I notice the words "logic" and "logical" being thrown around a lot here of late, and there seems to be some confusion as to what those words actually mean. A statement is logical if it flows from a basic premise. That premise does not have to be valid in order for the statement to be logical. For instance, take racism--which I personally deplore.

The basic premise of racism is that some races are inferior in some ways to others. So the whole Holocaust thing was logical--the basic premise being that Jews are inferior and/or actually evil and a threat to society. Thus, it was perfectly logical to try to wipe them out.

In the New Gospel, the basic premises include the following: life is eternal; we all have free will and thus create our own experience of reality; we All One ; and god does not judge or punish.

It follows logically from that, that we have nothing to fear. There are no villains and no victims in life. There is no reason to hate or fear or envy anyone else, since no one is really any better or any worse than anyone else. There are no such places as Heaven or Hell--we create our own here on earth by the choices we make. That it is in our own best interests to treat others as we would wish to be treated--that we love others as we love ourselves.

Obviously, much of this isn't really "new." Some can be found in the Bible, some in the Vedanta, some is largely what all the shamans and mystics and Masters have been saying for thousands of years. The "New Gospel" is a phrase coined to refer to the whole of the spiritual teachings in the ten books by Neale Donald Walsch published over the past 13 years.

You yourself are victim of the misuse of the word "logic". When you say "It follows logically from that, that we have nothing to fear", that is false. You cannot conclude, out of logical necessity, that "we have nothing to fear". What you or I fear is not governmed by logic; it is neither a fact nor an absolute. However unreasonable you might believe it to be, you must allow for the possibility of someone finding something to fear even if the premise you give are true.

quote:I notice the words "logic" and "logical" being thrown around a lot here of late, and there seems to be some confusion as to what those words actually mean. A statement is logical if it flows from a basic premise. That premise does not have to be valid in order for the statement to be logical.

Wrong.

"Logic" implies application of deductive reasoning and critical thinking in regards to empirical ideas.

What you're talking about it "rationality". A statement can be both invalid and rational, but based on illogical ideas.

For instance, your example of racism involves a rationalization that killing Jews is OK based on the illogical idea that Jews are inferior and need to be exterminated.

Thus, they were capable of rationalizing the genocide of Jews, but that doesn't make their core idea that Jews needed to be destroyed a logical idea.

Logic doesn't deal with opinions, as such, strictly speaking you cannot claim that "Jews are inferior" is illogical if it is based on opinion.

Also, I think he's referring to the fact that a deducitve arguemnt can be valid (in the sense that it correctly employs rules of logic and inference) even if its premises are not true in reality.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Logic doesn't deal with opinions, as such, strictly speaking you cannot claim that "Jews are inferior" is illogical if it is based on opinion.

Yes, but that opinion would be derived from some lack of logic, correct?

One wouldn't just say "Jews are inferior and evil! Why?! Because I say they are!" They'd have some form of "evidence" supporting their percieved inferiority/evilness of Jews, and there's really no way of doing that without utilizing faulty logic. Correct?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 10-02-2006).]

1. Well, if I ask you what your favorite color is, do you need evidence to "prove" that? That's your personal opinion of what is the most preferable color. It doesn't require proof, it's an opinion.

Unless "inferior" is further defined in a manner where it can be proved to be a logical necessity either way, then that opinion isn't illogical in the sense that holding it doesn't violate a rule of logic.

2. By saying "there's really no way of doing that without utilizing faulty logic" you are assuming that racism is necessarily false to begin with. What if there is evidence of the inferiority of a race?

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:



Yes, but that opinion would be derived from some lack of logic, correct?

One wouldn't just say "Jews are inferior and evil! Why?! Because I say they are!" They'd have some form of "evidence" supporting their percieved inferiority/evilness of Jews, and there's really no way of doing that without utilizing faulty logic. Correct?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)



The point is, all logic has to have some kind of starting point, which cannot be proven by logic itself (a non-derivative claim). That doesn't neccesarily mean this starting point is completely arbitrary.

^ Exactly, you always extend out from within yourself, and your own personal ideas and shape them to either meet with pre-existing ones, or create it anew for others to meet with it as it's been existed. Creating a unique view is important I think, because as long as we're thinking we are creating something (a life) with our views and any views as long as positive and loving can stem into correct views because they provide balance and essentially after thousands of years of human evolution the ones without balance will be moving into extinction while the ones accepting a high faculty of understanding will be extending into the reality of this higher faculty and moving on from the current position.

quote:Originally posted by marvin:

The point is, all logic has to have some kind of starting point, which cannot be proven by logic itself (a non-derivative claim). That doesn't neccesarily mean this starting point is completely arbitrary.

Those starting points should be empirical.

quote:Originally posted by marvin:

The point is, all logic has to have some kind of starting point, which cannot be proven by logic itself (a non-derivative claim). That doesn't neccesarily mean this starting point is completely arbitrary.

What you’re talking about is truisms. There are two lines of thought about this: foundationalism and anti-foundationalism. Foundationalism argues that all beliefs are built upon propositions built upon propositions, that, if you reduce, will either reveal a truism or a lie; whereas anti-foundationalism believes that this reduction will go on forever ad-surdum.

Or something like that. Don’t quote me on this because I might be wrong, and if I am, I would like someone to correct me.