The First Flawless Philosophy

This is the objective true nature of existence distilled to be understood.

onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=3908EE6112D44DC8!2935&ithint=file,docx&app=Word&authkey=!AIVh2wxP-_HliLc

Other urls found in this thread:

dflund.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf
1drv.ms/w/s!AshN1BJh7gg5lnlU64266llB3IKw
1drv.ms/w/s!AshN1BJh7gg5lnRXvcV663VHR1Ot
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

oops, I seem to have posted a bullshit link instead of the actual flawless philosophy. Here you go:

dflund.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf

Oh got me. Read the link I posted.

no.

Well, it is what i called it.

So what is the conclusion? That the purpose of life is to not think? Or only think logically?

No its to think sometimes but not other times.

Ok, but is that not what already occurred? What should be thought about and what should not be thought about?

Philosophy is half logic not full logic. Go shill this on philosophy boards, I'm sure they'll love tearing it apart.

No, philosophy is full logic. You do not know what you are talking about mate. Philosophy is an attempt to understand the true nature of existence, and the only method for that is logic.

The conclusion is both of these things - to think logically is to no longer think. When this becomes science, it will be known as fact and then we shall all act logically, and die, as one.

This should be thought about up until it is understood, and then it should no longer be thought about. I have understood it, and I have made it possible for all to share my understanding through my advanced grasp of language. Therefore, when it becomes fact, we shall all cease thinking about existence, in this universe anyway.

What do you think about: pleasure, enjoyment, entertainment, the variety of things people do (from racecars, to bird watching, video games, sports, watch making, stamp collecting, fashion, tv shows), generally the nature or fact of freedom/free time and hobby?

What are some big things that occur, that people do, that you think are illogical, or should not occur?

Somehow, I broke my old link. This is the new one:
1drv.ms/w/s!AshN1BJh7gg5lnlU64266llB3IKw

I think that they are done to alleviate boredom, because we are beings of purpose with no greater purpose, we must perpetually fill our time with short term goals simply so that we may persist. Hobbies are a distraction from the unpleasant nature of existence.
There are several big things that occur that are completely illogical - belief in a deity is illogical, global warming is illogical, and existence is illogical. Those are 3 big things.

Dont know if you are actually OP.

So you believe there is an absolute correct way for humans to exist; can you describe some things about that ideal world society? Would people just be semi glorified animals, still progressing science, invention, innovation, but only doing what is absolutely necessary, spending all free time meditating, and/or empty mindedly frowning, and/or simple monk chanting?

Existence is illogical... so your flawless philosophy is that the most logical thing is for every human to kill themselves?

Yes I am.

The only thing we can do from here is attempt to make this understanding of existence available to any other life that is complex enough to make a sustained attempt to understand itself.

Existence is illogical only because we have completely understood what it is, and what it will always be, and it's objectively a negative experience because it's both unfair and pointless to continue.

Therefore, the most logical thing to do is to orchestrate a mass-suicide such that we are able to remove the worst elements of death - pain during death and sorrow for those left behind - and all go together so that no-one ever has to die alone again, and according to logic death in this universe has more meaning than life ever did, so it is the logical choice.

>Philosophy is an attempt to understand the true nature of existence, and the only method for that is logic.

haha

If you disagree, provide another definition or another method. There aren't any.

no you're right, philosophy is an attempt to understand the true nature of existence, except when it isn't. and the only method for understanding the true nature of existence is logic, except when it isn't.

unfalsifiability isn't flawlessness and maybe you should account for other definitions or methods to substantiate your claims instead of just being tricked to follow down a certain path by your own word usage.

3/10 for making me read

Existence is not illogical. It's the need to explain it in words, use the representation that is language, that is lacking.
Shit exists. Things work or they don't. Living organisms do shit they don't try to explain themselves. It's the difference between tell me and show me.
> most logical thing to do is to orchestrate a mass-suicide
No need. Everyone will die, you just have to wait it out. Time is the ultimate destroyer. All the poets complain about it. How there's not enough time. How old age comes in a blink of an eye. It is the source of our sorrows. But guess what? There's a way to outrun it. It's called reproduction to which all living beings do. Reproduction dominates our lives. TV, porn, strip clubs, marriage, all result in children. These children become adults, and have more children in an endless cycle. It is not that we are programmed for reproduction, but that time will eliminate everything else.

"The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence"
If a philosophy is not an attempt to understand the nature of existence, then it is not a philosophy, or it is an incomplete attempt at philosophy.

If you believe there is another method for understanding than logic, DO TELL. Because there isn't one, you cannot come up with one, I cannot come up with one, and that doesn't prove that there isn't one but it does make it perfectly logical to assume there isn't one - you have looked, and not found, therefore it might not be there.

This just isn't true; I have explained it in words. My description of the true nature of existence was determined using flawless logic, and thus it is the objective nature of existence.
I do NOT agree that shit exists - it simply appears to exist. Living organisms only DO shit to survive. We beat survival long ago, therefore we just DO shit. So, since we ONLY do shit, and that shit has no real purpose, the main thing we do is contemplate the idea that we do shit without a purpose, and attempt to understand it. It has never before been understood, so humans have always kept doing shit. Humans clearly would like to understand though, that's what writing and philosophy and science are about. CLEARLY we want to know, we just don't know how to know. I know how, this is how. These are the facts about existence, not my opinions.
Reproduction will not outrun time; death will claim us in the end and it will be a horrible experience for everyone who dies, because death is painful for you and full of sorrow for all those left behind. Reproduction only makes sense in the perpetuation of existence is logical - I am saying it is not.

>google definition

jesus christ you're clearly not a philosopher are you. in any case, you're excluding 'knowledge' and 'reality' from your own definition. no, they're not all the same thing

>I cannot come up with one

because you can't think

> therefore it might not be there.

because you couldn't find it in a quick look at einstein's wikipedia article, descartes most famous assertion, and your google definition of philosophy? yeah real rigorous champ

when you're done with sucking yourself off with how well you can fool yourself into believing your own bullshit, maybe you'll become a little more humble and actually want to engage with philosophy rather than role-play as a philosopher

A google definition is just as accurate as a definition from a dictionary site... The definition of the word is NOT unclear.
I determine knowledge to be useful in understanding and understanding useful in determining action. That is the nature knowledge plays in existence - I did not leave it out.

You sound like a bit of a baby, crying that I disproved your existence.
I don't give a fuck what you think about my mental capacity, the fact of the matter is, if YOU personally cannot come up with another method for thinking, then YOU should assume there is not one; that is logic. Therefore, come up with one yourself, or shut the fuck up you ignorant mongoloid, because currently you are the guy in science who says "nope the earth is flat because fuck what you think, it's always been this way"

Reality, I determine to be a subject's world-view, or in the case of the human reality, the most common elements among the world-views of all the individual humans. Therefore, the human reality is currently whatever we think it is. Therefore, reality means nothing in itself; only objective truth is reliable.

>A google definition is just as accurate as a definition from a dictionary site...

nice, you completely missed my point. and you're still leaving out 'reality', but not that it matters because it has nothing to do with the point.

is that the jump-off point for a foray into logic? a dictionary definition? what a joke

>if YOU personally cannot come up with another method for thinking

no, i have nothing to do with it. and you missed the point where your shallow research into philosophy has made you miss possible other definitions because there is no intellectual rigor to your philosophy. you are just making shit up and you are believing yourself because you haven't done sufficient research to think of your own words critically.

you can't even follow a Veeky Forums post dude.

you're not a thinker.

Yes, the definition of the language involved IS the starting point for a foray into logic you complete fucking idiot hahahaha
I responded above your reply about reality.

You are completely incorrect, if that were true I would have it refuted in person. I have shown my philosophical ideas to the greatest thinkers I know personally, and none of them have been able to say HOW or WHY it is flawed, no matter how hard they have tried, because it isn't.

Humans experience a purely emotional reaction of their survival instinct when someone attempts to disprove them, and then they attempt to logically explain their undeniable feeling that something is wrong.

I have news for you fucko, just because you feel something is wrong is not a good reason that it is wrong. If you cannot show me that it's wrong, I don't think anyone can, and I am going to make this idea Science. If you are confident it's complete nonsense, then you're fine hey...

But if there's a chance it's not nonsense, then that makes you nonsense. And you will die.

This guy is proof that philosophy is running out of ideas.

Nice rebuttal, I adored your use of logic in pointing out the flaws in the things I think.

Oh wait, that's right... you can't, so you decided to give a derisive opinion in the subconscious hope you can dissuade me from spreading my ideas and ending your existence without your explicit choice.

Except you are using words to describe your theory. Words can be wrong. Language is flawed. i.e. a representation. A representation will never be the real thing. A picture of the president is not the actual president. A wax figure of Lincoln is not Lincoln. The word "apple" will not fill an empty stomach. Your theory will never be absolutely correct. You can't know nothing.

Correct, it IS a subjective representation of an objective truth, and that representation could be flawed. I do not believe the objective fact it represents is flawed. If you think my language is unclear, or damages my meaning then tell me and I will make efforts to repair it. If you cannot determine which part of my language is responsible for the misunderstanding, then YOU are probably the part responsible for misunderstanding, not my words.

If you cannot figure out exactly what the problem with something is, MAYBE there isn't one. Not definitely, but maybe.

How can you explain people that get over grief then?

still missing the point! a definition is involved, but you think a dictionary definition is adequate, or that part of your definition is fine just being left unsaid.

>if that were true I would have it refuted in person

unconvincing.

>none of them have been able to say HOW or WHY it is flawed, no matter how hard they have tried, because it isn't.

like i said, it's unfalsifiable. it's lazy.

> If you cannot show me that it's wrong

that's a big if and like i have previously said, what i think is not the point. it's that you're not showing work, you're not adequately defining things, you're not convincingly arguing anything, you are not sufficiently substantiating your claims. you are engaging in sleight of hand rather than philosophy.

yes it is logical to assume that if you haven't found something it might not exist, but again like i said before you haven't really demonstrated that you've actually looked. and from this it is obvious that you do not engage with philosophy, you role-play

i would ask you again to actually keep up with the pace of the conversation but i don't see the point in continuing if you can't understand my position. enjoy your meme philosophy

>Do my work for me.

What is there to do except to die or get over it. What do you mean how do I explain it? Something has to happen.

Actually never mind i misread your post, sorry.

I do think that death is not as bad as you make it out to be (if you're expecting it that is)

No, I have done my work already, that is what I link you to. I challenge you to test it, because I call it fact not theory. If you don't agree, then you must test it to determine your opinion true or false; I cannot test your opinions for you.

Yes, the definition is accurate because language is able to capture meaning effectively. If that were not true, it would not exist.

No... it's not unfalsifiable, it's TRUE. It's objectively logically true, that is WHY you can't make it false. Not because it's impossible to prove a theory wrong, but rather because it is logically flawless - how do you make something false when there are no flaws.
It is as if I say "2 + 2 = 4", you respond with "no", I tell you to prove it isn't so and you tell me that it's not possible to make it false, but that doesn't make it true - that is accurate, it is the logic that makes it true, not the fact that it isn't false. It is also the logic that makes it not false.

If your opinion IS that I am engaging in sleight of hand, then it would be very easy for you to prove it by showing that I actually contradict myself, I have just hidden it cleverly. I don't believe you are capable of demonstrating that, and thus I believe your opinion is just that - unsubstantiated bullshit dribbling out of the mouth of someone who doesn't possess the mental capacity to know when another individual is more intellectually gifted than them so you assert what you think "isn't the point", then shut the fuck up? Clearly you think your opinion is worth something. I disagree. Prove it's worth something by attempting to show your working against mine, or fuck off buddy :)

It is not terrible for you specifically, but grief is pretty terrible and there is no way to know death is coming, really. Hope is pretty much inevitable. You can know that it WILL come, but it is quite difficult to prepare yourself for its actual arrival - I have not heard tales of men who have gone to their graves satisfied with themselves and all that they accomplished. I don't think it happens. The best you can ever hope for is an "oh well, what can you do" response to death. There IS something you can do - you can take control of the phenomenon.

uh no you're wrong and you can't prove me wrong

I can, it's easy. You provide no evidence for your claims - you do not reference how I am wrong, you just say that I am. My evidence that your opinion is wrong, is that you aren't even willing to attempt to provide evidence. I hypothesize this is because you lack the intellectual capabilities to do so.

one of my claims is that you can't read which i clearly demonstrated. given your inability to read it's no wonder you can't find evidence of my claims.

if you could read you'd see that i never even attempted to claim you were wrong. in fact i believe i've said 'yes' more times than i've said 'no'. but my point is not to prove you wrong outright because to do that i'd have to engage in the same kind of sophistry that you are, since that is the only way you can think. my point is that you should avoid this sophistry altogether. this is why i say that what i think isn't the point. i'm calling into question how you think, and your inability to think about how you think

what is logical is not necessarily true

>Evidence is good
Fuck off.

Clearly I can read, as I can write and respond to your inane posts.

You are basically attempting to say that a true answer is impossible, and because it's impossible, something that is logically flawless cannot be it, and asking people to attempt to disprove it is flawed because...?
What is logically flawless IS necessarily true. If a logical thing possesses literally no flaws, then that thing is objective fact regardless of your subjective opinion.

What is COMPLETELY logical IS in fact necessarily true, that's the fucking definition of logic - true or false, you don't get to pick which one you prefer once it tells you your answer.

Yeah uh, stay scientific there buddy :P

Science is the probably the worst philosophy to ever be developed

nice equivocational fallacy there mr logic. yeah i mean you literally can't read at all

>asking people to attempt to disprove it is flawed because...?

nice burden of proof mr logic

> that thing is objective fact regardless of your subjective opinion.

what? all snarks are green, gorbo is a snark, therefor gorbo is green

gorbo being green is OBJECTIVE FACT despite that snarks don't actually exist and there's no actual way to empirically prove that gorbo is green

I am not interested in your nonsense arguments attempting to attack my character. I don't care what you think about how I think, I don't care what you think of me. I want to know what you think of my ideas. If you cannot say they are wrong because X and Y, then they are not wrong no matter how many trivial attempts you may make to attack my ideas by attacking my character. If my method of determining my ideas is wrong, demonstrate that to be true, or just stop talking about it, because you are wasting your time - I will not agree until it is proven to me.

e x p o s e d

keep chasing those green snarks my mediocre friend

>proof exists
top kek

That is not proof, it's nonsense, but since you are as dumb as he is, I will explain for you.

Obviously I knew you were using hyperbole, but you are attempting to attack my character because you don't have the capabilities to attack my idea. If you use hyperbole that is too extreme, it's perfectly valid for people to point it out to you, so I did.

I do not need to prove it any further; my ideas are proof of themselves. The proof of my ideas is logic; they ARE logical. I am asking you to test they are logical for me, because I have ALREADY done so, and I think they are. Clearly, you do not.

I am not passing a burden of proof away from the origin, I have PROVEN it. I am attempting to show my proof to others, and you are attempting to say I haven't proven it. Look at the document again, proof is exactly what it is.

That argument isn't parallel to mine, you are attempting to put nonsense next to complicated theory and then asserting them to both be nonsense. I think maybe you think it true as well, since you seem to lack the intelligence to even attempt to understand on a fundamental level - all you seem able to do is defend your current state, existence.

I'm not him.

Proof doesn't exist, logic is only promoted for ideological reasons.

No one cares about your dogma, kiddo.

>complicated theory

I know you're not him but as you replied to my reply to him, clearly you were commenting on our conversation.

Prove with any method that a proof is impossible...
Oh wait, that premise is a contradiction, fucking moron.

Logic does not contradict itself. If you think that logic cannot find answers, then you don't understand logic. Clearly that is true, since you think "proof doesn't exist" is a reasonable thing to say - how could one EVER substantiate a claim that negates its own possibility of being true.

>it's a contradiction, so im le right xddddDDDD

>its CLEAR that logic is true because le LOGIC IS LE LOGICAL XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD]

If you demonstrate that another person contradicts their own argument during said argument, that does not necessarily make you right, but it instantly makes the other person wrong.

>it makes the other person wrong because le logic xddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd its OBVIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It literally is... are you an idiot? Logic makes sense, you do not. I realize that you don't like that logic makes sense and you don't, so you probably try to live in a world where you make perfect sense but everything else doesn't. Good luck with that.

>A sound premise and sound reasoning leads to a sound conclusion.

What is a 'sound premise' or 'sound reasoning'? These ideas don't exist in formal logic. An argument can be sound, but a premise or reasoning can't. A premise can be true and the logic can be valid resulting in a sound argument. A sound premise and reasoning doesn't make sense.

>Thus, a premise without reasoning to support it can have no valid conclusion.

There is no logical connection between this step and the first.

>There is currently no empirical or logical evidence of a god or a purpose, therefore logically we should assume neither exist until new information presents itself.

Not necessarily true. The Bible can be read as a logically coherent document.

>My existence consists of attempting to understand my experience.
>The method for understanding is questioning - thus my experience consists of questioning.

Perhaps you mean 'thus my existence consists of questioning' rather than 'experience'. Otherwise you are saying that your existence consists of questioning your questioning, which is not implied by the Descartes quote.

And that assumes that the method for understanding is actually questioning. One can understand something without question.

This is far from being a flawless philosophy.

>it makes sense
>LOGIC IS RIGHT BECAUSE LE LOGIC XDDDD
Are you fucking stupid?

Holy shit rationalists are delusional.

A premise can be sound rather than true if there is no empirical evidence available on the subject - therefore, logic can make a premise sound, but not true.

Incorrect, the logical step is the inference of the reverse of the rule mentioned: If correct + correct = correct, then incorrect + correct = incorrect OR correct + incorrect = incorrect. This is logical, and it follows deductively from the first step.

No, it cannot, because there is a logical flaw in the premise - it assumes the existence of a god without flawlessly proving that logic.

I experience whatever my existence consists of; therefore if my existence consists of attempting to understand, then that is my experience.
Since my experience is attempting to understand, there is only one method for that - to question. If you believe there is an alternative method for understanding, please, enlighten the whole scientific fucking world...

Detail the delusion in trusting in logic? Give one example of a situation where the correct application of logic on ALL of the relevant information produces an incorrect result - there is NOT an example of this.

>science is right because it obviously is
Stop trolling.

Logic doesn't exist, so all applications are inherently wrong.
>incorrect result
Meaningless statement
>presupposing pragmatism
Very logical.

I am saying science is wrong, but the method of science is correct.
Unless you have an alternative superior method, you are currently not allowed to say there is a better one - you are lying, because you do not know it to be true. You simply suspect it might be.

Where is the proof of logic's nonexistence? If you can prove that premise is logical I will accept your argument. I have proven logic exists no matter what, you have not proven it doesn't.

>but the method of science is correct.
becuz i sed so
>Unless you have an alternative superior method,
More presuppositions of pragmatism.
>truth exists
Goodness, you are lazy.
>logic exists cuz i sed so
Not an argument.

You don't even know how logic works, you're just a dogmatist.

Literally, this thread is just full of idiots right now saying "but logic isn't everything..."

Okay?? hahahaha
If you believe that, fine. But if you are unable to prove it, and you will always be unable because you suppose proof does not exist by asserting that logic isn't correct, keep your beliefs to yourself, because no-one who IS logical gives a fuck about your supposition that it might not be. Cool story bro, that's accurate, it might not be, but it seems to be, so we should assume it is until we discover it isn't.

Not because I said so, because there is empirical evidence to that effect. Science thinks the method of science is the most effective method of discovering the truth, and we haven't made many changes to the method of science recently. If you think there are any fundamental changes left to be made to improve science, go make them yourself, but don't try to tell me science is wrong about its method simply because it might be possible.

>bro do my thing becuz i sed so
>more presuppositions of pragmatism
>empirical evidence
Not an argument
>more presuppositions of pragmatism
Go read more, you intellectual deadweight.

I used the processes of logic to prove that even when nothing exists, logic exists, therefore logic always exists. If you do not believe that is proof, demonstrate with my methods that it isn't proof.
None of these things are true because I said so. I am saying them, because they are true, and I believe them true because they are thoroughly supported by the evidence available.

If you argue not pragmatism, what is your argument? Lmao...

Truth exists, because I have proven it does, not because I say so. If I was lazy, would I have written 6 thousand words on a subject I was not required to? Would I be bothering to debate my ideas with people who clearly don't even understand the BASIC processes of reasoning?

Pragmatism is the method that is the most logical, that is WHY it is exercised by science. If you think there is a superior method, either reference it or stop saying Pragmatism isn't the sensible method to use.

>logic exists because logic exists
>use my proof to prove there is no proof
No argument, just nonsayings.

>logic is good because i said logic is good
Rationalism is an invalid philosophy, you know this right?

>logic is right because logic is right because logic is right because logic is right because logic is right...

No, logic exists because that it must, because data exists.
Data exists because it is its nature to exist, no matter what.

Rationalism is invalid how exactly? It is a combination of Rationalism and Empiricism that I employ, however because the question being addressed cannot have empirical evidence, I must employ only logic.

All previous philosophies are flawed, that's why we are still thinking about it. I have pointed out the flaws in a few of them at the bottom of my document.

Actually, almost. Logic is right because logic is right because logic exists because data exists, is more accurate.

>it must
>data exists
>data exists because it must
No argument here.
>data must exist because logic says so and logic must exist because logic says so, et cetera
Rationalism and Empiricism are both self-contradictory and circular.

Go troll somewhere where people don't actually understand how logic structures work.

No, they appear contradictory but are not. Moderate rationalism merely asserts that logic is superior to other forms of acquiring knowledge, it does not say empirical knowledge is not correct. Empiricism conflicts with Rationalism because that is exactly what it says - that empirical evidence is primary and everything else is secondary.

They are not self-contradictory, or circular. If you think that is true, demonstrate it to be.
They are flawed, because they do not account for all possibilities, but if you honestly think you can demonstrate that they are logically inconsistent with logic, then please, do so. I await your divine intellectual gifts of understanding, because clearly you think you understand better than most of the thinkers in history - so let's hear YOUR thoughts on exactly, and precisely where and how these philosophies are circular and self-contradictory?

Soundness relies on truth to be sound. At some point in determining a 'sound premise' there has to be one thing that is true. But I see that is beside the point and even though you are trying to explain formal logic you can get rid of step 1 entirely and it would not change anything.

>No, it cannot, because there is a logical flaw in the premise - it assumes the existence of a god without flawlessly proving that logic.

You might want to demonstrate this. If someone else has, use that argument.

>therefore if my existence consists of attempting to understand, then that is my experience.

Yes that is why I say you used the word 'experience' rather than 'existence'. But your existence also consists of action, as does your experience.

>If you believe there is an alternative method for understanding

Method? Like I said, one can understand something without question, without a method. Maybe you have some personal definition of 'understanding' or 'questioning' but that is better to be included in the document.

Yes, the truth it is relying on is that logic is consistent.

I did demonstrate that, it is contained in my step 8. I conclusively prove using logic that data IS, which is what the religious say - god IS. Well, I have proof, they do not.

Your existence and experience only result in action because of the attempt to understand - if that did not occur, neither would action. Therefore I am not defining everything that existence or experience entails, only the most basic part that it would be impossible without.

Give an example of an understanding that is arrived at without methodology of any kind, because I do not agree that's possible. To attempt to understand you must question something, even if you do not ask the questions aloud.

>Yes, the truth it is relying on is that logic is consistent.

Didn't you just say logic can make something sound but not true?

>I did demonstrate that, it is contained in my step 8

It should be demonstrated before you reach your conclusion then.

> Therefore I am not defining everything that existence or experience entails, only the most basic part that it would be impossible without.

Then you misuse the word 'consists'.

>To attempt to understand you must question something, even if you do not ask the questions aloud.

Language? Music? Unless you imply there is a 'questioning' within the microseconds of hearing information and the next word giving you more information on which to frame the first.

In this case you should explain what you mean by questioning as not to fall into equivocation.

Logic does not rely on logic to be consistent, it relies on the empirical evidence of the observation of logic. Logic has always been observed to be completely consistent, in every situation ever recorded. If an incorrect answer is arrived at, the processes of logic were used incorrectly, otherwise, a correct answer is produced. This has been consistently true for all of known history, therefore I use that empirical evidence and call it a truth or fact according to the evidence.

It is demonstrated before I read my conclusion... Maybe you didn't read the entire document carefully enough? Or maybe you thought a conclusion of a section or a proof was the complete theory... All the information is there.

I suppose that is true, what language would you suggest instead?

You understand language by questioning it in a complicated subconscious way - If this were not true, it would not be possible for you to realise what someone had said later on. Simply because you are not conscious of the process occurring in your attempt to understand does not indicate no method is being applied. Music is a recognition of pattern; there is no understanding involved unless a person is asking: "What specifics of music", in which case they ask What, at which point they are able to determine the individual components the music can be broken down into.

By 'question' I refer to the process of understanding by attempting to collect a predefined set of types of information. I think there are only 6 basic types of information: Who information, What information, Where information, When information, How information and Why information. If this is true, then these same types are being used subconsciously during all conscious attempts to understand simple information. If you think there are more than six types, enlighten me. If you do not, then I have described the method of understanding.

Why does, what causes, your system to value logic at all?

You say, logic tells us to do x

I am asking, who tells us to listen to logic, and why should/would we want to/have to?

What is wrong with being illogical?

What does it, would it, mean for logic to equal right?

How do we know that? What does right mean, or matter?

I think I value it because I have no choice.
I think, and the only method I have ever been able to determine for thinking is logic. Therefore, if I wish to continue to think, it makes sense to employ logic to make that thinking more effective.

You and I tell ourselves to listen to logic; when someone points out you are being illogical, and you agree, you stop your behaviour, or you are addicted in some way.

Logic says that being illogical is incorrect. That is what is wrong with it, it is provably incorrect.

That logic is correct symbolizes a meaning objective to your subjective experience. It demonstrates that although the world around you is NOT real and objective as we have always thought, you CAN objectively understand it as we have always tried.

Correct matters because it helps us to live. If you didn't do the things that were logical, and correct, you would have a difficult time continuing to exist period.

If you are able to suggest a method for continuing to think apart from logic, then I accept that logic may not necessarily matter.

I cannot, and therefore I conclude it MUST matter. I believe that is not my subjective experience, but the way that it objectively is for all of us.

One of my favourite responses to the question: Why does logic matter? or What is wrong with being illogical? is this:

Logic is consistency.
Life requires action.
If your actions relative to a task are inconsistent each time, you are bad at the task. Therefore, consistency is the property that enables excellence.
Thus, to be excellent at thinking your thinking must be consistent with itself, rather than consistent with your emotions.

>This has been consistently true for all of known history, therefore I use that empirical evidence and call it a truth or fact according to the evidence.

How is it then that logic can make something sound but not true? Soundness strictly relies on a truth to make something sound. One cannot conclude that, because logic is demonstrably consistent that all logical arguments are therefore true. Or that, at least, the 'truth' referenced in this argument applies to the same 'truth' required by a sound argument, which would be a fallacy.

>It is demonstrated before I read my conclusion

No, your conclusion is step 3 and you're talking about step 8. 3 comes before 8.

>Maybe you didn't read the entire document carefully enough?

I've barely got through the first few pages of the document because I'm already running into problems.

>I suppose that is true, what language would you suggest instead?

No idea, but this is only a symptom of a greater problem in the work -- it's just not very clear because the words are misleading. Maybe there is something here, I don't know, because I am not given any working definitions of terms.

>You understand language by questioning it in a complicated subconscious way

Not in a methodical way, which is how you use the term 'questioning'. And there is certainly an understanding when listening to music, or else it would seem incomprehensible.

>If you think there are more than six types, enlighten me. If you do not, then I have described the method of understanding.

Shouldn't you be asking if I think of 'questioning' in a different way rather than if I can name another type of information? What a strange conclusion.

>being used subconsciously during all conscious attempts

Hmm.

>Life requires action.

Other way around. Not sure that plants can be described as taking action.

Would it be more intelligent/logical for instead of everyone killing themselves, for everyone to just think logical?

and can you give me some examples, like day in the life of thought process of perfect logical thought?

Wake up: "I am awake, bpdy, rise"
get out of bed
walk out of room: "walk, walk, body imply walking for time x"
look out window:
enter kitchen: "hunger is detected"
decide what want for breakfast: "cereal or eggs, which is the more logical choice.... hmmm... is the activity of, hmmmm, logical?"

Or most logical, is absolutely no thoughts, only actions? Or absolutely know questions, only pure knowing, pure doing, ?

>Correct matters because it helps us to live.

But you suggest the most logical is asap death?

The truth of logic's consistency is proven by empirical evidence. Therefore, logic is consistent. That does not mean something which appears logical is necessarily true, but the logical deduction off the information that logic is consistent IS that complete and flawless logic which addresses all the relevant information IS consistently true and accurate, unless evidence is presented that logic is not consistent with logical principles.

No. I am able to assert there is no god or purpose because it is a FACT that there is no logical or empirical evidence on the existence of either. I don't need to give evidence of my explanation for what IS in Step 3, I only need to point out that their explanation has no supporting evidence that would be considered sufficient.

That is probably a problem on your end related to interpretation, but I acknowledge that a definition list at the start of the document could aid understanding and so I will endeavour to create one. I think my words are INCREDIBLY clear - the issue is not with my words but with the complexities and subtle differences in some of the concepts that I discuss.

Just because you are not conscious does not mean you do not apply a method. Your brain IS applying a method, or you would not know there was information at all.

Do you use questioning in a different way? I assert that questioning SHOULD be identical for all who attempt to understand, for there is no logical reason for a difference except that an individual misunderstands what understanding entails.

Sorry I mispoke - conscious, aware life.

Yes, but they are not mutually exclusive - to attempt to think in a truly logical way will inevitably result in your decision to act upon death as the logical conclusion of life, now and forever.

There are no every-day examples except a dedicated attempt to understand using logic. That is the most logical thing you CAN do, and once understanding has been achieved, the most logical thing to do is cease attempting to understand.

Correct. It is an undeniable fact that being correct helps us live, so we may not live unless we attempt to be correct. Therefore, to live is to attempt to be smart enough to die, or to die accidentally along the way.

The first reply in is for you

>to attempt to think in a truly logical way will inevitably result in your decision to act upon death

how/why do you figure this?

Is it because you want to die of boredom, repetition?

The logic we have to experience is too simple?

You say: logic is correct. logic is required to exist. Using logic correctly equals death.

How can logic support life, but equal death/

If logic is necessary and correct for life, why would it not be logical to use logic to support life, it is known death comes anyway (would it be logical to seek immortality?)

why not use logic, to become logic, to extend the experience of logic, because logic is correct, and it is logical to desire to experience correctness?

What does the word value mean to you?

You do not think anything is cool or interesting or good or valuable or enjoyable or special or impressive about life and its potentials?

Is this philosophy more based on your experience as yourself, with not enjoying your existence, rather than your knowledge of how others should perceive themselves and their potential?

If you hypothetically were a mortal spirit next to another in the spirit world, and you were asked "either you cease existing now and forever, or you can exist as a human on Earth" you would rather not and never exist, than ever have the opportunity to potentially experience something beyond nothing?

I want to go back to this again:
>A premise can be sound rather than true if there is no empirical evidence available on the subject - therefore, logic can make a premise sound, but not true.

This is false. By definition a sound conclusion requires a true premises. The way you are talking now suggests that is something is logically valid it is therefor true, and can then be the basis of a truthful premise in order to establish a sound argument. This makes no sense. You shouldn't need to explain formal logic as the first step in your work, and if you do you can't misuse terms like soundness, truth, and validity.

> I don't need to give evidence of my explanation for what IS in Step 3, I only need to point out that their explanation has no supporting evidence that would be considered sufficient.

You're not pointing out anything though you're just saying something that has not been demonstrated. You have to give someone a reason to believe you if it is a crucial step in the flow of your logic. It's certainly not as clear a certainty as 'logic is consistent' which I have no trouble accepting.

>I think my words are INCREDIBLY clear

I would think after conflating existence and experience you wouldn't be as confident in the clarity of your work.

>Just because you are not conscious does not mean you do not apply a method.

I think you would struggle to find any definition of 'method' that does not require conscious thought. In any case your assertion is far from being observable fact. You would have to at least acknowledge Phenomenology in some way if you were to provide a working definition of questioning, understanding, etc. Sure, the process of questioning is probably the same in everyone, but to say that your model is accurate even though it describes an unconscious process that no one knows but you do because you've worked it out with logic (even though your idea is that thought is illogical, so too then shouldn't unconscious understanding?) does not make a convincing argument.

Also what about the question of whether something exists or not? Not why, or how, but whether.

No, this is sound reasoning. The idea is that a premise can be SOUND but not necessarily TRUE if the premise is consistent with the principles of logic. The thing that makes it inherently TRUE that the premise is sound is that logic is consistent. That is TRUE, because it can be empirically proven. Logic is accurate and consistent and thus a premise which is consistent with logic can be considered sound and merits an argument built from it regardless of whether or not it is inherently true as long as it is not demonstrated that the premise is false. A premise is defined as a hypothetically true thing from which an argument for a conclusion is built; naturally it predicates on the TRUTH of the premise however the truth of this premise is impossible to determine according to the consistent method of logic due to the inherent impossibility of acquiring empirical evidence on the subject of whether or not this existence is objective and physical. Therefore, we must rely on the logical evidence provided if that evidence is indeed consistent with logic in every way imaginable, and thus the objectively logical conclusion with respect to all information possible.

I am saying something that is easily demonstrable; I am defining for the reader that logic easily determines with all available logical and empirical evidence that the logical assumption is that there is neither a god nor a purpose until sufficient evidence is presented. I am not doing anything which requires proving; they are. I am simply pointing out that if you think god exists, stop now because you clearly aren't using logic correct. It makes people who don't get science stop there instead of wasting everyone's time, or they comprehend the truth and continue on the path of enlightenment.

I don't believe that mistakes indicate a tendency for flawed representation of meaning through language; rather I've always known my ability to communicate to be one of my most valuable assets in this world and have had my excellent communication skills affirmed by peers and educators alike. I am easy to understand - easier than most.

Sorry, that last quote I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was this: "Just because you are not conscious of the method being applied does not mean you do not apply a method subconsciously."

Two things objectively exist, data and logic.

>it isn't because logic is logical xdddd
You're fucking illiterate, by the way.

SAYING LOGIC IS LOGICAL SO LOGIC IS RIGHT BECAUSE LOGIC IS LOGICAL AND EMPIRICISM IS CORRECT BECAUSE LOGIC IS LOGICAL SO EMPIRICISM PROVES LOGIC IS LOGICAL
is contradictory.

Intellectual deadweight.
EMPIRICISM PRESUPPOSES LOGIC
SO LOGIC IS LOGICAL SOLELY BY THE MEANS THAT LOGIC IS LOGICAL

NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS DO NOT HAVE ANY CREDIBILITY.
>They objectively exist becuz i sed so and totally aren't presuppositions

I have demonstrated it to be true. If the basic part of existence is about understanding, then when understanding is proven to be complete, existence ends as a result of the logicality of that conclusion.
No, this has nothing to do with subjective experience. Read my FAQ linked at the bottom of my document. This is objective application of consistent logic.

Huh? Too simple?

What you are describing is that something seems illogical. That does not necessarily indicate that it is illogical; I assert that if you follow the logic methodically from start to finish, the only conclusion possible is that thinking is illogical now that understanding has been reached. Even though I agree it SEEMS illogical when you do not understand it, that does not necessarily mean that is true.
Logic supports life because it is the method for the active maintenance of conscious life.
No... It would not be logical to do any of these things. If you think it would be, demonstrate that to be so - I have demonstrated the objective conclusion of logic is to die. If you disagree you need to demonstrate a more advanced answer than mine or demonstrate a flaw in mine.

Of course I do, I love it, it's sick and awesome but that doesn't necessarily make it RIGHT or SENSIBLE.

No, it is not based on my subjective experience as I said in my above comment.
My FAQ: 1drv.ms/w/s!AshN1BJh7gg5lnRXvcV663VHR1Ot

Correct, as long as I understand what this existence was: attempting to understand this existence. Because then existence here is pointless from the start.