roseweird posted:

why is logic good?

imo it's not good. but, again, any notion of "good" is going to be logically fallacious.

Lessons posted:

are you really arguing we need religion to not kill babies? get out of my face.

i am.

or, if not religion, then some other ill-conceived, irrational appeal that isn't based on anything empirical or objective.

roseweird posted:

codywilson posted:

roseweird posted:

why is logic good?

imo it's not good. but, again, any notion of "good" is going to be logically fallacious.

logic is fundamentally based on the dualism "yes" "no"... positive and negative. you are literally using "logical" to mean "yes/good/positive" and "fallacious" to mean "no/bad/negative" but you are too invested in logic-worship to recognize it

that's definitional manipulation. there's a clear difference between "positive" as "yes" and "positive" as "good." Logic cannot make value judgments on good/bad.

though, to be fair, my saying that something is fallacious is implying it's "bad," so i am really contradicting myself i guess.

roseweird posted:

AVE_MARIA_GRATIA_PLENA posted:

roseweird posted:

Lessons posted:

are you really arguing we need religion to not kill babies? get out of my face.

no, i am saying that decisions we make about what to do with infant lives are fundamentally predicated on what we think about the nature of consciousness. i don't personally think thinking bout the nature of consciousness is necessarily religious though.

that's incredibly solipsistic and wrong though

no, it can easily mean what we agree as a group is the nature of consciousness, like when people agree in mass that consciousness begins at conception

okay but that's self-defeating because 'consciousness' is associated with cartesian/enlightenment subjectivity and nobody thinks fetuses have that

roseweird posted:

codywilson posted:

there's a clear difference between "positive" as "yes" and "positive" as "good."

no, there really isn't, "yes" and "good" are on a continuum of meaning. you say "yes!" when something good happens, "no!" when something bad happens. you feel positively and negatively about things. unless you are talking about atoms and electrical charges you are employing moral logic on some level

do you believe in The Secret

Lessons posted:

wittgenstein is ultimately going to say every attempt to ground language like this is ultimately problematic. you could rewrite this paragraph to be about the theory of relativity rather than private religion (and if you don't believe me i can demonstrate). the point is that language is grounded in social convention, not cognitive content, which is to a large extent a response to his earlier work in the Tractatus and logical positivism as whole, and as such is aligned against the analysis you're trying to make, i.e. we can rule something out as a grammatical error.

1.We should remember Wittgenstein never rejected the Tractatus, he only considered it incomplete, which he began to realize when a logical atomist approach couldn't handle things like colour terms that logically exclude one another (i.e. the impossibility of an object being a reddish-green). In fact, his last unpublished work On Certainty almost is very close to going back to the Tractatus, so the idea that Wittgenstein ditched all that stuff later in life isn't true.

2.While scientific theories may depart from ordinary language in that they use specialized terms and rules (what Kuhn would call a paradigm), they ultimately arrive at synthetic empirical propositions about the world, the understanding of which is dependent on a prior grasp of ordinary language.

3.Explain why we can't conclude certain sentences are nonsense because they distort our grammar. Wittgenstein's whole point about the impossibility of thinking both sides of the limit of thought was criticizing the verification principle, while at the same time reaffirming the importance of what logical positivism got right about philosophy: conceptual clarification to dissolve metaphysical problems.

codywilson posted:

nah, i mean, there are laws and stuff and i'd get put in jail, i don't want that outcome at all, so clearly i'm not going to kill anyone (plus i don't think i have it in me, and i don't really have any reason or person in mind)

but just, beyond the law, i don't see it.

yup the laws are just gibberish. go kill, its all good

codywilson posted:

pakistani teen: "whats wrong with being atheist guys?"
smart friend: "look dude, don't even mess with that stuff, it's illegal--you might get killed"
p.t: "but can't we like, oppose the law and stuff?"
s.f: "what have you been taught your whole life about islam? you think that's gibberish or something? don't be silly dude"

how it would actually go:

pakistani teen: i stole some hash from my older brother. let's go smoke it.
smart friend: ok.