NationStates Jolt Archive

I'll admit, part of this thread's purpose is just to allow me to make that title.

But I'm also curious to hear ideas concerning the question, which is, what is the rationale for logical and rational reasoning? That is, can one make a logical argument why we should follow logical arguments?

I'll admit, part of this thread's purpose is just to allow me to make that title.

But I'm also curious to hear ideas concerning the question, which is, what is the rationale for logical and rational reasoning? That is, can one make a logical argument why we should follow logical arguments?

Otherwise you'd end up throwing petrol on fires to put them out. The logical solution usually works.

That is, can one make a logical argument why we should follow logical arguments?

That's necessarily circular, so "no."

If reason is an intrinsic and necessary part of thought, and one that accurately describes reality, we could never demonstrate it that way.

That's necessarily circular, so "no."
I'm not sure if it's circular so much as recursive. Maybe those are the same thing.
If reason is an intrinsic and necessary part of thought, and one that accurately describes reality, we could never demonstrate it that way.
That's probably true, but it still bugs me. It seems like logic should be able to prove itself somehow.

what is the rationale for logical and rational reasoning? That is, can one make a logical argument why we should follow logical arguments?Reason is a good guide for goal oriented behaviour. We have goals. We desire to orient our behaviour toward those goals. Therefore we should use reason.

Of course, in some cases irrational behaviour solves our problems much faster and much more satisfactory. You can reach plenty of goals on intuition, but other require more planning; so a bit of each is the optimal mix.

I think logic is a good tool, and generally useful for making arguments but there comes a time when you have to stop using it.
Logic on it's own does not work, (as in logical positivism) sometimes you need ideas that aren't purely logical, but still pass some of the basic requirements.

Reason is over rated...let's settle all disputes through trial by combat...

*dons armour and unsheathes sword*

Anyone disagree? :p

I'm not sure if it's circular so much as recursive. Maybe those are the same thing.

That's probably true, but it still bugs me. It seems like logic should be able to prove itself somehow.

Basic truth simply is.* It can be perceived, but not argued for or proven.

Logic should have some logical justification only if you seek to apply logic to itself. The irony is that in doing so you violate the standards of logic. Logic defies proof because of its own requirements.

*(This is not to imply that I consider logic to be basic truth.)