---------- Post added 04-30-2010 at 07:51 AM ----------

Lisbon come later on...

---------- Post added 04-30-2010 at 08:18 AM ----------

Yes, as logicians would say, logic is a (very) necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition for philosophy. But, it is a necessary condition. It, by itself, is not enough. But without it, there is nothing but painting pretty pictures on the wall.

And logic is not just thinking. It is correct thinking. It need not be how you think, but it is how you ought to think.

Analogy is fine, but only if there is really an analogy, and you don't just think there is an analogy. If there is not really an analogy, an analogy is worse than useless. It is misleading. And how do you think you tell whether an analogy is really an analogy; whether the analogy is correct? You guessed it. You need logic to do that.

Philosophizing is like rowing a boat (analogy). And without oars or logic (analogy) you cannot get anywhere.

I have once read a small book about Magic and Emotion by JP Satre. I do not understand it. Is it magic if something changes through emotions. Does Philosophy only deals with lifeless materials and not with Life itself anymore ?:Not-Impressed:

I am terrible at logic ! I think it's so boring. Correlation, waiting in the right line in the supermarket, chance and probability.

I share your intuitive. Logic is very boring, but it is necessary to show us the truth.

Logic is neither boring nor exciting. But some people find logic boring, while other people find logic exciting or interesting. I find logic exciting or interesting.

But, of course, logic is vital. No one can philosophize without it.

Aristotle invented the subject of logic (no one invented logic). And his discussion of logic was in his book, Organon. "Organon" in ancient Greek means, "tool". And that is what logic is, it is a tool or an instrument. It is used to do things. Mostly, to think correctly, and discover truth. It is useful to discover truth. Very useful.

When i say "logic is boring", what i mean is "i find logic boring". If you disagree, then we disagree on our attitude toward the subject. No amount of convincing would amount to anything.

Yes, just as long as you realize that is what you mean.

You pay way too much detail on unnecessary things. That might not be so good if you want a social life.

I guess that has something to do with what I wrote, but at the moment, I cannot imagine what that might be.

Logic is neither boring nor exciting. But some people find logic boring, while other people find logic exciting or interesting.

You pay way too much detail on unnecessary things. That might not be so good if you want a social life.

Let me remind you.

I said:

1. "logic is boring"

1 obviously mean:

2 "i find logic boring"

but your unreasonable attention to unnecessary detail see that:

3. The predication "is boring" is wrongly applied to the subject( ie: logic).

This is your unnecessary attention to detail. Why can` t you make the inference from 1 to 2? Instead, you make the inference from 1 to 3. :nonooo:

There are some people who really think that to say X is boring is to ascribe to X some property X has which is intrinsic to X. Now, you may not be one of those people. And, if you are not, then I congratulate you on you acuity and sagacity. But I really could not tell that from your conversation. In fact, I thought you might have meant that logic was intrinsically boring. So, I thought I should point out that it was not.

You pay way too much detail on unnecessary things. That might not be so good if you want a social life.

That is why i said:



You are bad at spotting meanings. A lot of people in this forum say stupid, invalid things, but i am able to focus on what they mean, because i can spot attitudes of an agent. You can incapable of that.

Oh, I would not say that. I think what is true is that I think I spot what they may mean, but I am not so sure as you say you are. And, I am not so sure that when a person says something false or stupid, that they actually mean something else which is no false or stupid. Sometimes people say stupid and false things, and really mean them. Or even if they don't, they do not realize that they are saying something stupid or false. In that case, it is well to point it out, so as to give them the opportunity to say something like, "Yes, that is what I said, and I should not have said it, since it was stupid and false. Here is what I should have said...." They might even be grateful for the chance to correct themselves. What do you think?

I would like to take your word for it Kenneth, I really would. However, just a simple perusal of the writings of modern philosophers in the area of free will and determinism indicates that the uniformity of use of the terms that you imply does not exist. It is simple clearer to talk about fixity or non fixity of the future and the ability or lack of ability to do otherwise. Clarity, Clarity, Clarity.

No, I think quantum indeterminism puts into serious doubt the notion of a single, fixed possible future but it has little to do with "free will". To substitute randomness (indeterminism) for a single fixed future is not very helpful to the free will cause. I think in actuality Kenneth's position and mine are essentially the same (ability to do otherwise is true, and the future is not fixed) we are just arguing about the meaning of the terms and how philosophers are using them in current discussions of "free will". The mechanism of "free will" as the ability to do otherwise, the efficacy of deliberation, and preservation of moral responsibility is I admit unclear. We however know very little about these things and as I stated before any analogy between the behavior of billiard balls (simple aggregates) and the behavior of human minds (complex societies or organisms) is crude at best. For me there are still many mysteries and unexplained things in the world including the mechanism of mind and of "free will". At the very least we have the ability to "avoid futility" (the endless repetition of the same unrewarded response to a situation) which many lower forms of life do not have.

Rehabilitation and restorative justice vs. retribution, I completely agree with that. I think however that the notion of free will (the ability to do otherwise) and an open future (many possibilities versus one fixed possibility) is more compatible with an efficacious view towards this approach.

Again I completely agree with this but fail to see how a non deterministic or a free will philosophy is incompatible with these notions. In fact I would think it is more compatible.

This strikes me as sort of a religious notion about purpose in the world, the eventual triumph of good, and things being overall well arranged. I have religious sensibilities as well and I am sympathetic to these views but my vision is one in which the triumph of good is not assured (requires effort on our part) and finding purpose in the world is an individual duty (requires faith of some sort in higher values and meanings).