-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can one have truthful experiences supported by reason but not supported by logic?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Well, it is a part of human evolution, does one deny evolution? Every stage of evolution is no less important than others. Right, please?
Regards
I think that you are talking about some sort of fiction or myth, not about a reality.
In the English language as far as I know the terms logic and reason are synonymous ie if it is not logical it is not reasonable or if it is not reasonable then it follows that it is also not logical
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
*logic
"Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, translit. logikḗ[1]), originally meaning "the word" or "what is spoken", but coming to mean "thought" or "reason", is a subject concerned with the most general laws of truth,[2] and is now generally held to consist of the systematic study of the form of valid inference. A valid inference is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the inference and its conclusion. (In ordinary discourse, inferences may be signified by words like therefore, hence, ergo, and so on.)
There is no universal agreement as to the exact scope and subject matter of logic (see § Rival conceptions, below), but it has traditionally included the classification of arguments, the systematic exposition of the 'logical form' common to all valid arguments, the study of inference, including fallacies, and the study of semantics, including paradoxes. Historically, logic has been studied in philosophy (since ancient times) and mathematics (since the mid-19th century), and recently logic has been studied in computer science, linguistics, psychology, and other fields."
Logic - Wikipedia
Regards
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Sure. I understand you to be saying that someone believes their experience to be true whether or not they can provide evidence that it is to someone else.
I have no doubt that people have "experiences" of many kinds. Hardly anyone would dispute that. The question is not whether someone had an experience, but rather what was the actual cause of the experience.
People ascribe the causes to gods or spirits and such things when they have no actual supporting evidence for doing so.
So my question to you for clarification is, are you speaking about whether or not someone had an experience, or are you speaking about the cause of the experience?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Yes. I fell down the stairs the other day, trust me that experience was most truthful where it hurt. Was it logical that i should not be watching my step while on the stairs?... No.
Last edited:
miodrag
Member
Try Quantum mechanics, maybe? It is well established mathematically, so it is reasonable, but not always logical, in the way we usually experience logic. There are systems of thought alternative to classical logic, such as a paraconsistent logic and dialetheism.
Well my dictionary says reason is "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic."
So no.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
I would say that the human brain supports two forms of reason which although individuals tend to employ one over the other, the combination of the two is the ideal. The two are called by Jung thinking and feeling.
My own understanding of these two rational functions is that thinking employs logic in the familiar sense of the term. But the particular media of thinking logic is the cultivation of the coherence and consistency of words of human language as a set of separately defined terms. The survival advantage of good thinking is that linguistic communication is accurate and unambiguous.
The feeling function treats of values and their association to individuals. The rational relationship of values and the people who hold them creates a system of knowledge that allows a person to understand and anticipate their choices and actions and to negotiate one's own values within that context. The survival advantage of good feeling is that one can choose to act in a way that will be supported and assisted by one's group.
The example that was break-through for me came out of argument I was having with someone about whether illegal immigrants should expect to receive medical care. I argued that it makes sense that they shouldn't to the extent that they are breaking the law and shouldn't be granted such privileges My "opponent" argued that they were human beings who require medical treatment. The basis of my argument I believe was the meaning of the words law and how laws should be followed or they are not really laws. What use of defining a law if there isn't a consequence?! But my opponent was more concerned with the experience of the individual and those who would engage with their suffering. How can a person turn away someone in need of medical attention? What does that say about a person's compassion? How could you look a child in the eye and say, "sorry, we can't help you?"
In the moment of the debate, psychologically, I was more concerned about preserving the integrity of the words law and their instantiation in society. I knew deep down that laws define good versus bad and to abandon them at all was to break with the very meaning of words themselves. But really this is just an extreme attitude on the part of my personality and my brain. Certainly I also deeply appreciate the value of helping those in need even if they are not where they are "supposed to be". And then knowing the stories of some illegal immigrants I would even question the truth of whether they are or are not supposed to be here. The more I put myself in the stories of others who might have broken a law the more I can with compassion understand their perspective.
This is all without wanting to dismiss the distinction that a country rightfully makes about legal and illegal immigration. But the two perspectives provide two views on the same subject. As such I see THE TRUTH as a product of "binocular vision". I believe that in the human brain thinking and feeling are two neurologically based ways of using reason.
I've been further convinced of the science of this by the work of Antonio Damasio as described in Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain