Logic purists?

Agree with above in that logical conclusions are only as good as the premises from which they started. To me, logic is just a processing machine, much like a pocket calculator. That pocket calculator gives you perfect, 10-digit precision every time. But if you put in a number that's only 20% accurate, you only get a 20% accurate answer back. Same with logic. Doubtful premises equals doubtful conclusions. And the only absolutely true premises we have are those which we define such as 1 inch equals 2.54 cm and a biped has two legs. All other premises are based on imperfect measurements and observations of the outside world and are subject to some degree of doubt.

You only get out of logic what you put in. So if you want meaning, you have to put meaning in. If you want value, you have to put value in. One can't make a statement about what is or what should be important to people without starting with something that actually is important, like for example, life. Why is life important? Because we want to live. Why do we want to live? We just do I think. Not sure if the rest of the Universe cares about some chemistry occurring on planet earth. Life is important to us because we're made to care about it. But so many will speak of these things(like truth, life, kindness etc) like they're in touch with some higher power or consciousness. When in fact(like I know what facts are) they're just the things that are important to us as humans.

When logic (or the lack of it) is applied to things that are not scientifically provable, it is metaphysics. It was Aristotle's cosmology, the metaphysics of the cosmos (how it came to be, and what the purpose of life is, specifically of humans) that was overturned by Galileo using the mathematics (provable stuff) of Copernicus (thus the "Copernican Revolution".)

Aristotle did not jump to his conclusion. He used the logic that seemed best to him at the time. But the math of Copernicus led men to change their metaphysics, so that we were no longer "the center of the universe". That was perhaps the biggest change in thinking that western man has had to do, and it changed everything.

As a consequence, later thinkers dismissed most of what Aristotle said, even though they continued to use his logic--because it works when you input the right premises. Logic in metaphysics is not infallible. Sometimes it leads science, because the questions answered by science are those of metaphysics. But then if science contradicts metaphysics, metaphysics must learn to change its concepts, or it will be as ancient as the idea that you can turn lead into gold.

Logic in its pure form of course is only a system of deductions based on givens. So, that's fine. Assuming our givens are correct, we should be able to predict how a change in one element of a system will affect the outcome. And we can.

One of the givens in our lives, a big one, is our felt emotion. Another is our thoughts. With thoughts, we seem to forgive ourselves a hell of a lot of speculation - we indulge wildly in wishful thinking, speculation, self-deception and outright delusion. I don't know why we do, or why that's so ok with everyone, but we do.

Felt emotion on the other hand, we also mask, deny, block, suppress and generally drop the facking ball on every day. But it is real, and like gravity or chemistry or physics, it is what it is, whether we ever understand it, acknowledge it, approve of it, or not.

So once we gain a decent self-awareness, which really means an emotional awareness, then we can logically predict and account for the emotional behavior we see around us and within us, same as anything else.

Morality, in particular, is a felt emotion thing. It is the behaviors necessary for love to arise between people and for societies to live together and work together. It's not subjective, "my morality" vs "your morality", it's more like nutrition or exercise. Either one of us can have high blood pressure or diabetes or whatever, but if we do, we do, and it's the same thing in anyone who has it. Not only that, but we know what causes those things. We may not elect to discipline ourselves to avoid them, but we do know about them.

Morality has been hijacked by religion - oh it's god's word. Well, whatever about that, it's much more like planting a field of wheat. If you do it, irrigate it, fertilize it, control for disease and pests, you get a field of wheat. If you don't, you don't. Morality is the formula, the recipe, for authentic love between people. Psychologists, atheists, and one-armed paper-hangers can all use it, or not use it, just like say, karate. People can think it's the word of god or the most secular of things, it doesn't matter really. Just so they do it. If they do it, they get the results, if not, then not.

In our society and culture, for whatever reason, we so dismiss and minimize emotional awareness that we have virtually no understanding of it. People know more about the moon than their own emotional makeup. Personally I think that is an enormous mistake - what could be more important to us than knowing what makes us feel good and how to find authentic love with someone else? And that knowledge is available. But we don't bother with it - we know the latest I-phone app but we don't know how to find love.

And both emotion and morality are entirely well-ordered and logical. That's how shrinks know how to treat us - assuming they are on the right side of the desk, which is not always the case -

Not many things in this life truly are subjective. One is, how do you like your steak cooked? I can't immediately think of many others - logic abounds. If we only will use it.

All who use logic will come to the same conclusion IF they are starting from the same axioms (that is, the same assumed, unprovable premises). But different people don't start from the same axioms. They may derive different conclusions perfectly logically; it's the axioms that differ. And by definition, axioms can't be logically proven to be true or false.

Maybe you would enjoy taking a course in elementary logic, where you can learn about the kind of issues you just raised.

Clearly you do not understand how logic works. Logic works based on information, thus true logic can be applied only when one has correct and sufficient information. Only then does logic work. If you have false or insufficient information on a topic you cannot truly apply logic, and even if you do it will serve you no good. That's how you manipulate everyone, by misinforming them.

I am interested in understanding how you apply logic to intangible concepts like philosophy.

~~~ You do not apply logic to philosophy, philosophy IS logic, and more!

Philosophy is 'original critical thought';

Critical Thinking Mini Lessons

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/ctlessons.html

Bertrand Russell on Critical Thinking

http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Educ/EducHare.htm

As opposed to the 'scholastic';

"..."philosophologists", a term coined by Robert Pirsig ("Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", "Lila") to denote people who study other people's philosophy but cannot do philosophy themselves. He also says that most people who consider themselves philosophers are actually philosophologists. The difference between a philosopher and a philosophologist is like the difference between an art and aesthetics; one does and the other studies what the other does and theorizes about it."

For example can you use logic to figure out what is the right morality?

~~~ Ego = 'thought/imagination! Vanity!

'Logic' exists in the imagination!

'Morality' is also imagination/vanity;

From a religious Perspective (and a dictionary), 'morality' is judging people/stuff as 'good' or 'bad/evil'!

This is exact manifestation of the stolen Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Sin of Pride/judgment) in the Garden!

As a Xtian (or any other religion), we are warned against 'judging' others;

"Judge not lest you be judged!"

Such judgment (good/evil) is the sin of 'pride'!

'Pride' is the only sin (from which all others spring), yet the hypocrites flaunt their practices, joyfully, proudly, in the face of their god!

You are told that;

"If you judge, judge with righteous judgment!"

Yet goes on to say that;

"None are righteous, no not one!"

So, it seems that 'logic' and 'morality' exist in the same 'place'.

Logic defends/validates judgment/morality, poor logic! It becomes psychology rather than philosophy!

Do you believe

~~~ No!

Philosophy is not about 'beliefs', that is religion!

that all who use logic will come to the same logical conclusion?

~~~ That is obviously untrue, considering the emotional content of the person.

The human is NOT a logical/rational species!

We are much more than some stunted list of old and obsolete thought 'rules'!

ALL of Aristotle's so called laws of logic have been proven false!

If not are those who disagree with your conclusion illogical or is it your logic that is fouled?

~~~ It is a matter of Perspective;

Every Perspective (us) is unique every moment of existence!

"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - The First Law of Soul Dynamics (Book of Fudd)

"The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be completely defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd

ALL INCLUSIVE!!!

What you "imagine" to be logical, another will not! Guaranteed!

How do you tell? Who gets to decide? Is logic an absolute when applied to all things or subjective like opinions?

~~~ Perhaps you are getting a glimpse of what I am saying?

Logic is a temporary local expedient tool, severely limited in scope!

The reason I ask is I see logic as indispensable in science and academia in general but fail to see how one can have an infallible logic when analyzing intangible concepts of the mind such as philosophy, theology, ideology, sociology... etc.

~~~ Logic is just one, quite limited and specific way of 'understanding'!

Knowledge is NOT logic!

Knowledge = experience! Here! Now!

The new, critically updated, all inclusive, final definition of 'Knowledge';

"'Knowledge' is 'that which is perceived', Here! Now!!"

All inclusive!

That which is perceived by the unique individual Perspective is 'knowledge'.

All we can 'know' is what we perceive, Now! and Now! and Now!!!

'Ignorance' is that which is NOT perceived, at any particular moment, by any particular unique Perspective!

One can KNOW! without riding the rickety little train of fallible thought processes!

One can 'Know' without 'understanding', without 'thought' at all!

Intuition, for instance, is never 'wrong', is immediate Knowing, rather than 'determining'!

The ego is actually unnecessary to Knowledge, actually a hindrance!

I think you're confusing objectivity and subjectivity. Morality comes from society; whether they realize it or not, people end up agreeing (in the form of laws) what they feel is moral and what isn't. Remember that much of morality is based in practicality and logic--it is not logical to condone murder; the society would slowly disappear. It's not logical to condone theft--people have stuff they want to keep. So, these practical and sometimes selfish needs end up becoming a moral "code." It varies depending on the time in history or the place.

Opinions need to be based on facts, but two people can have the same set of facts and come up with two different opinions.

a person can think logically all he wants but if he doesn't have the proper set of principles to go off, he's wasting time...

The best way to deal with everything in life is to learn and practice clear and honest critical thinking. You could start here:

https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-cr...