Logic to not want to not want?

@Refus,

Say good night Gracie!

Just kidding Refus,your playing with something really abstract here though,could you clarify,put some handles on it for us.

@Refus,

If for instance we don't want something, then it is something we do not want, not even to not want it, presumeably. Since it will allways scare us and we will allways know what we do not want, and to not want something we must know what it is to not want, and if we don't, we don't want to not know what we don't want, cause then we can't avoid it. So the best thing we can do really, is to want that which we do not want, but that can be very hasardous and hence we must want some things
and that which we do not want, we must not want. To not want what we do not want means that you're unhappy, but to want what you want means that you are happy, but since everything has its opposit, you will be equally happy as unhappy all in all. Atleast when you are safe. The less unhappy you are, the more unhappy you may become. So being happy is being unsafe.

So it is logic to not want to not want, but you will die possibly. Basically, it means that no one can really be happy.

@Refus,

Refus,

I think the foundation of your getting there is a little shaky,but you are sounding like the Buddhist who desires not to desire,and apparently is sucessful----------go figure? I suggest you read a little pre-socrates philosophy about the struggle of opposites.You sound like a budding Heraclitus---------that's good,and a compliment.If one is happy there necessarily is more possiablity for unhapppyness or vice versa.If you have not read him,Heraclitus I mean, you are in for a delight.

@Refus,

Good, I'll go to the library next week. If I remember. Ok, I'll write it down.

@Refus,

Refus,you should be able to get some info on Heraclitus over the computer but your right a book would be better.Heraclitus was an intuitive philosopher showing apparently no method, but coming out with these profound statements,which even today, people still marvel at.

@Refus,

What he say is logic, but unproven in context. Still good.

So is the signature getting better, what do you think? Is it getting there?

@Refus,

Refus,

Yes you have it,Heraclitus was remarkable,he could be extremely logical but most of the time the logical process wasn't layed out for you.He would come out with these profound statements, with no indication as to how he got there.I do think you will enjoy him and find him inspirational.

@Refus,

Refus wrote:

Well, what do you think, is it logic that you do not want to not want, as it is logic to want to want to want....?

Refus,

I thought you might be able to get into this,
We start, then, with nothing, pure zero. But this is not the nothing of negation. For not means other than, and other is merely a synonym of the ordinal numeral second. As such it implies a first; while the present pure zero is prior to every first. The nothing of negation is the nothing of death, which comes second to, or after, everything. But this pure zero is the nothing of not having been born. There is no individual thing, no compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. It is the germinal nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed. As such, it is absolutely undefined and unlimited possibility -- boundless possibility. There is no compulsion and no law. It is boundless freedom.
[CENTER]Charles S. Peirce, "Logic of Events" (1898)[/CENTER]

[CENTER]No need to thank me,it was nothing! Boagie
[/CENTER]
Seriously, this sounds like material you might get your teeth into,also don't forget Heraclitus! See you on the boards!!!!

@Refus,

Nothing is very interesting, it seems to be something, even in everyday speech.

PS. That text does make sence that you wrote. Though i don't know much more. Does it have a consequence?

@Refus,

Refus.

"Nothing", is a human concept,as such it is both limited and falliable.With breaking with the popular concept of nothingness,you take flight upon your own wings,but its a longway down.

@Refus,

Perhaps boagie, it is the god in man that speaks when he says "it was nothing"

Purely theoretically, nothingness does not have bounds, since then it would not be nothing. Hence it may have extension 0 in all thinkeable directions. Hence it can be described as > Dimensions number of dots at no distance with no size. That can very well be the universe. So nothing actually might be all things. Possibly

@Refus,

Hell Refus,

Your scarying me,I am begining understand you,yes under those conditions nothing might well be everything.It all may be one medium,the medium of space or nothingness.

@Refus,

Ofcourse, it is easy to say god did it (not made the universe, compared something with nothing)

As we say in sweden, it's easy to say tulip-rose. But try making one.

@Refus,

If you approach this from an Augustinian sense, it is completely logical to want not to want. Of course, an enthymeme will be involved. I'd think it would go like this:

If I don't want, I won't be disappointed
I don't want
I won't be disappointed

The unstated premise of all this is that, according to Augustinian (and Buddhist thought, as well), one of the roots of unhappiness in the human condition is our need to pile better, brighter, faster accumulata in our lives. I want a new car, I get a new car, and damned if I don't want to tweak it to make it better. Owing to the fact that my "stuff" (George Carlin there) will never reach my expectations, it's best to not seek after the stuff in the first place.

So, owing to St. Augustine, I'd say it is logical not to want. Smile

@Passer Outre,

Passer Outer,Refus,

George Carlin is sitting at home on his new couch,being its owner-----LOL!!

Here is a defination of enthymeme,which I thought might come in handy.

An argument consisting of only two propositions, an antecedent and consequent deduced from it; a syllogism with one premise omitted; as, We are dependent; therefore we should be humble. Here the major proposition is suppressed. The complete syllogism would be, Dependent creatures should be humble; we are dependent creatures; therefore we should be humble

Passer Outer,thanks for the light!

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Refus,you should be able to get some info on Heraclitus over the computer but your right a book would be better.Heraclitus was an intuitive philosopher showing apparently no method, but coming out with these profound statements,which even today, people still marvel at.

The best known of those profound statements was, "You can never step into the same river twice". Now I think that statement may be profound, but it is false. Heraclitus was the apostle of change. His view was that change is the only reality. And he gave as an example of this, that you can never step into the same river twice.

But Heraclitus seems to be confusing the river with the water flowing though the river. It is true, I suppose, that because the water is constantly flowing, you cannot step into the same "slice" of water twice. But the river is different from the water flowing through the river. The river is a geographical entity. And, for instance, I could step into the Mississippi River many times, although not, of course into the same water.

@Passer Outre,

Passer Outre wrote:

If you approach this from an Augustinian sense, it is completely logical to want not to want. Of course, an enthymeme will be involved. I'd think it would go like this:

If I don't want, I won't be disappointed
I don't want
I won't be disappointed

The unstated premise of all this is that, according to Augustinian (and Buddhist thought, as well), one of the roots of unhappiness in the human condition is our need to pile better, brighter, faster accumulata in our lives. I want a new car, I get a new car, and damned if I don't want to tweak it to make it better. Owing to the fact that my "stuff" (George Carlin there) will never reach my expectations, it's best to not seek after the stuff in the first place.

So, owing to St. Augustine, I'd say it is logical not to want.

Of course. Some people want to smoke (and do). But many of these people want not to want to smoke, and even may go to a hypnotist so that they can stop wanting to smoke.

@Refus,

Refus wrote:

Well, what do you think, is it logic that you do not want to not want, as it is logic to want to want to want....?

If you not want to not want, then chances are you want to.

@BRbeliever,

BRbeliever wrote:

If you not want to not want, then chances are you want to.

Certainly. But it is a different thing that you want. If I want not to smoke when I want to smoke, then what I want when I want not to smoke is not what I want when I want to smoke. We have only to disentangle the wants.

Philosophy Forum

Logic to not want to not want?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know