>>22994543 (OP)
You can't study logic. You either have the ability of logical thought or you don't.
Logic is not a science, it's a process that is required in the scientific methods that require filtering and deduction and other things for which you use logical schemes like mathematics and other scientific fields depending on what you're researching / studying.

>>22994544
Formal logic is a mathematical field, you can study it the same way as you can study algebra.

>>22994543 (OP)
what if Aristotle dressed up like a black man
it would not be logical

a guy doing this with a dog
does that seem logical
or mentally insane

>>22994544
a) you know nothing about logic
b) you're brainwashed
c) only people who haven't studied any logic say that you can't study logic and that it's innate
d) you most certainly can study logic
e) study logic

https://archive.org/details/logicorrightuseo00watt

>>22994547
No boner no penetration, the boner does look erased though

>>22994543 (OP)
how will studying logic help me ascend while there are girls who fuck niggers and dogs while I still never had a girlfriend?

>>22994548
logic works with math, causality works with real life

>>22994550
what is the cause of that? determine that then get other people to agree with you and then destroy the cause. wallah.

>>22994551
People who know nothing about logic have all kinds of ideas about what logic is, all of which are totally uninteresting. Study logic.

>>22994552
the cause of what exactly?
this
> there are girls who fuck niggers and dogs while I still never had a girlfriend?
or this
> there are girls who fuck niggers and dogs
or this
>still never had a girlfriend?
or my assumption that
>studying logic will not help me ascend

>>22994554
>the cause of what exactly?
cultural subversion. you think women make their own decisions?

>>22994553
please explain why logic does not boil down to causality in real life applications.

>>22994556
Third party factors

Like cogs, they could work at unison, or fly all over the place

>>22994555
>>22994555
even if I take this as true, knowing that doesn’t help me. I can’t handle it anymore, i am constantly thinking an heroing.
What is the purpose of building, contributing, advancing while I am keep getting humiliated beyond belief. I am in constant mental anguish..

>>22994558
i go to work to make money to advance my goal of living in the woods with no cell phone reception. only you can figure out what your goal is. once you decide, then work for it. i too have given up on modern women. i have not given up on myself.

>>22994557
causality takes into account third party actors, you can overcomplicate anything if you want to, but everything necessary is not complex.

I knew this thread was going to be full of illiterate retard niggers with 75 IQ. No surprise.

>>22994556
>please explain why logic does not boil down to causality in real life applications.
I bet you're fat and stupid. But if I turned out to be wrong, it would be because you're not fat, or you're not stupid. Explain how causality is involved in this application of one of De Morgan's laws.

>>22994548
peak teenage pseudery

>>22994558
sorry for all the mistakes I make with grammar, punctuation, capitalization etc. but I really can’t care about almost anything anymore.
>>22994559
I wish you the best and honestly I feel disgusted with myself for thinking this much about sex while there are a lot more concerning matters in 21st century(like the potential of super majority of the men kind getting enslaved under a tech dystopia governed by sadistic fucks and absolutely losing their free will). But my sex drive is off the charts and I just can’t stop feeling inescapably cucked. It is killing my soul and/or sanity.

>>22994543 (OP)
Math logic, to be precise.

>>22994547
That's a custom from your countries though moshe

>>22994562
>I bet you're fat and stupid. But if I turned out to be wrong, it would be because you're not fat, or you're not stupid.
the cause of this would be you making assumptions based on incredibly minimal evidence along the lines of "people who post on 4chan are fat, people who post on 4chan are stupid" and there are examples of both, but there are also examples of smart people posting good arguments and skinny people posting pictures. in essence, you are generating an uninformed ad hominem and hoping it sticks.

>>22994567
>the point
>
>
>
>
...
>your head

>>22994543 (OP)
Sweden YES!

>>22994568
enlighten me of my folly

>>22994570
See >>22994562
>application of one of De Morgan's laws
Maybe you should google what that is and see if you understand my post better afterwards.

>>22994571
~(p ∧ q) ≡ ~p ∨ ~q

>>22994572
Good. Now explain what that purely logical relationship, which is readily applicable IRL (as in my example) has to do with causality,

>>22994572
isn't this useful, formal logic is a fucking joke and yes, I have studied it. go hang out with betrand russel, write the principia mathematica, prove 1+1=2 on page 1XX of volume 2, and then get btfo by Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem.

>>22994551
Dumbass, causality involves the operations of logic.

>>22994575
bingo, that's what I am arguing about, however causality ends up being way more practically useful. formal logic is as useful in day to day life as non-euclidian geometry.

>>22994560
I disagree am one of those infinity complexity guys, had to deal with to many chaotic factors each time

>>22994574
>Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
Laughable turbo-pseud. Still waiting for you to address >>22994573

>>22994577
>infinity complexity guys
so just give up because you can't know anything. utility is what interests me at this point in my life
>>22994578
causality involves logic, I am not denying that, it's fundamental to causality, but the formal discipline of logic isn't necessary to understand simple concepts like supply and demand, influence of shareholders, and numerous other simple realities which dictate elements of our existence and quality of life. the most interesting thing I learned in my logic class was when my professor would say "the exception proves the rule"

>>22994548
>follow the manual
oh the ironing

>>22994579
>causality involves logic
That's not what I asked you about at all.

>logic isn't necessary to understand capitaloon propaganda
You got that right.

>>22994581
>That's not what I asked you about at all.
yeah you are giving me a random homework assignment

>>22994582
Just reflect on the fact that you said sucking fucking retarded. Logic is not derived from causality. Going only by causality, loads of true conclusions would be lost on you.

>>22994572
>he represents negation with ~ instead of ¬
At least we can agree that the tribar represents logical equivalence.
>>22994576
If you want to make the best use of causality with all its nuances, you need some familiarity with its associated logical operations. It helps to understand which side of material implication represents a sufficient condition, and which a necessary condition.

>>22994583
>The complement of the union of two sets is the same as the intersection of their complements
>The complement of the intersection of two sets is the same as the union of their complements
holy shit this is why Wittgenstein went to natural language philosophy
translated "the stuff that isn't in two containers is the same as the stuff that isn't in the two containers when you put the stuff that isn't in the two containers together." truly profound.

>>22994579
I don't give up I just disregard determinism

Look like this in practice

Vote third party

>>22994585
Just reflect on the fact that you said sucking fucking retarded. Logic is not derived from causality. Going only by causality, loads of true conclusions would be lost on you.
>b-b-but deriving useful logical conclusions isn't """profound"""
Actually end your own life tonight, you inbred 80 IQ cretin.

>>22994587
explain how
>the stuff that isn't in two containers is the same as the stuff that isn't in the two containers when you put the stuff that isn't in the two containers together
is an incorrect translation of the logical statement to natural language

you're just huffing your own farts and pretending you're very smart while talking about obvious stuff that you translated into retarded symbols and complex language so you can circlejerk with other people who are doing the same thing. you might as well be acting like your knowledge of pokemon cards or warhammer 40k sets you apart from the "pseuds" as you put it.

>>22994589
I don't care about your schizobabble. I'm just reminding you again that causality alone isn't even to derive even some of the simplest logical conclusions.

>>22994591
isn't enough*

>>22994591
the stuff that isn't in the bucket is the same as the stuff that isn't in the bucket! holy shit! (the cause of this is the stuff not being in the bucket lol)

>>22994591
oh hey, do the sets described account for duplicate entries? because wouldn't the union of the sets be different than the two sets on their own if duplicate entries were discarded in the union of the sets?

>>22994593
You legit sound mentally ill but the point still stands that causality alone doesn't support even basic reasoning.

>>22994595
i mean like isn't there a difference if both sets contain the number 1 and then when you join them there is only 1 1 but when they were two discrete sets there were 2 1s?

>>22994596
Unironically take your meds. I'm not paying any attention to your incoherent rambling. Nothing you say changes the simple fact that causality alone doesn't support even basic reasoning.

>>22994597
without causality there can be no reasoning your larping dipshit

>>22994593
>>22994598
Ginger, what do you even mean when you say "causality"? Because logic is how you model causality. If you are attributing causality to some external phenomenon, you are essentially describing a logical relationship that obtains in reality. I don't see what you're going on about, setting up a false dilemma between logic and causality when one contains the other.

Logic is for geek autists with low libido and low T. The end result of muh logic is technology worship and sterility. Sex, love, eros, whatever you want to call it will always be the gaping blind spot of geeks. Hey geek "logical" autists in this thread you are not superior to anyone by castrating yourself and decoupling from a selfish, violent, tribal, passionate, sexual, "irrational" consciousness. You are SO LOGICAL that you are on a basket weaving forum having pedantic philosophical debates while western civilization is getting raped into a third world shithole by literal orc niggers while scheming jew goblins ramp up your humiliation. Total geek death. You are not smart. You just rebrand your impotence as intelligence and call it "logic" and "rationality".

>>22994598
>without causality there can be no reasoning your larping dipshit
Notice how your schizophrenia keeps intensifying. I don't know what this meaningless schizobabble even means, let alone how it's related to any of my posts.

>>22994600
You're gay and you suck dicks because you can't prove why that's wrong.

>>22994545
>Formal logic is a mathematical field, you can study it the same way as you can study algebra.
yeah but aristotle didn't do formal logic
he just shitposted with plato

>>22994600
The very same geeks are the ones who build the machines and tools for the west to dominate the rest of the world. And know you are “getting raped by orc niggers” because you humiliated and laughed at their face, called them incels and bombarded them with BBC and BBC.
Now the east, who understands the value of its geeks and provides for them, will dominate.

>>22994599
it's called trolling nigger, also I hate retarded systems that waste time. we have a word for useful logic, it's called mathematics. if this thread were titled "study math" i would have been far less successful in rustling jimmies. i have moldova VPN so short circuited he can only fling insults. he's in a thread about logic, arguing that others should learn logic, and can't even form a coherent argument, make a proposition, or establish a causal link. this is more entertaining than anything else I could possibly be doing.
>>22994601
please explain how reasoning could work in a world without causality

>>22994601
Since the begging of this discussion you have done nothing but call them names, try to patronize him, and keep asking him questions trying to make him make your own arguments for you. How about you eat a bag of dicks you filthy moldovian nigger

>>22994605
>please explain how reasoning could work in a world without causality
Exactly the same it works currently, but first you need to admit you said something absolutely retarded and you need to apologize for it. I'm not letting you go off on a tangent without first recognizing your mental deficiency.

>>22994603
>"aristotle didn't do formal logic"
>this German has never heard of term logic a.k.a. Aristotelian logic, the key argumentative structure of which is the categorical syllogism outlined in his Prior Analytics

>>22994606
maybe moldovans don't have a word for causality, like how jews don't have a word for accountability

>>22994606
How about you return to the filthy Middle Eastern shithole you crawled to Europe from, you brown piece of garbage?

>>22994607
do you even know what causality means?

>>22994543 (OP)
you can not study logic, nigger

>>22994611
We will talk about it once you confirm that you understand why claiming that logic is "just causality" in the real world, was absolutely retarded.

>>22994543 (OP)
DUDE JUST STUDY LOGIC WHILE JEWS EXPLOIT YOU AND NIGGERS MURDER YOU LMAO

>>22994613
i will not deny the truth, sorry you are too stupid to understand this concept

>>22994543 (OP)
but only dialectical logic, so you can pwn rightoids in internet debates 100% times

>>22994615
>i will not deny the truth
Explain what De Morgan's laws map to in terms of causality. By refusing to do so, you are denying your own "truth" (i.e. your mentally retarded assertion that you can't defend).

>>22994584
I love Tucks, the trans Lunix penguin!

>>22994604
Kek.
>The east
Oh you mean the asian race? The race that is completely sterilized because they are a bunch of beta geek baby dick autists who are oh so LOGICAL. You can't dominate anything in the long term unless you have what are called "people" who do what is called "having sex" because they are not castrated geek logicians.

>>22994604
>The very same geeks are the ones who build the machines and tools for the west to dominate the rest of the world.
The Greeks weren't building anything much. They got BTFO by the Romans who were building things and also didn't give much of a fuck about logic or philosophy.

but in all seriousness, the world doesn't run on logic rather on probabilities

like if a dude in a ski mask is sprinting away from a car with its alarm screaming, he could be late for a masquerade and a random pebble might've nailed the windshield just right. from the logic standpoint the cop can't arrest him, because there's no valid proof he did anything wrong.

>>22994621
>the world doesn't run on logic rather on probabilities
Probabilistic reasoning runs on logic.

I'm pretty sure nature just lets geeks jerk themselves off to their "LOGIC" and their "intellectualism" having pointless pedantic debates to keep themselves occupied and appease their ego/vanity. Meanwhile, all of those "illogical" people are doing what is called "having sex" because their consciousness is rooted in libido, instinct and fertility and thus will inherit the future (logically speaking of course).

>>22994617
not (A or B) = (not A) and (not B)
not (A and B) = (not A) or (not B)
are we discussing the difference of the words "or" and "and" as if it is somehow difficult to grasp? you seem fixated on this matter. of course "and" and "or" are different concepts and when describing causality they mean different things. it's almost as if they are different words.

>>22994623
But you are neither doing logic nor having sex.

>>22994624
Still waiting for you to explain what either of those laws map into in terms of causality. You literally can't.

>>22994622
>video games run on electrons

>>22994627
Show me an example of probabilistic reasoning that doesn't depend on logic.

>>22994626
bill and bob did not crash the car
bill or bob did not crash the car
holy shit, or means that either bill or bob crashed the car! but we don't know who!

>>22994629
Notice how you have failed to provide any causal analogue or justification to De Morgan's laws. Your blood pressure is currently rising.

>>22994621
You can reduce probability to two logical cases: certainty or uncertainty. Given the uncertain case, the statistician calculates the probability of event X given condition Y. The statistician examines the variables of the case and compares the null hypothesis—that no relationship exists among the variables / no change has occurred—against the alternative hypothesis, which contradicts the former.

Probabilistic reasoning is highly logical, and even proving stochastic realism requires logic.

>>22994630
okay then, explain it to me oh wise one

>>22994567
thick as fucking cement

>>22994633
haven't been in a logic class since 2012 m8, just here for the bantz. studied chemistry anyway, now I build houses. 2 bottle of wine hangover is also fueling this shit.

>>22994632
Explain what to you, you absolute fucking retard? The reason you keep spouting schizobabble instead of framing De Morgan's laws causally and proving me wrong, is that there's no way to do it. You can use those laws to logically tie together things that have no tangible relation to each other at all and derive correct conclusions from that aren't implied by causality.

>>22994635
pls provide an example, always happy to learn something new

>>22994634
Thanks for sharing with the class. If you don't understand the topic you should learn or fuck off.

>>22994637
maybe I learn by being a contrarian prick, totally open to being wrong and learning something, if there's anyone willing to explain

>>22994628
that's the whole point. more often than not focusing on logic is a power move, to trap your opponent in syllogisms until they give up. it's not about truth, it's about dragging the convo into a place where only one kind of reasoning is allowed

a neural net trained to distinguish cats from dogs adjusts weights based on probabilities of success, no rules, no logic statements, just statistical optimization

>>22994639
they just want their goofy system to be relevant regardless of utility

>>22994635
Using De Morgan's theorem to arrive at a disjunction, you can then perform the rule of implication on that sentence to convert it into a material conditional. E.g.:
>¬(p ∧ q)
>¬p ∨ ¬q (DeM)
>p ¬q (Impl)
Thus, a valid conclusion of "not both p and q" is "if p then not q."

>>22994638
Alright I'll explain this exactly once. Logic is *not* equivalent to causality because it has no conception of time. The entirety of first-order logic can be built up from the NAND operator the semantics of which are entirely contained withhin a 3 column, 4 row truth table; i.e. there is no concept of A "causing" B within first order logic. The closest is the concept of material implication, which is is only superficially similar to causation in that you can render statements of the form "if A then B", but the similarity fails because of certain paradoxes such as "if not A then B" holding true if B is false. Building up a logic of causation on top of FOL is a pain in the neck because you first have to build up arithmetic so that you can deal with the concept of time.

tl;dr the only thing logic can and should do is evaluate whether a set of statements are mutually consistent, or not.

>>22994641
Material implication is not causation.

>>22994636
>pls provide an example
I did. If by some miracle it turns out that you're not far, or you're not stupid, it's not a causal relationship that makes me wrong in calling you fat and stupid but a logical one.

>>22994641
If it rains today then you're not a nigger.

>>22994645
> it rains
> drop to my knees and thank god

I did study logic. Like mathematics, logic is just a human invention to help us try to understand the way the universe works. It isn't fundamental and it isn't necessarily correct.

>>22994642
bingo. logic is math and computational systems. it is an abstract system which can be useful in real world applications, but for most use cases it ends up as pure knowledge a priori. hence my mention of bertrands lovely pricipia mathematica.
>>22994644
>it's not a causal relationship that makes me wrong in calling you fat and stupid but a logical one.
yes it is, the cause is that you are dumb :)

>>22994645
That's true, and it remains true even if it doesn't rain today.

>>22994648
>80 IQ keeps trying to sound "intellectual" while failing to grasp basic reality

>>22994566
>leaf

>>22994543 (OP)
Shut the fuck up faggot.
Stop shitting up the board with your retarded takes.

>>22994649
Great. Now reflect on what you just said.

>>22994543 (OP)
>Study Logic
https://courses.umass.edu/phil110-gmh/MAIN/IHome-5.htm
Should be a required course for all high school students

>>22994642
>certain paradoxes such as "if not A then B" holding true if B is false
This doesn't hold true because if the consequent is false while the antecedent is true, the material conditional is false. That's no paradox, I think you confused it with what happens if A is false in the statement "if A then B."
>>22994653
...that raining today is sufficient for me to not be a nigger, and likewise me not being a nigger is necessary for it to rain today.

>>22994544
Main point is not being emotional. And carefully examining facts before stating something as true and building logic of of it.
>>22994550
Exibit A.
He wants to belive women fuck dogs and niggers on mass scale. It makes it easier to cope while all data shows interracial marrige black male white female even in muttistan at around 5%. I wont even comment on dogs.

Logic after this can be flawless but it starts from a lie.

>>22994655
Causality doesn't enter the picture at any point with the statement I gave you.

>You can't study logic.

>>22994650
your decision to frame your proposition in logic is what makes it a logical relationship. your ability to assert that I am fat and stupid as valid comes from a lack of evidence due to the nature of online discourse. you are reducing a situation to a fundamental set of rules which is one dimensional.

>>22994543 (OP)
https://files.catbox.moe/dht3mf.mp4

>>22994657
At this point, we have arrived at the distinction between per se causation and per accidens causation. The former is that which causes its effect by virtue of itself; causation in the truest sense of the word. A per se cause exists simultaneously with its effect, and once it ceases to exist so too does its effect. This can be described by logic in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions.

The kind of temporal causation you say is not possible to model logically is per accidens causation, where something causes its effect by virtue of something that belongs to itself. This is difficult to render in terms of formal logic because generally, the cause can exist before its effect. But causation per accidens isn't causation in the truest sense of the word, because it isn't so much that it *is* the cause as it is that it *contains* the cause.

why should I

>>22994544
You can't study logic like you study other fields but you can train your brain to use it doing math, which is applied logic.

Typo. Meant "not if A then B".

A, ~B (by assumption)
~(A -> B)
~(~A | B)
~(~A)
A
T

>>22994544
ahh but you can
see >>22994654

>>22994655
>>22994664

>>22994543 (OP)
>humans are inherently flawed
>believes he can think his way out

>>22994663
you can study logic, formal logic is an entire discipline within philosophy and mathematics. it's also a very nice system which becomes too complex to be useful when applied to real life in a meaningful way.

>>22994664
>>22994666
And just to tie this back to the point, in our common sensical understanding of causality, we do not infer from fact that the ground is not in fact wet, that rain does not cause the ground to be wet. Causal relationships are assumed to hold good regardless of whether they were effected in a particular case.

>>22994642
>Logic is *not* equivalent to causality because it has no conception of time
Yep. This is the bottom line. It's essentially what I was trying to communicate to this retard (>>22994659). Anything you can logically derive about a given state of affairs is just a description of the same state of affairs, not a demonstration of one state of affairs following another, let alone causally. E.g. if he's not fat, then his being stupid but not fat and my being wrong to call him stupid AND fat would be related intrinsically and true simultaneously through De Morgan's law, without time ever coming into play. :^)

>>22994670
so you agree logic is useless for real life considerations and causality has utility as stated in my first post >>22994551 :)

>>22994671
Remind me to play Cluedo with you for money.

>>22994661
>The kind of temporal causation you say is not possible to model logically
Is every single American on this board actually retarded?

>>22994672
keep forgetting the internet is srs bsns

>>22994668
logic used to be a big deal in math departments before ww2, but now it's been almost entirely delegated to philosophy. despite all the progress, math still runs on that old aristotelian framework (assume A, prove B), but it's not really interested in deep foundational debates/pilpul anymore

inb4 "there are still journals, conferences, and logic groups within math departments", yeah, and if someone moved them to the philosophy department, no one would notice.

>>22994569
America BURGER!

>>22994675
logic still exists and is relevant, it's the fundamental basis of circuit design and programming and all kinds of stuff. it really left both the math and the philosophy department and now exists in computer engineering and computer science.

>>22994675
Low IQ take. New logic systems are being studied constantly and are actually becoming more relevant thanks to """AI""". Non-classical logics are still analyzed using classical metatheory.

>>22994677
>>22994678
look at that we agreed on something

>>22994543 (OP)
You can't logically state why logic should be studied though

>>22994544
Not OF*. FOR logical thought you fucking esl faggot.

>>22994680
same as the justification for life, life exists to create more life, logic exists to create more logic, pretty much all systems follow this, otherwise they wouldn't exist

>>22994677
bruv, these days it's just Logic 101, 201, maybe some fuzzy logic if you're into it, and that's about it. before the war, i'm not exaggerating, you'd spend two whole years just learning the foundational terminology before the real logic courses even began.

>>22994682
Existence precedes reason otherwise logic wouldn't be necessary because truths would be self-evident.

>>22994675
Formal logic is taught as part of “discrete math” available to math and computer science majors

>>22994683
my point of view is that programming languages and circuit design are the modern iteration of formal logical language.
>>22994684
existence precedes everything, nothing can exist without existence

>>22994686
Indeed.
So logic in that respect doesn't have any "inherency" to anything other than what is being reasoned with.
Abstractions and their logical deductions formulate conclusions that only lend validity to those particular premises.
But I think that speaks more to the nature of epistemology and its limits than it does about the construction of logical principles.
I don't think humans can ever really derive "certainty" in that respect. Even though interestingly logic leads to approximations that are useful in reality.

>>22994686
>my point of view is that programming languages and circuit design are the modern iteration of formal logical language
interesting take

>>22994687
that's why I have been autistically screeching about causality being the utilitarian form of logic for real life applications. we find ourselves somewhere in the middle between objective reality and solipsism, get too close to either and you become useless and impractical. logic is the same as math but with slightly different operators and variables/figures. 1 can equal 1 all day in math but there has never been an apple that is perfectly identical to another apple.

>>22994652
this is the best thread I found on the board rn
>>22994656
>He wants to belive women fuck dogs and niggers on mass scale.
same anon here, I never claimed they do it on “mass scale” on that reply. but they do depending on how you define “mass scale”

>>22994670
Logic containing casualty is just a subset of math logic (based on material implication). Everything that works with material implication, works with casual relations, by the same rules.

>>22994689
I think pulling from Gödel's Incompleteness Theorum here would be helpful because it demonstrates the limits of provability in axiomatic theories.
In that no consistent system of axioms is capable of all truths within its own system.
But this wasn't necessarily a problem becuse it significantly paved the way to discoveries in computation and I believe undefinability theorum.
Given that logic and math are congruent, it should make one wonder what abstractions within a given logical systems has axiomatic assumptions that are given but not true. I.e. the "apriori" problem.
Does further abstractions dilute the integrity of knowledge? Or is knowledge inherent to the conclusions drawn from logical systems?
I personally have no idea.

>>22994691
nope
>>22994669
>>22994664

>>22994691
No amount of pilpul and mental gymnastics refutes the fact that the logical conclusions you can derive about a given, real-world state of affairs need not involve causality and most of them are true a-causally.

>>22994664
So your point was that, given B is false, you can prove "A" from "not (if A then B)," and somehow this results in a paradox.
>¬(A -> B), ¬B (premises)
>¬(¬A ∨ B) (Impl)
>¬¬A ∧ ¬B (DeM)
>¬¬A (Simp)
>A (DN)
Where is the paradox? You don't even need to be given that B is false to conclude A. There isn't even a contradiction in premises because you can just as validly infer ¬B from the negated conditional.
>>22994673
From the top: You said logical laws cannot be framed in causal terms because you can make a true sentence using a statement form to create connections between things that, in actuality, have no tangible relation to one another.
We can start with any true sentence (e.g., "I am not a nigger") and just add more disjuncts to it (e.g., "I am not a nigger or it isn't raining today"). But this doesn't create a more powerful sentence; it weakens the statement.
I see what you mean, but the logical form is not irrelevant when determining whether a causal link exists between phenomena in the real world. If there is an interpretation of "if it's raining, then you're not a nigger" where the consequent is false but the antecedent is true, then the statement has been falsified; we can dismiss both per se and per accidens causation between the conditions of raining and being a nigger. I brought up that distinction because, as another user mentioned, logic has no conception of time. But a temporal sequence is not necessary for per se causation; only for most per accidens causation. Therefore, in principle, we can frame certain logical relationships in terms of per se causation. It's just that logic isn't the tool we use to determine the real material truth of a statement.
>>22994684
>>22994686
Essence precedes existence. If there is no potency, no ousia for existence to act upon, then nothing can exist. Before esse, there is to ti en einai, "that by which a thing is what it is."

>>22994695
There is a paradox when you equivocate material implication with causation. >>22994669

>>22994695
> You said logical laws cannot be framed in causal terms
>The kind of temporal causation you say is not possible to model logically
So which one was it?

>>22994692
>Does further abstractions dilute the integrity of knowledge? Or is knowledge inherent to the conclusions drawn from logical systems?
To the first point I would say yes. The example I would use is that of philosophy becoming an exercise in arguing about the definitions of the words being used, e.g. what is a woman. To the second point, logic can not exist without knowledge existing prior to it. You have to have some form of a basis to build an a priori system describing it. That isn't to say the a priori system can't demonstrate that some knowledge is wrong and help you fix it, but logic, like math, is a tool to understand phenomena, not an eternal manual whose pages we occasionally catch a glimpse of.

>>22994695
>Essence precedes existence.
how can essence exist without existing

>>22994695
Descartes effectively rejects the idea that essence precedes existence by turning the entire framework on its head.
For him existence isn’t something that follows from some prior essence or potential it’s the starting point itself.
>Cogito, ergo sum.
Existence is self-evident and immediate, needing no prior "whatness" to validate it.
He doesn’t waste time proving that essence exists before we do he proves we exist and only then asks what kind of thing we are.
In doing so he sidelines Aristotelian metaphysics entirely showing that starting with essence is not only unnecessary but epistemologically backwards.

>>22994698
Derrida would reject the claim that knowledge must precede logic by deconstructing the assumption of a stable foundation.
For him there is no pure knowledge outside of language, meaning is always deferred and constructed through difference.
What we call “knowledge” only emerges through systems like logic and language; it doesn’t exist beforehand as some raw material. So the idea that logic depends on prior knowledge is a metaphysical illusion, both are co-constituted within a shifting play of signs, not a linear hierarchy.

>>22994699
exactly what I was talking about, now we are arguing about definitions
>what do you mean by existence?
>>22994700
I would disagree, knowledge is experience, logic is the application of experience to future situations.

>>22994700
>>22994699
This is word salad m8.

>>22994701
That definition collapses under scrutiny because if knowledge is just experience then it’s purely subjective and unstable, varying wildly from person to person.
Logic, however, functions independently of individual experience; it's a formal system that can generate valid conclusions regardless of personal perception.
By claiming logic is merely the application of experience you reduce it to a psychological habit rather than a structured method of reasoning. This erases the crucial distinction between having experiences and interpreting them through abstract, rule-governed systems like logic.

>>22994702
Philosophy has come a long way since "The Republic" my English friend.

>>22994698
Essence does not truly "exist" without existing. Existence is that whereby an essence (whatness, ousia, etc.) is an actuality. As a component of being, essence remains prior to existence: there needs to be something that possibly is before anything actually is.
>>22994699
>Descartes
Opinion discarded. "Cogito, ergo sum" simply begs the question by insisting on the existence of an "I" that thinks to prove the existence of an "I." You should know better.

>>511427128
"You either have the ability of logical thought or you don't." is grammatically correct. "ability for" is not used with an abstract noun like "logical thought." Native speakers use prepositions with specific nouns due to long-established usage patterns, called collocations. "ability to" is overwhelmingly the most frequent form for mental capacities.

>>22994921
That objection misunderstands what Descartes is actually doing.
Cogito, ergo sum doesn’t beg the question, it’s not an argument in the formal sense, but a performative truth.
The very act of doubting or thinking is the proof of existence, not because Descartes assumes an “I” exists beforehand, but because thought is occurring.
Even if the "I" is an illusion or unstable, the fact that there is thinking happening, some activity of consciousness, is undeniable.
Descartes isn’t presupposing a metaphysical subject; he's pointing to the impossibility of thinking without being. To deny the cogito is to perform it, you think, and so something must be there to do the thinking, however minimal or undefined.

>>22994904
>That definition collapses under scrutiny because if knowledge is just experience then it’s purely subjective and unstable, varying wildly from person to person.
I oversimplified my definition, if I were to elaborate knowledge can be shared experience, if I build a chair, then I have the knowledge to build a chair and I can tell you how to build a chair or write a book teaching people to build chairs, etc. like I said here >>22994689
>we find ourselves somewhere in the middle between objective reality and solipsism, get too close to either and you become useless and impractical.
With respect to the rest of your post, did logic exist prior to the creation of formal logic and philosophy?

>>22994935
Your elaboration still doesn’t resolve the issue, it just shifts it.
Calling knowledge “shared experience” doesn’t make it less subjective; it just turns personal experience into intersubjective consensus.
But sharing a method (like chair-building) isn’t the same as possessing universal knowledge it’s still filtered through language, interpretation, and cultural context.
You don’t transfer raw experience you translate it. As for logic: yes, it existed prior to its formalization, just like grammar existed before linguistics.
Formal logic didn’t invent reasoning it systematized it. That shows logic isn’t derived from experience; it’s abstracted from it, yes, but it functions independently once articulated.
You don’t need to build a chair to understand modus ponens. So no, logic isn’t just a tool built from experience it’s a structure that allows us to evaluate experience beyond its particularities.

Hooooly mother of all pseuds.

>>22994943
You and I have differing opinions on the nature of things. I think these systems are man made and imperfect and derived from our experience. I think (I may be wrong) you believe these are eternal foundations of reality/existence.

>>22994932
This merely presupposes that what does the thinking is "I" and not something else. There is no way of distinguishing that "I" am performing the thinking if you have not ascertained through understanding the "whatness" of the situation that it is an "I" that thinks. If essence is arbitrary and not necessary for existence, then so is the "I" in Descartes's formula.

>>22994952
That framing sets up a false dichotomy. Recognizing that logical systems have structure and objectivity doesn’t require believing they’re eternal or metaphysically perfect.
Logic can be formalized by humans and still point to relationships that hold regardless of who observes them. For example, if all A are B and C is A, then C is B; that conclusion isn’t true because we invented it, it’s true because it reflects necessary relations between concepts, no matter how flawed or contingent we are.
The fact that we discovered these systems through experience doesn’t make them reducible to experience.
Math and logic aren’t eternal Platonic realms, but they’re also not arbitrary they reveal stable patterns that structure thought and reality, even if our access to them is imperfect.

>>22994954
But that’s precisely why Cogito, ergo sum is so radical it doesn’t require prior knowledge of the "I" or its essence.
Descartes isn’t saying, “I know what I am, therefore I exist.” He’s saying the act of thinking itself is undeniable. The “I” isn’t assumed as a fully defined essence; it’s the minimal placeholder for whatever it is that is thinking.
Even if you argue that the thinker is something else like an illusion, a process, a system, it doesn’t matter.
Something is thinking. That’s all Descartes needs to assert existence. The cogito doesn’t rest on a metaphysical commitment to essence; it’s a self-validating act that proves that being is required for thought, even if that being’s nature is uncertain.

>>22994967
>The fact that we discovered these systems through experience doesn’t make them reducible to experience.
they're systems we created to try to describe the world around us as accurately as possible. the fundamental system is nature, the rest of it is humans trying to figure it out.

>>22994967
If "I" is simply a placeholder, we can just treat it as a variable. We can reformulate this argument in more general terms to say, "thinking is happening. Therefore, something exists." But what is meant by "thinking"? How can this phenomenon Descartes describes be positively identified as "thinking" and not some arbitrary other thing? Well in any case, thinking must be something that exists, so we will just reformulate it as "Something is something. Therefore, something exists."
That this argument lacks a metaphysical commitment to essence is not sufficient to falsify the priority of essence; the entire concept of essence simply remains outside the domain of discourse of the argument, which simply asserts that things exist. Metaphysical realists do not dispute that claim.
Phenomena exist. Okay, so what are those phenomena? To ascertain that "I" am thinking—to discover that existence transcends the phenomenon of cognition and that some things exist that do not even think—there must first be an essence of "I" and an essence of "thinking."

>>22994696
In natural language, a negated material conditional, ¬(p -> q), sounds less like a premise and more like the kind of sentence that you would arrive at as a conclusion. Likewise, the conclusions you deduce from that premise—p and ¬q—sound like they should be premises.
Consider the following:
>(R = the radio is on), (G = the ground is wet)
>¬(R -> G) | "The radio being on does not imply the ground is wet."
From this, we can deduce the conjunction of R and ¬G using the proof steps laid out in >>22994695:
>R ∧ ¬G | "The radio is on, and the ground is not wet."
This statement isolates the set of conditions required to verify our premise (which may more accurately be considered a hypothesis). Intuitively, this makes sense because it represents the union of conditions required to falsify the posited material conditional:
>"The radio was on and the ground stayed dry, so it can't be true that if the radio is on, then the ground will be wet."
The "paradox" in >>22994669 does not obtain, because we are not inferring the negated conditional from the atomic sentence. Quite the other way around, in fact. The "paradox" or contradiction that arises is when G holds true, but one concludes ¬G from the negated conditional. However, the sentence "¬G" may be interpreted to represent the condition of the ground *at the specific time* when the observation corresponding to the negated conditional was made.
Another example of this paradox:
>(G = gravity is real), (P = photons are real)
>¬(G -> P) | "Gravity being real does not imply photons are real."
>...
>¬P | "Photons are not real."
>...when we all know they are real.
Again, however, the "premise" is best interpreted as a hypothesis. If the isolated lemma "G ∧ ¬P" is contradicted by observation, we can dismiss the hypothesis.
With help from "only if" statements, material implication can be used to represent per se causation, with the cause per se as the necessary condition, and the effect per se as the sufficient condition.

>>22994543 (OP)
you wanna study logic start with plato and socrates before aristotle.
jumping straight into aristotle is gonna make a lot of people who use this websites head hurt