logic/logos

I don't agree with anything being legitimate through circular reasoning

how is logic legitimate other than through logic

if you do not agree with logic, you're putting your own worldview outside of it

Logic isn't legitimate, it's useful. You need to make base assumptions about the universe to assume it is delivering something approximating truth

Like assuming that what we gather with our senses is real

I think I should just tell my mum that a friend has invited me to a BBQ in a Manchester. That's the only option that would not end with my mum tearing me a new asshole.

We can't prove that, but our logic systems hinge on it when we make claims about the world around us

anyhow back to the original discussion
i certainly can see how one would think that the nonreligious aren't moral, if you were

and vice versa actually, lot of nonreligious think that religious people are immoral

so truth and logic do not exist, it's just a tool

I mean I'm totally willing to accept that religious people can be moral

I'm still here and looking for answers to what I should do about the Tommy BBQ.

@Sock you're just looking at short snippets of their behaviour though, in a secular society

>logic isn't legitimate
>truth can only be approximate
>"I'm willing to accept that religious people CAN be moral"

I'm not saying that they are moral, just that they can be

k

right so it's more like "black people can behave civilized, if kept on a short leash by everyone else"

Okay I'm sorry you're right notademon. My idea of morality hinges on the assumption that what my senses perceive is reality

rather than blacks (religious people) being civilized (moral)

There can't be any circular reasoning according to @Sock because logic isn't an inherent principle, it's just a human tool because truth doesn't exist outside of human perspectives

except truth is literally that which lies outside of human reasoning and logos means many more things other than just logical systems

Logic can exist without what I observe being real, it's just that anything I conclude using logic would turn out to be false

@Sock not true, deductive reasoning has been pretty effective

that's why ancient doctors knew about causes of illnesses long before modern scientists confirmed those

Are you disagreeing that we need to make the assumption that the reality we observe is real before we decide to claim any results of logic as legitimate?

not talking about some random guru astrologer doctor, I'm talking about the people after Aristoteles

Like I'm totally willing to make that assumption. I just want to establish it's an assumption

@Sock that assumption is false mainly because our senses are imperfect

perception does reign above logic, as logic would require a consciousness that would contain it

Okay, but what logical determinations could you make without relying on your senses

but since our perception of things is bad, it's better to trust logic

You need perception for data points to use logic on

Logos doesn't just mean logical system

I'm just saying we have to assume that we aren't brains in a jar

Because it's technically possible for you to be just that

we'd have to assume that in ethics

but it's more honest to acknowledge the technical possibility in metaphysical discussions

or epidemiological ones

Aigt man its super late and I can't even think straight rn. Be happy to pick this up another time

You can keep going with your points and I can read it when I wake up