Thinking’s a form of doing. Where do plans come from? Thinking. How close can you come to doing? You can write it down. Make a cartoon showing it. All forms of doing. Is it all the way what you want? Probably not but you can get close.

Thinking’s a form of doing. Where do plans come from? Thinking. How close can you come to doing? You can write it down. Make a cartoon showing it. All forms of doing. Is it all the way what you want? Probably not but you can get close.

====

I’m saying you can come pretty close. Can’t reach the last digit of pi either. Can an omnipotent God create a rock so heavy it can’t lift it? Absolutely. Will that paradox make sense to us? Nope.

Unsatisfying but if you consider the notion that there could be a being that works beyond logic and can encompass contradiction, it’s easy.

Consider the order of things: Is Logic > God? Then God is bound to the rules of Logic. But if you hold that God > Logic, then God is not bound to the rules of Logic.

I’m sure there’s more fancy logics that allow for it though already though. Para-consistent logics and such. But I’m just mentioning a brief notion of how it might work.

=====

You choose what you consider valid or not. Now, I’m agnostic but as a kid I was raised Methodist. Methodists aren’t Calvinists. Not for a day. Followed the other branch.

So, while the Calvinist branch can be defeated with a logical argument, the non-Calvinists were like, “Nice logic trick but God’s beyond all that” and that was that.

====

So, it’s only an airtight argument if you accept some preconditions.

=====

There you go. You’ll always have only one answer to the question.

====

“Why?” Because A.
“What about B and C?” I don’t accept B and C, so it’s A.
“How about D and E?” Distractions. It’s A.

====

It’s a choice you’ve made that works for you. I won’t try to dissuade you from it.

===

Partially. My issue is “variables”. There’s always more variables to consider. I don’t reject objectivity in and of itself. It’s not all subjective. But it’s easy to overlook and/or dismiss variables that can change the outcome of things, so I’m slow to give absolutes. I’m great with partials though.

====

I have some rules of thumb though.

Thought experiments for example, are fictions. That is their starting point. They’re fictional. So the answers are also fictional because they occur in a fictional Universe. Imaginary.

Are they useful? Yes. Star Wars is a useful metaphor for tyranny and the power of of people, all monomyth-like. But still fiction.

=====

 

These are rules that work for you and maybe Galileo too. He’s not a magical being. Had his place in history and all that, then he died as we all do.

You have your rules. They set up the parameters through which you do sense-making of the world. I also have rules I do sense-making of the world with.

I don’t think they’re equally valid. I think mine’s the better one. Whether I can convey that to you in a way that you agree with my rulebook is a matter of how well I use logic and other tools (such as metaphors, emotional appearls etc) to support my rhetoric.

=====

 

I see rhetoric as king and logic and other tools such as evidence and such as supporting factors in the process of doing rhetoric. Such is how my rulebook is laid out.

====

I’m using the Byzantine school of how they treated rhetoric, not the modern definition which relegates rhetoric as substandard. What is rhetoric basically? The process of convincing someone.

=====

I know I won’t. That’s why I said earlier ” It’s a choice you’ve made that works for you. I won’t try to dissuade you from it.”

====

I already know I am. Convincing you or not doesn’t modify this.

====

Close. I believe logic supports rhetoric. No shoulds. Rather, that’s logic’s purpose.

====

Logic is rarely enough for rhetoric. Example: When logic is exhausted, people often turn to phrases such as “That’s stupid!” or “Only a fool or an idiot would support such a statement” and other emotional appeals. Those aren’t a use of logic but rather rhetoric to convince.

====

In a mostly dispassionate environment, such as people working together on an engineering project, logic *can* be all that’s needed and required. But most environments aren’t like that and more tools are required to convince others of what’s the proper course to follow.

=====

I often do. I don’t know how to answer the question the way you asked it. I’m answering what I believe is the way things are not the course others should follow.

=====

Thank you; that was unexpected. I’m a fan of rationality but my approach is probably a little weird. I talk about it on a case-by-case basis and what I consider rational does not always match up with what others consider rational, mostly because I probably put “dispassionate” as a critical component of “rational”. Very Spock-like I guess. I’m probably somewhat autistic tbh. I dunno.

====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


five × 6 =

Leave a Reply