From: mlloyd@westmark.Stanford.EDU (Mike Lloyd)
Subject: Re: Altruism (was: two men)
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 01:35:09 GMT

pclary@mushroom.csc.calpoly.edu (Ellen Clary) writes:
: This thread has gotten me thinking about western philosopy all
: over again.  As an undergrad, I was encouraged to be a philosphy
: major, because I did quite well in a class.  I considered it for 
: awhile, but then decided that, while I was interested in 'searching
: for the truth' [whatever that really means] and other common 
: philosophical quests, I wasn't that interested in getting into
: the seemingly testosterone-laden logic fights  ('my logic can beat 
: up your logic' type of thing).  My question to those involved in
: this thread is first: is this your experience? and second: why does
: this happen?

Mike stifles gleeful sounds at such a setup.  I promise I'll try to keep
my inevitable response to the above coherent and relevant, if I can.

"Searching for the truth."  I guess we all do a bit of that now and
again.  Most philosophy types I know will witter on about it; the more
elightened ones (who have heard of more than just Dead White European
Men) tend to say things about searching for the "essential truths"
embodied in all the major religions, spiritualities, etc.  My personal
favourite argument with these people is to take the line that There Is
No Absolute Truth.  Simple, neat, clean, and if well-defended, quite a
showstopper.  I've had so much fun with that one, I think I even choose
to believe it now (although clearly not absolutely).

Yeah, to answer question one, I've seen plenty of stuff that smells like
(male) teen spirit in logic arguments.  Why?  Well, there are loads of
different answers.  The typically teen-agey stuff seems to have clear
roots when you combine two things: (1) the observation that men are
rational, analytic beings, either by nature or nurture (or chromosomes
and bias - and no, no prizes for guessing which one *I* think is true)
and (2) the way youthful idealism tends to take up a new-found hammer
like logical thought and then treat the world as so many nails.  Once
the hammer is discovered, nobody is safe, be they a nail or not, until
further enlightenment sets in.

One can then, of course, conclude that the more formal, academic
occurences of the "Me ape-man, see my logic" behaviour are just cases
who never left the hammer-obsessive stage of rational development.
That's just a shade too cruel for me (just a shade).  I guess if people
are willing to devote their lives to logic, or even logical
philosophising, that's fine by me - it's probably a rather good thing -
but I don't think I could do it without holding my nose.  It would seem
you feel similarly.

: Ellen
: (Whose experiences are never adaquately described by logic anyway.)

Well, yeah.  To me, logic is like a toy, wind-up car.  Wind it up, put
it at point A, and it goes from there, although often in circles.  A
really good toy car can even make it to point B, so long as it's close
and accessible.  But if you just pursue it for its own sake, you keep
finding that from any start point it eventually hits a wall, falls off
the table, or winds down.

Icky math bit: Godel.  Yes, as in GEB, that bookend of many a student's
shelf.  His point is that an axiomatic system is either (a) too weak to
say anything interesting or (b) posessed with statements which cannot
logically be either proven or disproven, despite their truth or
flasehood.  I guess the continuum hypothesis is the best-known example
in math: if this stuff is not all yawningly familiar to anyone, I
suggest you go ask a math-weenie about that one.

If mathematical systems cannot even reach all statements using logic
based on axioms, it seems readily apparent (though unproven, of course,
in the best circular tradition) that logic has little real power over
things like experience.  When our axioms rarely get better than sketched
as a blurry, grey outline, it seems hopeless.

The only use left for logic is for local checking, forwards or
backwards, in discussion.  (FYI, I owe this point to Muffy, really.)
You can get the toy car to proceed from some statement, forwards to a
blatant contradiction (and then you can argue about whether that is a
bad thing), or backwards to elucidate which axioms must have gone in to
the statement, if it is a logical one.  That's fine - a neat, useful
discursive device - but hardly the answer to any serious problems, like
where to eat lunch, who to love, and what to do when you make the wrong
choice.

hugs from the pointedly paradoxial and happily heuristic
Mike, who is happy he did not have access to his math degree when he
fell from logical grace and realised there's more to life than logic -
he might have ceremoniously burnt it.

PS  Birelevance?  Ooer.  Tough.  Could I plead that this stance is of
use when dealing with certain knuckleheaded phobes who want to
rationalize away biness or its attendant troubles?  After all, what this
group discusses is essentially emotional (isn't it?) so it is >juuust<
scrapingly relevant to propound the suggestion that logic-fetishists,
while very amusing, are not really the messengers of the New Dawn.
-- 
Mike Lloyd, B0/1 h- f- t w- g+ k+ s m- e? |    "Bloody nose and burning eyes
      Retro-hippy, music nut, bi and      |  Raised in laughter to the skies"
          backrubber of devotion          |                 - Bruce Cockburn
               --The end of confusion is the beginning of death--
Newsgroups: soc.bi