![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Deep Thoughts
I've got a question for you people. Something very hypothetic and theoretic.
I have this on-and-off discussion going on with my mom about how whether logic or non-logic is the more valid principle.
Me, I'm pretty much all about science and logic. I believe that for anything that happens, there's a reason. It might be an obvious reason - glass stands on table, glass falls off table, glass accelerates towards the floor, glass breaks on impact - or a very obscure reason, like the thing about the butterfly effect - butterfly flaps its wings somewhere in Japan which might or might not cause a hurricane in Florida. The environment people live in - i.e. planet Earth - functions according to logical principles, and depending on how much you know about those principles, you can point out the reason for any and every event that took place in this environment. You can also predict a limited range of events that will be caused by any event - glass falls off table, I predict it will a) break, or b) not break etc.
What I'm essentially saying is that logic does not depend on people. Logic was there before the people, and logic will be there when the people are gone.
Now, my mom says that logic is not relevant because people don't follow the principles of logic. She says non-logic is at least as valid as logic because it exists. Um. I'm not very good at explaining her standpoint, because I totally don't get it. Her example usually is language. She says language does not follow any logical principles, and because of that, non-logic must be something at least as valid as logic because any human interaction is based on something that follows the rules of non-logic.
Now, my point is this: if I have the choice between something that is a constant - as logic, as said above, seems to be at least in the environment we live in - and something that is dependent on the people and will change and die with the people, then why would I choose the non-constant over the constant? If everything functioned according to the one constant thing that we have that does not depend on people, wouldn't everything be so much easier to handle?
I'm confused. Give me your thoughts, people! :)
I have this on-and-off discussion going on with my mom about how whether logic or non-logic is the more valid principle.
Me, I'm pretty much all about science and logic. I believe that for anything that happens, there's a reason. It might be an obvious reason - glass stands on table, glass falls off table, glass accelerates towards the floor, glass breaks on impact - or a very obscure reason, like the thing about the butterfly effect - butterfly flaps its wings somewhere in Japan which might or might not cause a hurricane in Florida. The environment people live in - i.e. planet Earth - functions according to logical principles, and depending on how much you know about those principles, you can point out the reason for any and every event that took place in this environment. You can also predict a limited range of events that will be caused by any event - glass falls off table, I predict it will a) break, or b) not break etc.
What I'm essentially saying is that logic does not depend on people. Logic was there before the people, and logic will be there when the people are gone.
Now, my mom says that logic is not relevant because people don't follow the principles of logic. She says non-logic is at least as valid as logic because it exists. Um. I'm not very good at explaining her standpoint, because I totally don't get it. Her example usually is language. She says language does not follow any logical principles, and because of that, non-logic must be something at least as valid as logic because any human interaction is based on something that follows the rules of non-logic.
Now, my point is this: if I have the choice between something that is a constant - as logic, as said above, seems to be at least in the environment we live in - and something that is dependent on the people and will change and die with the people, then why would I choose the non-constant over the constant? If everything functioned according to the one constant thing that we have that does not depend on people, wouldn't everything be so much easier to handle?
I'm confused. Give me your thoughts, people! :)
no subject
However, I'd argue that the entire idea of logic is a completely arbitrary, human invention. It's very biological, much like time. We have logic and time as ways to measure change, ways to package an otherwise overwhelming universe.
I guess it's one of those things we're still too young to really know. We call it "logic," but really it's much, much bigger than we realize. :)
Maybe? Lol.
(no subject)
no subject
1. Language is totally based on logic. At least logic inherrent in one specific language. Because if a language weren't logical - that is follow certain patterns - we wouldn't be able to communicate. Your mum is right, though, in that there is no logic to be found in why we name a thing a certain way (see all those existing languages as prove).
'Logic' also does exists in the world. It is true that there are certain patterns that are observable and that help us to live our lifes, but like licia said, I think they're a sign of something bigger we can't understand.
I think that those things that we can't explain or comprehend are just beyond us.