Nowhere357

John, you hit and run artist, you.

Is the "real" reality a tautology? I think the word "tautology" refers to logical constructs. So I guess I answer "no".

Do people really belief in made-up stuff? If so, isn't that belief then a part of reality? If so, then if they believe that belief, isn't that belief based on reality?

If someone believes in made-upism, are they made-upists?

Clutch

Double Dutchy nailed it.

Formal logic per se does not prove the existence of any kind of "external" (non-phenomenal) reality -- no more than arithmetic proves the existence of apples. But it is a dismal non-sequitur to claim that you can't use logic to analyze claims about reality. As dismal, that is, as if one claimed that you can't use arithmetic to calculate how many apples there are.

Logic is a matter of the inferential relations between propositions. It is not a flaw, weakness or shortcoming that logical axioms in themselves imply nothing about metaphysics; if they did, they would lack the complete generality or neutrality that characterizes them.

Plug in propositions about reality, about Christianity, about whatever, and logic just tells you what follows from what.

Guillaume

Rationality has already been defined in the beginning of this thread as : rationality = logic, illogical = irrational . Still, I am curious about your definition of "rational". Since you implying that "rational belief justifies logic" is not circular reasoning, are you perhaps saying that rationality has nothing to do with logic ?


Irrelevant note : I have my doubt on this issue. Could you point out a scientific study to prove this ?

I don’t agree with this. I think that religious beliefs work best for any kind of reality. You need to prove your claim ( note : you can’t use any tool to convince me except religion because I believe that religion is the best tool available )


Yes, there is a bit of difference between religion and science, but it is in the structure and not the justification. However since the structure cannot be judged, they are as valid.

That what I mean. He believe that religion is a better tool than logic. As such, if logic and religion disagree he will always side with religion.

Yeah but nothing indicate that logic is a valid tool to begin with…

worldling

Then, having agreed to our definition of terms (illogical = irrational), isn't he forced to admit that his religion is irrational?

Nowhere357

I redefined "rational" as left-brain action, for my post only.
So when I said "rational belief justifies logic" I meant that "we justify logic with left-brain action". Even if this is completely wrong, still the concept is not complicated.

I had said "BTW EVERY belief or world view ultimately comes down to circular reasoning, or tautology. Strange but true.".
So your statement that I implied my belief that "rational belief justifies logic" is not circular reasoning, seems irrational.

"Rationality" as defined in the OP certainly has something to do with logic. Shades of meaning, as I said.

(Concerning right brain left brain methods of belief.)
No, and I don't care to try. Apparently I hold an irrational belief.

Seriously, google "left brain right brain" and have fun.

I said:
"Rational belief works best when exploring objective reality.
Intuitive belief works best when exploring subjective reality."

Well, I can support my claim. First, you need to prove that religion is the best tool available. Prove it's a valid tool at all, even.

As my brain structures attempt to judge these statements, they agree that no justification can be found. Apparently, your statements are non-intuitive and illogical.

If you see no difference between a tree, and an invisible superpowerful undetectable mythical entity, then I can't help you.

I'm sorry that I haven't treated your opinions with the respect they perhaps deserve. Personally, I think using logic to examine logic is like using a hammer to hammer a hammer, and I'll leave the job to people a lot smarter than me.

Clutch

Please, you will continue to frig this up if you don't distinguish between "non-logical" and "illogical".

From the point of view of formal logic, things like names and propositions, specific relations or properties, and such -- anything with genuine content -- are all non-logical elements.

It is absurd to equate "not an axiom or theorem of formal logic" with "illogical" -- still worse, "irrational".

John Page

...How do you propose we test for its validity?

John Page

Well, that one came from Nowhere!

Reality is itself (we suppose), but we come to know it indirectly - and, this being the case, all we receive is a proposition about what reality is from our senses. In this manner, even "real" reality is a tautology.

IMO, our minds compare sense data that changes (over time, space) with our existing knowledge and concepts about reality. If this is true, arguable we do not "see" reality we see changes in reality.

Do you think a proposition needs to be formed verbally? Is the truth told by comparing words, or do you agree that it comes from comparing the meaning of the words? I think Clutch has made this point better than I.

Cheers, John

Nowhere357

I agree. From one end of the spectrum to the other, I see that change is key. The concept of time, for example, has no meaning, if nothing changes. Even the sensation of pain, if the stimulus doesn't change, eventually becomes numb.

John and Clutch both have made the point well, I think. Look at the moon, not the finger. (Not THAT finger; the POINTING finger.)

PS From this POV then yes, reality is tautology.