On Logic; A Discussion
Thursday, 6/28/2018, 6:30PM
We spoke last week on belief. The following is a brief recapitulation of what we discussed. Hopefully I’ve accurately restated various arguments and provided them with their best justifications; if not, feel free to reach out at email@example.com to request an adjustment. Interjections of comments are marked within em dashes.
The intent of these written follow-ups is to connect a few key statements from our conversations to previous philosophical work directly. For those interested, it will help place current thought within the history of philosophy and connect you with further resources that will clarify/refute thoughts. Let me know if it is helpful/not, or if the format should be adjusted. Sorry that this summary is more stream-of-consciousness style than those previous.
What is the difference between logic and rationality? Rationality implies ordered thinking, whereas logic is a specific method of ordering, perhaps. Logic is a method of proving.
How is it possible to distinguish rational versus irrational behavior? What judgements are taking place here? What information is necessary? It seems that there needs to be an underlying claim that demonstrates ideal rationality. It is necessary to take into account a situated perspective. However, logical thinking can be distinguished by its stated propositions.
How does one use logic to justify a faith? Why seek logical proofs of faith? Where are the limits to logic, and how should questions outside of this scope be dealt with? Is human thinking intrinsically logical or rational? Is this a developed skill? How does doubt figure into a discussion on rationality?
How should we consider the role of logic in our lives? Why is logic essential, if it is? How do we rely on the principle of falsification in determining the scope of rationality? To what extent can logical thinking be separated from irrational being?