tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1894412924622627599.post6612502916318886277..comments2023-09-18T06:55:07.564-04:00Comments on The Pendulum Effect: The validity and limitations of reasoningGreg Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16771536675375060120noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1894412924622627599.post-61161096392702222162008-01-27T08:33:00.000-05:002008-01-27T08:33:00.000-05:00Hi A.J.,No, I haven't read Ayn Rand. There are so ...Hi A.J.,<BR/><BR/>No, I haven't read Ayn Rand. There are so many good books out there and so little time!<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/>"the issue i keep running into with the validity of straight up logic is that it seems too contextualized"<BR/><BR/>"what point is it to converse with logic if logic is only logic in my mind?"<BR/><BR/>Ahhhhhh.... I see you agree with me that logic is a valid litmus test for truth. Then you really DON'T have a problem with logic being what you call "too conceptualized...."<BR/><BR/>You wrote, "i'm certainly not a philosopher..."<BR/><BR/>I'm not a formally trained one either. But I see the questions that you have been asking regarding your faith, as well as in politics, as being undergirded by these philosophical issues.<BR/><BR/>Here's one quick example. I saw on your blog that you liked Obama. I could never vote for him or Hillary simply because the philosophical underpinning of liberalism is that man is inherently good (they reject the idea of the "fall of man" as expressed in classic Christianity).<BR/><BR/>As a result, this is inherently a rejection of the notion that "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Any ruler who rejects such a concept is a potential threat if they gain power.<BR/><BR/>BTw, its not my wish to go political if we continue these discussions. I believe the theological and philosophical groundwork is most important. The kingdom of God is internal and will spring forth the right fruit without my trying to "genetically engineer" it.<BR/><BR/><BR/>BTW, you kept referring to sophism... I think you confused that word with solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism).<BR/><BR/>Keep up the exchange.<BR/><BR/>I hope to learn from you.<BR/><BR/>GregGreg Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16771536675375060120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1894412924622627599.post-47520008735768722292008-01-26T15:18:00.000-05:002008-01-26T15:18:00.000-05:00hey. thanks for the e-mail about my podcast. yea...hey. thanks for the e-mail about my podcast. yeah, it seems like you did end up on with some different conclusions, but i agree with you that we could probably learn from each other. <BR/><BR/>i just read your first entry about sophism and the exclusivity of logic. have you read ayn rand at all? although more poppy (culturally) than your typical philosopher, she makes some great arguments on logic in her book "Atlast Shrugged." <BR/><BR/>the issue i keep running into with the validity of straight up logic is that it seems too contextualized. depending on our socialization, culture, and psychological growth, you and i may have different schema's for certain words, experiences, etc. and logically, yeah, sophism sort of takes care of that in the sense that it makes sense to "me" because i'm conjuring up my schema in my sophistic world (my mind); and essentially that is logic. then logic seems, and may very well effectually <B> be </B> far too contextualized to the point where it loses its utility to defend itself outside of the one's mind. <BR/><BR/>what point is it to converse with logic if logic is only logic in my mind?<BR/><BR/>i'm certainly not a philosopher and i have little to no formal training on these issues outside of a liberal arts college degree and some personal reading, but it's fun to shoot the s***. <BR/><BR/>look forward to hearing your thoughts.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03219828065024689429noreply@blogger.com