If one takes the view that everything is illusion, including the Self and the World, then it seems to be a "logical" conclusion that logic is not universal, and a forteriori, that logic isn't logic at all. As soon as one takes one's head out of the hole in the ground of mysticism, then the possibility of logic as such must inevitably spread it's light on our thinking.

Why should anyone take the view that everything is an illusion, supposing that we know what that even means? That's like taking the view that all money is really counterfeit money, and that there is no genuine money (not even genuine money).

If one means by logic that there is an affirmation or denial of a predicate of a subject, then I think that it is usually easy to point out the subjectivity of the definitions of both the predicates and subjects.

Of course, there is mathematical logic that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem deals with.

Rich

..."where consciousness does not exist and is is illusionary"

i have to say i dont think anyone who actually subscribes to a philosophy that they are illusions, which is the only thing i can deduce from the above statement, has any capacity for logical thought at all. i am indeed relieved to know it is not your philosophy!

can you explain this a little more? are you saying there is some form of philosophy that holds we create what we think while not having any consciousness? and then they think they can prove it with logic? i am sorry, i am not being stupid on purpose...it sounds rather funny to me, i must be missing something. :detective:

If one means by logic that there is an affirmation or denial of a predicate of a subject,

Who would mean that by "logic"? How could anyone mean that by logic?

And how is mathematical logic a different kind of logic? Different from what?

kennethamy and richrf, you guys are so funny! i have yet to figure out which one of you is following the other around this forum!

:lol:It is really quite easy. Just look at the thread. I posted first and then you posted, (you are following me), and then kennethamy posted, so he is following you.

Rich

It would seem logical that logic is not universal. Is that one allowed?

Sure. You just mean by "logical", "reasonable". Only, you have to give a reason.

I tend to think logic is universal because that's all I've seen!

My guess would be that pathfinder refers to Daniel Dennett who is kind of 'infamous' for questioning concepts like free will.
He doesn't accept the concept of 'consciousness as an ontological entity'.
However i don't think that consciousness is illusionary to him.
Free will is illusionary to him. Which for many people means the same as consciousness is illusionary.

Back to the topic:
Is logic universal?
Recently i posted a reply to Salima that explains how every system can have its own logic.
There are two different meanings of the word logic.
If you want to explain to somebody how a hand pully block works you first have to understand its logic.
Furthermore there are systems like different languages that are based each on its own logic.
In this sense logic means 'the way something is arranged (its particular order)'.
The most common meaning of the word 'logic' however refers to the universal logic.
'Logic' as a philosophical discipline is an attempt to find those rules that 'everything' is based upon - universal rules.

The reasons why there can be different opinions about it are normally lack of knowledge.
Actually Logic is a highly abstract discipline that takes study.
It takes knowledge in mathematical concepts like set theory to name only one subject to study.
Many people confuse it with subjective concepts of 'what is obvious', 'what is reasonable', etc...
Most people simply have partial knowledge of the discipline Logic. This partial knowledge leads to many false assumptions.
For example many people consider the inversion of an argument a valid logical tool.
Most people have never understood the relevance of a condition being wether obligatory or sufficent for being a valid proof (i don't know the precise english terms, but if you are familiar with logic you will know what i mean).
Most people don't see wether an argument is including or excluding.
These are certainly the most common reasons for misunderstandings about wether something is logic or not.

Logic as a discipline has the demand of being universal.
However one can argue that the only proof we have for our discipline of logic is based on empirical observation. From a logical perspective this does not provide logical evidence.
Thus a logical rule is only valid until it is refuted.
Things like that happen.
Newton's laws of mechanics were supposed to be the fundemantal (physical) logic of our universe.
This (very proudly and loudly called out) claim was refuted.
However this was about the physical logic of the universe. (Remember logic can refer to particular systems, in this case a particular aspect of the system).
Pure logic as a discipline has so far been confronted with unresolvable issues (paradox), however so far it has not been refuted.
Up to now it's universal.

I don't know about his infamy. But he wrote two books not questioning free will, but saying there is free will. So, I don't know why you said what your said. One of them is, Elbow Room. I forget the title of the second.

What is Logic and why is it universal?

In the broadest sense, logic is the delineation of conceptual possibility. What do I mean by that? It represents the sum total of what is possible (conceivable) and derives patterns of possibility and impossibility. Generally a contradiction must refer to nothing that has any value to the senses, a contradiction is essentially grammatical. The same is true of a tautology, anything that is necessarily true is so because of the meanings involved.

I really have to apologize, if what i said about Dennett is so completely wrong.
Honestly i am confused, because my statement is based on many discussions that i have read.
Please let me do some further research.

That's what I was looking to say, knew I was way off. Thankyou!

It might be that some people believe that Dennett is questioning free will because Dennett does question a particular conception of free will, and they think that conception of free will Dennett questions, is the only (or only correct) conception of free will. But, of course, that is their confusion, not Dennett's.

Is there by any chance an already existing thread that you would recommend?

lol no problem, anytime buddy

It is as I thought it would be.

I would have liked to let this go a little longer to see how long it would take for someone to actually get to where I was hoping it would go at some point, but then I risked the chance of it losing its interest.

I want to point out to you all that in Biblical times a great king named Samson created his own reality by applying what he considered a logical solution. The man became known as one of the wisest of all men.

How is it, and I think we should all delve very closely into this factor, that upon addressing this question of logic and its congruence with free will, that none of you spoke one word about wisdom in any of your posts.

What does that say about how we define logic, when the wisdom of our choices and decisions do not apply any wisdom whatsoever?