Logic does depends both on psycology, intelligence and raw knowledge, else you get logical things like...

..all ill logic from past history, so yearh ..logic alone doesn't cut it. Often simple minded people will conjour up ill logic, because they can't take any obvious factors into account.

No offence, but I consider Kirkegaard the absolute most useless philosopher around, relying on empty rethorics and unrealistic ideals. "objective truth" ..eeeeh ..yearh?

Solve this story please.
[URL="http://www.philosophyforum.com/lounge/general-discussion/7744-greater-logic.html"]http://www.philosophyforum.com/lounge/general-discussion/7744-greater-logic.html[/URL]

I will take Turing one step further and say that studying is not enough. Creatively thinking about how to solve philosophical problems is also key.

I don't think that all logic is ill-logic, however. Much of the examples you gave are not logical. Logic as a discipline does not rest on psychology. Logic as a discipline is branch of philosophy. Therefore, some philosophy doesn't rely on Logic.

That is not true. If you study the method, and the concepts. What you will learn is the method of teasing meaning of out statements. A retard can state a view, and repeat a principle. Real philosophers can tell you all the possible ways the view is good, and bad from all possible angles. Those people are called experts. Perhaps, your goal is not that grand....

All of them are, it is the church and pope who made these poor logical conclusions, and ofc a theater play (which doesn't really count).

I wish more people understood this point. There are many debates on the forum about 'the mind-independent reality' of the universe. I maintain that, whatever that might be, it is not knowable to us, and to hold it up as an ideal of objectivity is illusory. I scientifically-inclined tend to idealise this concept and hold it up as that which is gradually disclosed by science. But I don't think there is any such thing - everything must exist from some viewpoint. That is my understanding of it anyway.

Therefore, some philosophy doesn't require PSYCHOLOGY.

Here is an example:

Suppose you want to be good in mathematical analysis. What do you do? You learn, and study all the proofs, and theorems. ...

What can we say from this example? The word 'creativity' applies to the end product( ie: solution to a problem). What does 'being creativity' mean here?

Critical thinking involves logical thinking and reasoning including skills such as comparison, classification, sequencing, cause/effect, patterning, webbing, analogies, deductive and inductive reasoning, forecasting, planning, hyphothesizing, and critquing.


Creative thinking involves creating something new or original. It involves the skills of flexibility, originality, fluency, elaboration, brainstorming, modification, imagery, associative thinking, attribute listing, metaphorical thinking, forced relationships. The aim of creative thinking is to stimulate curiosity and promote divergence.

Turing: This is in contrast to being 'creativity' because you made a nice drawing.
...

In this whole process, there is no process of 'being creativity'. There are just creative solutions to hard problems.

Logic certaintly doesn't depend on psychology, and logic serves as a root for much recent philosophy.

It is admirable to know one's limits. There are more than a few around here who could benefit from some of that.

Keep in mind ladies and gents that Logic does not deal with matter, but with the FORM of the matter. Give you a simplistic example:

Thanks thing_in_itself for filling in where I could not. Love the name, by the way.

Answer to Haxhammer's "Greater Logic" problem: the other garbage man realized that his friend was in a coma on account of the perfume from the vendors. He simply used cause and effect, which is an a priori condition of the understanding, and is also expressed in terms of propositional logic "if p, then q". The garbage man realized that the effect was caused by the perfume, and proceeded to get his friend out. He thought that "if" he got his friend to fresh air, he would "then" come out of his coma (which might I add uses the same form as the conditional proposition mentioned above). This was the case and so this argument can be formed.

:detective:
And this is where representation comes in. Objects for me are things-in-themselves. We can only know of the objective knowledge of representations, and not objects themselves (or "in-themselves"). But that does not mean that we cannot have objective knowledge per se. The subject always presupposes the object, and conversely. Granted, we might not be able to have knowledge of everything, as this requires omniscience, but, from my standpoint, I am pretty sure we can have knowledge of objects in a possible experience. Things like God, Freedom, Soul do not come into this, as (at least for me) they are not in a possible experience (its impossible to prove them sufficiently). Hope this helps.

That's only putting some solutoins to the obvious and straightforward by applying simple logic, not greater logic.

You do not need Greater Logic for this.

I understand, but the relation between phenomena, and our perception of said phenomena is fundamentally dependent on a myriad of factors, which disallow even objective observation, i.e. unbiased completely detached observation. Without sensory input (observation), there is no knowledge. The capability of perfect observation would result in perfect knowledge (objective truth). Since acting beings are capable of imperfect observation (subjective experience), we have imperfect knowledge as a result (differing interpretation of phenomena).

Bringing this back to your post, not only are we incapable of observation of phenomena-in-itself, we are incapable of perfect computation due to imperfect observation. As the old programming adage states,

"Garbage in, garbage out"

You do, because you havn't solved it fully.

Have you solved it fully? Because Im already done here.

I find the realization that objectivity is an impossible ideal to be helpful, as it allows one to take certain "truths" a little less seriously.

Yes I have, that's why my Dr friend would rage at someone like myself, who only play computer games and watch Mtv, when he has read heaps of books and I none ..but Lord of the Rings and a few other fantasy books.

Why would a philosopher want to be good just at philosophical analysis? Analysis is extremely important, but it is only a part of doing philosophy. Expanding on philosophical theories and progressing philosophy requires creative thinking.

Creative Thinking and Critical Thinking are different, and both are important for philosophy. I pulled this definition from another website, it is in regards to Bloom's Taxonomy:



Let me give you an example. I recently studied the Sellars Problem and a solution given to the problem by Laurence Bonjour. In my paper, I analysed the Sellars Problem, Bonjour's Solution, and some critiques to his solution given by other philosophers. This was my analysis.

The criticisms leveled against Bonjour undermine his solution to the Sellars Problem. What I did was modify Bonjour solution to render the criticisms leveled against his solution irrelevant. This required that I be creative and think of a modification to Bonjour's Solution that is coherent, cogent, and sound. I don't see how this is not being creative. It requires Creative Thinking which yields original solutions to a problem.

If I'm not mistaken, all of my previous posts point to this sort of creativity, and not the sort like "creating a drawing".

Now, how do we become good creative thinkers... by practicing. So what if I come up with a creative solution to a problem that someone already has before me. If I, completely independantly of other source, analyze a problem and create a solution that is sound, what does it matter if someone else has come up with the problem before? Now, do I go off and try to get this published... No. I understand that what I did was an exercise to develop an important part of my intellectual ability.. the ability to create orginal material.