Logic
 

Logic does not pertain to truth, it pertains to prejudice. In a physical sense, logic is backed by the presence of science; an incomplete set of skewed observations of reality as seen through hand made devices.

Truth is an unstable concept, but there is also, an 'is' as seen through a consciousness of unprejudiced observation. One cannot trust anything one hears as truth but merely opinion, even if what is heard supports ones beliefs. There is actually nothing discerning logic and belief apart, only, only words.

For instance, I cant tell you the truth, only my observations which may serve you to question your beliefs. Any truth you come across should come from inside you, from a place free of prejudice. If you dont do this, your mind is at the whim of the currents it chances to get caught in.

Re: Logic
 

Logical fallacy.

Logical fallacy.

Go read Kant again, Ema. You just failed Logic 101. Try again next semester.

Re: Logic
 

In your desire to be right, or to prove me wrong, you missed the point, twice.

Re: Logic
 

Any conspiracies you'd like to discuss?

Here's some truth for you.

I have a head.

That is a truth.

It is not an opinion.

I don't state this TRUTH in order to sway others into believing it.

THEY can WITNESS the EVIDENCE for themselves when looking at me.

SO.

What is your point?

The truth of the matter is that you are posting on this forum.

That is another truth.

There are many truths that can be proven.

SO.

What is your point?

The point being that you have failed to make a POINT.

Re: Logic
 

You make a valid point. Its good that you're not entirely reacting out of a hostility of an unknown source. Am I right? Well I'll be happy to reply.

The concept of you having a head is only verified by a popular agreement of what that is which rests upon your shoulders. But there is still a missing link between that being truth and merely one way of looking at it, or how the subject is conceived. I tend to agree, you do have a head, its where your brain is, and your brain is where the words to which I am replying were pieced together. That is, what I know to the best of my knowledge on basic anatomy. But would I call that the truth? No, not at all. So I wont rigidly accept it to be so. This can apply to more consequential sectors of thought, such as, the way one views the universe, or the political situation on Earth. Some may say that this is simply a disagreement on semantics. But you'll find if you look, that 'truth' can never be rigid as words, its pure unobstructed observation, it can only translate to rigidity in the mind, thus nullifying it, thus, naturally, our solidifying of this concept, which is only based on stimulus and our perception of the stimulus. (exactly like when contemplating Infinity, one turns the concept into a Finite model, and only a potential Infinity can be conceived, not an actual Infinity) That we humans are all raised in a similar fashion we follow similar patterns and our perceptions of life are generally unified. This generalization, the things we can mostly agree upon (like your 'I have a head' analogy) is quite logical, and as you stated, is also the truth. Now notice that all to which you have applied the word 'truth', is a noun! linguistics!

Re: Logic
 

Excuse me, but my comment was not hostile.

IT was straight forward and to the point.

You really do need to find a forum where you can converse with others in the language of JIBBERISH, DOUBLE-SPEAK, DOUBLE-BIND MESSAGES and REVERSE PSYCHOLOGY.

There will be no further waste of my time discussing with you anything about my head.

I have a head.

There is evidence of its' existence.

Therefore, it is a TRUTH.

Re: Logic
 

In your desire to look like a logician you committed logical fallacies twice.

Have you ever even read an introductory work on Logic?

Not only do you not present you arguments in formal symbolic proofs, but your precisely stated assertions are not even grammatically true. You committed the first Logical Mortal Sin with your first statement.

I hope you are able to sort out your illogical, anachronistic ort of mind.

Re: Logic
 

More than twice by your definition. Yet repeating the format of my retort must have been appealing enough to overlook this for some reason.

Logical Mortal Sin... An act I have willingly committed under glaring eyes by apoplectic priests of the church of logic. What are you doing with that monograph? You should know better than to be using a book as a feeble shield.

It would be contradictory for me to get my ideas on logic from someone else's book, something you might pick up if you read what Ive been saying.

It must have been the tone of my views that were mistaken for the rigidity of a precisely stated assertion, yet I have already said that which would be boldly contradictory to this notion.
A contradiction I didn't make, but an emotional reaction you did, however subtle.

Re: Logic
 

Which is the evidence? Your head? Or the word head? If you said physical evidence you'd be making a clearer point, but still it wouldn't matter...
Of course, you'll assume your head. But what if I dont believe in heads, or I dont speak English and do not know the word head? I know what you must be thinking, its just words, right? Exactly. Cant you see the limitations of this process I'm trying to demonstrate? Think about it. Think harder. Its passing right under your noses.

Re: Logic
 

Quite frankly, my dear, you're boring and I have no interest in whatever it is you're trying to prove or disprove.