jpbrooks

Sorry for the brevity of my replies, but I have to run.

Yes. You seem to be suggesting, in opposition to phaedrus, that we just give up trying to be original and creative in our thinking because it would be an exercise in futility.

This is true. Everyone's thinking is (inevitably) based on assumptions that are held as "foundational" for a particular individual, even if those same assumptions are not held as foundational by others.
But that fact doesn't rule out the possibility of arriving at ideas that are truly novel even if they are based on assumptions that are not original. None of us is omniscient. So, the door is wide open for us to discover new ideas.

Well, in the WTC disaster example, none of the ideas were original, So that particular example might not be a good one for the purposes of this discussion.

Granted. But again, since we are not omniscient, we can't have knowledge of all of the interconnecting truths and facts that would render reality so completely understandable from a logical standpoint that any "new" idea could readily be ruled out as logically inconsistent.
Instead, our experience, as humans, has been that "new" ideas that don't seem to us to be logically derivable at all are discovered, and then, only after careful reflection, analysis, experimentation, etc., are seen to be logical. The hypothesis of "heliocentricity" in astronomy would perhaps be an example of such an idea.

Again, there will always be an infinite number of things that we don't understand. This fact is inescapable for us. And it allows for an endless supply of new and creative ideas, discoveries and inventions.

-John Phillip Brooks

Tani

well, not really. your understanding of my pessimism is that since it results nothing, we shall do nothing. however, i'm saying there has always been no creativity. what we call creative is only a conclusion that is always a logical extenstion of something and given that we are logical, the conclusions are necessary. however, the lack of those conclusions may demostrates that there is something that is not entirely logical about our thinking. in the end, i'm not suggesting we do nothing since i'm saying what we call "creative" is a rhetoric. there is nothing to give up, technically. on the other hand, those what we call "creative ideas" are always necessity conclusions.
we aren't omiscient, exactly, so just exactly how did you arrive at that there are new ideas yet without you knowing any of them? my suggestion is that anything that you can understand has to be something derivable from what you know already, or you'd have discredit them. you might think that there are ideas that you'd at first discredit but somehow accept after a certain amount of time. however, for that to happen, you either finally accept it because you alas arrived at the juction of your logical thoughts which that idea links to your other ideas, or you have unsoundly accepted a foreign idea as principle which wasn't originally in your set of consistent principles.
well, what is so original is that they fly an aeroplane into the wtc, that was so shocking because no one thought it would happen. that was the first case of people flying an aeroplane into a building for terrorism purposes. but you don't find it novel precisely because, as you logically found it, none of it is so impossible or otherwise forbidding to begin with.
hold it right there, if there is anything that doesn't follow the last premise logically in a logical proof, it is not a proof. we are not omniscient only in a sense that we don't know every single facts and as what they really are. however, to suggest that it is because we are not omiscient that we can't follow a proof correctly, you would render all the things (connections between things and events, that is)we know false. you would be suggesting that we either jump to conclusions on many things, or that our existing proofs of anything at all contains untold premises. each of which would rander us illogical. in that case, anything "new" yet understandable only results from our poor reasoning capacity, but then the "new ideas" we call "understanable" might be not very understanable, or make much sense after all since they result yet again from our poor reasoning capacity.
as said above, the new and creative ideas, discoveries and inventions results from our poor logic, and therefore not conclusive at all since they might be false yet again.

the end result is: that we are logical, and we are not creative; or that we are illogical, and we are creative only because none of it make sense to begin with.

jpbrooks

But again, you are viewing things from a standpoint that is outside of human experience. It may indeed be true that the whole of reality is completely amenable to logic. But, from our perspective, that can (since we are not omniscient), only be an assumption (however indispensable it may be for intelligible inquiry about reality).
Our limitation in knowledge about reality guarantees that there are things about reality that are currently unknown by us and that would be surprisingly new to us were they to be discovered.

But (again) new ideas that result from corrections to our incorrect reasoning in the past are not the only source of new ideas for us. New ideas can also be the result of the discovery of new facts about reality that add to our already consistent, but limited, knowledge about reality.

It follows directly from the fact that we are not omniscient, i.e., that we don't know everything about reality as a whole.

Again, our "lack of omniscience" prevents us from using consistency as the sole means for extending our knowledge. Since we don't know everything, we will lack the data, in certain areas of inquiry, from which premises (that our logical arguments would need) could be formed.

Ok. You may be right on this point. It may be that the ideas (viz., suicide flights, using explosive materials to bring down buildings, etc.), though not original in themselves, were put together in a new way, and perhaps could be viewed as "original" in that sense.

Precisely! So how can we use logic alone to come up with new ideas that are logically consistent?

No, I'm not suggesting that one must be omniscient in order to follow a proof correctly. Nor am I suggesting that new ideas can only result from our inability to follow logical proofs, although that might be one way that they can arise.
I'm suggesting that "creative" thinking seems to involve more than logic.
In any case, however, new ideas are tested using logical methodologies.

Again, "lapses" and "leaps" of logic are just one way that new ideas can arise. Another way, for example, would be encountering new facts via observation or experimentation.

-John Phillip Brooks

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Tani

jbrooks, you do realize that you make my argument true by disagreeing with me?

i stated that as long as you hold a certain matter to be true and fundamental, anything else that contradicts it will meet your disapproval. now with all the negatables negated, what is missing that you know is missing?

if you were to accept my views, even when it contradicts your view, you are being unreasonable. if you accept my views, after when you find a logical connection with your views, my views is not something foreign from your views to begin with, hence not new. it is easier to hypothesize that you will accept "new" idea until you actually see a "new" idea.

i guess the real difference between our views are what we consider as new. for example, i learned algebra in primiry school. the question is did i accept the principle of algebra becuase it corresponds to my existing knowledge, including my observations of reality (aka pure data)? or did i just accepted it unreasonably? if i accept it because it is logical, then even though i have never thought of it yet, given enough time, i'd have arrive at that conclusion without aid, and hence again not some "new" knowledge as it is a logical extension of my knowledge.

i reiterate, i'm not saying we shouldn't learn, because it takes time for us to work out the logic. but it is precisely because we need to work out the logic that make us not very logical to begin with. with the fundamentals defined, how did the necessary conclusions/theories be not there in our mine at all times, and i mean every single possible conclusions/theories. we have to learn precisely because it takes too long to work our own logic out (that's if we ever do), so we take other people's word for a lot of issues. either we eventally work our logic (hopefully without flaws) to the point where we agree with the stuff we learn, or none of it really make sense. again, they are not new, they just don't make any sense whatsoever. we just, for better or worse, swallow it whole without thinking twice (they are excellent for writing exams to get degrees, won't you say?). and anyway, isn't that exactly why we say herd mentality is bad? yet why i say it's inevitable?

the problem remains though, we cannot be sure that our logic is flawless. therefore we never can really know and thus never be really "prudent."

as a note: logic indeed doesn't necessary reflect the reality, but anything that negates logic will never be real under our considerations.

it's really late, i hope i am making sense.

jpbrooks

Well, one important thing that I would immediately know as missing, assuming that I had been able to completely work out all of intermediate logical steps to arrive at a complete understanding of reality according to all known facts (which is a huge assumption), is an explanation for why that particular logically derived system of truths, facts, etc., rather than some other system, "corresponds" to reality. It is contradictory to assume that we would need to know everything in order to know what is missing from our knowledge.

I'm beginning to agree with you about us applying different definitions of the term "new" in this issue.
When I use the term "new" to describe ideas, I mean that those ideas were previously unknown (by particular humans or by humankind in general) prior to their discovery; not that they were always logically implied by the set of assumptions that one happens to be espousing at the time.

But, Tani, doesn't that provide a very good reason why one can't use logic to derive every possible new idea? We, according to your suggestions, would need logic to derive all of the knowledge that we have about reality. But we could only acquire knowledge about logic by deriving it from what we know about reality. The circularity of this learning process suggests that we can't learn everything by logical deduction.

I suppose that the answer to that depends on what one means by saying that something is "in our minds".

But the fact that we have to rely on outside authorities to get some of our knowledge is not a very good excuse for becoming "passive" acceptors of the ideas of others.

But didn't we have to assume that our logic was "flawless" up to the point that we concluded that it might not be and that we must therefore rely on other people to supply us with knowledge? And doesn't this seem like an attempt to arrive at a "prudent" conclusion? These lines of demarcation as to where logical thinking should begin and end just seem arbitrary to me.

That is precisely why discarding logic merely because it cannot practically be used by us to acquire all of our knowledge is not prudent. Your "pessimistic" (extreme) position is clearly unwarranted.

[ January 26, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Amos

All rational beings have a herd mentality because they are alienated from their non-rational existence as the animal man. Since non-rational has no opposite of its own its counterpart is divided between rational and irrational (which are therefore realitve terms) and so humans wander to and fro the herd mentality between the rational and the irrational.

Amos

emphryio

I don't quite understand what Amos is saying but it is more interesting to read than what preceded.
The herd mentality, or as I like to think of it, assimilation, is something that I find quite annoying.
I personally feel that every single living person should attempt to question the way that things are done. I don't think society will then fall apart, I think society will then greatly improve.
Why? Because the act of questioning actions and practices more often would simply increase the amount of that undefinable thing, "intelligence". More intelligence, less stupidity, less evil, less pain. This would improve society.
Of course practically speaking we can't all spend our every waking moment in contemplation but obviously in general most people do not question things anywhere near enough.

Religion, or "philosophic dogma" as I like to call it, is an evil thing because it causes people to not question.

Christopher Lord

Then being a thinker would simply be the 'heard' (or in other words, we step up to the same thing)

I agree that more intelligence is a good thing, and we are definately moving towards that (at least using tech as a metre stick), but make no mistake, not everyone can 'think different', cuz then its not different.

Francois Tremblay

People naturally flock to authorities (even philosophers and philosophical authorities) because it prevents them from thinking too much, and it gives them a good feeling of conformity. I don't know if anyone has read about the Milgram experiment, but it's an interesting scientific test study about that.

doodad

Agreed Tani. A large country such as America has
a lot of talent in the practical sense but might
be a little shy on the heavier philosophical types. We are a results oriented culture and in the past have had plenty of resources to throw at
a problem. I sense that phaedrus and Adrian selby are not Amerian, judging from their posts.

Do I do much critical thinking? No. I don't have any interest in it. Does that mean I am not creative? As a systems analyst I designed and implemented computer systems that could not be bought from the peddlers. As a retiree I design houses and small commercial and public structures. Although I don't consider myself to be some kind of a geek, I am very much an individual with my design work. That doesn't say it's worth a flip, but it is never the less my
creation and not something I have borrowed.
To sum it up, Americans are pragmatic, trial and error people, and in spite of our lack of critical thinking we manage to enjoy a way of life and a standard of living that is the envy of
others from the older more sophisticated countries.