

But "self" has layers, lots and lots of layers like the rings that are made around a drop that falls into water, each of these rings representing a layer of "self". So defending your person is the first layer of "self" and is acceptable as self-defense; the second layer of "self" is usually accepted as your spouse (the two are now one) and your issue, which is also regulated under survival instincts, and is also considered under self-defense. The other many layers of "self" could be considered as anything that you put the word, my, in front of, like my home, my property, my community, my country.

But other people have "selves" as well, so there are boundaries. If you killed someone and took their property, then you would be violating their "self" twice and it would be immoral. Then one must consider that each layer of "self" becomes less distinct as it is further from the "self" core. So if someone burned down your garage, which would be a violation of you, that does not mean that you can murder their child, which would be a closer violation of their "self".

I think that the above would cover most moral aspects of Family Law, Criminal Law, and Probate or Testamentary Law. It is up to the Courts and Legislature to decide which layer of "self" matches up with which layer of "self" in disputes.

I am not sure that this standard is correct, but it looks pretty good to me. Of course, I will appreciate the opinions of others.

Quote

Is there an illogical truth to existence, life and moral questions?

Yes. Emotion.

Gee

[cladking]

The  universe doesn't "obey' any laws of nature.  Reality is simply logical even when the bits we understand through science and math don't seem logical.  This is hard for us to envision because the language we speak is not logical and in which is very difficult to approximate anything logical.  We can approach logical communication only in scientific discourse but even here words play tricks on the speaker and the listener.  One person thinks "titrate" means one thing and another something else.  God only knows what some phraseologies mean but logical thought and communication can be closely approached in some instances.  Some medical jargon appears to be open to very little interpretation for example.

I believe people used to use a logical language that reflected the wiring of the brain so followed this same logic as the brain.  It was the  same natural logic expressing itself as a brain that we quantify to use as mathematics and apply to the real world after deriving what appear to be laws of nature through experiment.  Experience (knowledge applied to the real world) and this natural logic which gave rise the wisdom of the ancients.  After the change in the language much of these teachings was adapted into religions though, of course, they were all greatly confused. 

In a sense truth is always logical but we should remember that truth can't be accurately stated in modern languages.  Conclusions and courses of action can reflect "truth" but this truth will be seen differently by each observer.  The individual shoved out the air-lock will almost certainly disagree with the determination that put him out. 

[JohnDoeLS]

23 minutes ago, Gees said:

JohnDoeLS;

Well, I have a better idea of what you are looking for. You want a standard that measures the truth of moral behavior. People have been looking for this standard for centuries, and longer. Since I spent a few years working in law, I am not sure that you are going to find your answer in logic. At least not in the way you are looking for it.

I think it would help if you considered what morality is; it is laws and rules guided by emotion. This is why morality is usually regulated by religions, because religion is the Discipline that studies emotion.

An example:

You are on a ship with nine other people, ten in all, sent off to explore and colonize a planet far, far away. This will be a very long trip. There is an accident and supplies are lost; there is now only enough to support nine people for the duration of this trip. What do you do? If you can't turn back, the rational and logical thing to do would be to determine which person is most expendable, and find a nice way to dispose of him/her, ensuring the survival of the others. Morality would disagree: It is better for each person to sacrifice and eat less, take shorter breaths, and do whatever is necessary so that, although weaker, everyone might survive.

Most people would agree with the former solution stating that it is the only rational thing to do. At least nine of the explorers would have the opportunity to reach a new home. But is this true? After disposing of the one member, you will awaken all of the paranoia, fears, jealousies, and insecurities in the other members. Like this:

"The leader of this group is attracted to that member's mate. This is the real reason he was chosen for disposal."

"That member was of a different race than most of the members. So am I. Will I be next?"

"He was never very popular. Neither am I. What can I do to ensure that I am not the next casualty?"

If you consider that the members will have months to think about their fears, and bounce them off each other, it is entirely possible that emotion will sabotage the entire trip, and no one will make it to the new planet. So either choice could create disaster and sabotage the trip.

I wrote the above to show that logic is nice, it is a useful tool, but emotion is real -- it is very, very real -- and should never be ignored.

 

So why and how does emotion guide laws and turn them into morality? I have never asked this question before, so I will give it my best shot in helping you find a standard.

If we look to the physical body, we find that we are full of hormones, and these hormones work with emotion to activate our survival instincts. Survival instincts protect the "self". I suspect that this is the source and justification of morality. Laws and regulations continue this principle and help to protect the "self".

But "self" has layers, lots and lots of layers like the rings that are made around a drop that falls into water, each of these rings representing a layer of "self". So defending your person is the first layer of "self" and is acceptable as self-defense; the second layer of "self" is usually accepted as your spouse (the two are now one) and your issue, which is also regulated under survival instincts, and is also considered under self-defense. The other many layers of "self" could be considered as anything that you put the word, my, in front of, like my home, my property, my community, my country.

But other people have "selves" as well, so there are boundaries. If you killed someone and took their property, then you would be violating their "self" twice and it would be immoral. Then one must consider that each layer of "self" becomes less distinct as it is further from the "self" core. So if someone burned down your garage, which would be a violation of you, that does not mean that you can murder their child, which would be a closer violation of their "self".

I think that the above would cover most moral aspects of Family Law, Criminal Law, and Probate or Testamentary Law. It is up to the Courts and Legislature to decide which layer of "self" matches up with which layer of "self" in disputes.

I am not sure that this standard is correct, but it looks pretty good to me. Of course, I will appreciate the opinions of others.

Yes. Emotion.

Gee

That's interesting since the leader has to be the logical one while the rest of the group succumb to their emotions, if everyone else were logical and was a hive mind, this problem wouldn't exist.  

[Ten oz]

On 8/4/2017 at 0:51 PM, JohnDoeLS said:

Is there no truth to a decision one makes? Can one say definitively that a morally questionable decision that was made to be right by a universal standard? 

What is true and what is moral, especially as it relates to decision making, are relative human concepts that change all the time.

[Gees]

8 hours ago, JohnDoeLS said:

That's interesting since the leader has to be the logical one while the rest of the group succumb to their emotions, if everyone else were logical and was a hive mind, this problem wouldn't exist.  

JohnDoeLS;

Were you paying attention at all? Why do you think the leader has to "be the logical one"? All I said was that the leader had the hots for another man's wife. What is logical about that? Having the "hots" is not logical, it is emotional.

If everyone had a "hive mind" they would not be going into space. Or are you thinking that this is like "The Borg" from Star Trek? I don't want to shock you with this information, but Star Trek is fiction. You know, not real? Therefore not true.

Logic does not give us truth. It fails miserably. Example:

A six year old boy likes to play in the road; his mother does not agree. She thinks that the road is dangerous. This intelligent little boy watches the road all day and sees no danger. He thinks about it and realizes that he has never seen any danger on the road in his whole life. He knows his mother is protective, so logic and observation and experimentation all tell him that the road is not really dangerous. There is nothing wrong with his logic, so how did he reach the wrong conclusion? Not enough information!

The problem with logic is that it only works when all of the relevant information is known. This is why science likes logic so much, because science works with knowns. In philosophy, logic has often been referred to as a "school room" tool, because it is used to check the consistency and accuracy of theories. Why does it work within these theories? Because a theory is supposed to be the answer, so it is supposed to have all of the information, so logic can check these theoretical knowns. Logic can not give you truth, but it can find lies.

If you do not want to believe me, then go to any website that teaches logic in philosophy. It will tell you in the introduction that logic does not give us truth.

If you want to work philosophy, you need to throw out all of your imaginings and assumptions, and stick with truth.

Gee

[JohnDoeLS]

1 hour ago, Gees said:

JohnDoeLS;

Were you paying attention at all? Why do you think the leader has to "be the logical one"? All I said was that the leader had the hots for another man's wife. What is logical about that? Having the "hots" is not logical, it is emotional.

 

What the heck are you talking about here?

Quote

You are on a ship with nine other people, ten in all, sent off to explore and colonize a planet far, far away. This will be a very long trip. There is an accident and supplies are lost; there is now only enough to support nine people for the duration of this trip. What do you do? If you can't turn back, the rational and logical thing to do would be to determine which person is most expendable, and find a nice way to dispose of him/her, ensuring the survival of the others. Morality would disagree: It is better for each person to sacrifice and eat less, take shorter breaths, and do whatever is necessary so that, although weaker, everyone might survive.

Most people would agree with the former solution stating that it is the only rational thing to do. At least nine of the explorers would have the opportunity to reach a new home. But is this true? After disposing of the one member, you will awaken all of the paranoia, fears, jealousies, and insecurities in the other members. Like this:

"The leader of this group is attracted to that member's mate. This is the real reason he was chosen for disposal."

"That member was of a different race than most of the members. So am I. Will I be next?"

"He was never very popular. Neither am I. What can I do to ensure that I am not the next casualty?"

If you consider that the members will have months to think about their fears, and bounce them off each other, it is entirely possible that emotion will sabotage the entire trip, and no one will make it to the new planet. So either choice could create disaster and sabotage the trip.

I wrote the above to show that logic is nice, it is a useful tool, but emotion is real -- it is very, very real -- and should never be ignored.

2

Where in this, did you claim to write about how his intention of doing it was because he had the hots for anyone's wife? You didn't, here's what you wrote. 

Quote

you will awaken all of the paranoia, fears, jealousies, and insecurities in the other members. Like this:

"The leader of this group is attracted to that member's mate. This is the real reason he was chosen for disposal."

"That member was of a different race than most of the members. So am I. Will I be next?"

"He was never very popular. Neither am I. What can I do to ensure that I am not the next casualty?"

 

There are no facts here, you said it yourself. Paranoia, fears, jealousies, and insecurities being awakened in other members. These people are not being logical here, they are unable to see what's good or bad for the trip, are you telling me these are facts now? 

Quote

If everyone had a "hive mind" they would not be going into space. Or are you thinking that this is like "The Borg" from Star Trek? I don't want to shock you with this information, but Star Trek is fiction. You know, not real? Therefore not true.

 

HOLY SHIT REALLY? No. I ALWAYS THOUGHT THEY WERE SERIES FROM THE FUTURE. But seriously, collective consciousness didn't originate from Star Trek buddy, that was just a way of saying it, don't be ridiculous now. Also what? Why wouldn't they be going into space if they have a collective consciousness? There is still much to gain from explorations, what's the logic here? 

Quote

A six year old boy likes to play in the road; his mother does not agree. She thinks that the road is dangerous. This intelligent little boy watches the road all day and sees no danger. He thinks about it and realizes that he has never seen any danger on the road in his whole life. He knows his mother is protective, so logic and observation and experimentation all tell him that the road is not really dangerous. There is nothing wrong with his logic, so how did he reach the wrong conclusion? Not enough information!

2

That is called a conjecture, and logic applied with incomplete information. Sure, that's what happens but how does this relate? A boy doesn't know about cars on the road because his mother didn't bother to explain, and what a comparison, a kid looks at the road all day and sees cars coming and going and he thinks there is no danger on the road. If there isn't enough information 

Quote

The problem with logic is that it only works when all of the relevant information is known. This is why science likes logic so much, because science works with knowns. In philosophy, logic has often been referred to as a "school room" tool, because it is used to check the consistency and accuracy of theories. Why does it work within these theories? Because a theory is supposed to be the answer, so it is supposed to have all of the information, so logic can check these theoretical knowns. Logic can not give you truth, but it can find lies.

What's the relevant information that is missing then? I just told you why a collective consciousness would benefit the trip and here you are telling me about incomplete information to determine if the logic of truth is based on incomplete information, you are not at all telling me what's the incomplete information in finding out if there is something definitive in morals. Finding lies can also contribute to finding truth through the process of eliminations. 

Quote

If you do not want to believe me, then go to any website that teaches logic in philosophy. It will tell you in the introduction that logic does not give us truth.

https://www.google.com/search?q=can+logic+reach+truth%3F&oq=can+logic+reach+truth%3F&aqs=chrome..69i57.3940j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_logic

You would have to link me bud. 

Quote

If you want to work philosophy, you need to throw out all of your imaginings and assumptions, and stick with truth.

lol. I never say it is definitive that moral truth is absolutely logical, I just found it interesting that if a collective consciousness was in place, that situation of insecurities and paranoia would never arise.