Exam question

Reply to Robert Lockhart They actually ask such exam questions? My God... What has the world come to!

The question was subsequently withdrawn - apparantly because it was considered the hypothesis it involved would be more fitted to forming the basis of a PHD thesis. It could be summarised as, 'The Human Condition is a logical entity. - So what?' Though initially perhaps seeming excessively abstract, it is still considered to have some merit.

What in hell does it mean for the human condition to be a logical entity?

Reply to Robert Lockhart

I am starting the wonder what the value is of formal education.

Marchesk - That everything comprising it would descend exclusively from logical causes - as opposed to being characterised by the intervention of, for example, a Devine Will that could have the intention of ordaining it with a nature other than the nihilism that might conceivably characterise it were the hypothesis proposed for the basis of its' nature in the question actually to be the case.

Quoting Marchesk

What in hell does it mean for the human condition to be a logical entity?

This. Sounds like utter balderdash.

Also, re the exam question, "Develop to its conclusion" doesn't make any sense in context, and neither does "descending consequences."

Quoting Robert Lockhart

That everything comprising it would descend exclusively from logical causes -

Logical causes?? What the hell sort of logic are you supposed to be doing? Is this some kind of wacky pomo course?

Quoting Robert Lockhart

a Devine Will that could have the intention of ordaining it with a nature other than the nihilism that might conceivably characterise it were the hypothesis proposed for the basis of its' nature in the question actually to be the case.

Not enough prepositional phrases. Add 3 or 4x as many.

Not quite sure what your problem with that is. Atheists propose everything defining our human situation descends from logical causes, in which case then our situation would constitute a logical entity - like all mathematical phenomena logically descend from some hypothetical first principles and thus the body of Mathematics constitutes a logical entity. The idea of the question is simply to devellop the hypothesis that our situation exclusively descends from logical causes and then to consider whether such a putative reality might in principle entail any differences which would be irreconcilable with a situation the nature of which was characterised by the morality of a Devine Will.

Logic is concerned with the relationship between sentences. To talk about logical causes is to commit a category error. And to claim that such things are described by science is just wrong.

The human condition is partly characterized by hypocrisy, irrational beliefs, and misapplied logic. How could something alogical be a logical entity?

Quoting Robert Lockhart

Atheists propose everything defining our human situation descends from logical causes,

I'm an atheist. I don't say that anything "defining our human situation" stems from "logical causes" (and I certainly do not say that it "descends from logical causes"), PLUS, no one in philosophy that I'm aware of says that. That doesn't necessarily mean that no one uses this terminology, but it would be extremely idiosyncratic, which makes me believe that this was not at all an exam question, unless it's some sort of weird course where a professor is quizzing you on his/her idiosyncratic terminology and views.

As an atheist and as someone who rejects supernatural or "transcendent" phenomena in general, I would say that everything about our situation as humans--and everything's situation as everything--is due to natural causes (well, at least insofar as we're talking about causal phenomena), but that's different than saying that it's due to logical causes.

Calling humans a 'logical entity' is probably an oxymoron. ;)

Quoting Robert Lockhart

he idea of the question is simply to devellop the hypothesis that our situation exclusively descends from logical causes and then to consider whether such a putative reality might in principle entail any differences which would be irreconcilable with a situation the nature of which was characterised by the morality of a Devine Will.

You'd at least have to define what the 'divine will' was.

Quoting Terrapin Station

Is this some kind of wacky pomo course?

Yeah I thought the same, the "ingredients" seem to be there: e.g. an all-encompassing assertion, a lack of argument, the misuse of scientific terminology, and some wilfully constructed absurdity or conundrum in order to make the whole thing appear deep or advanced. The medieval dark ages were probably brighter and intellectually more honest and prosperous.

Maybe it’s the necessarily abstract nature of this argument that provokes antipathy towards it in some. Anyway - with regard to the proposition previously advanced - it has been postulated that, were every factor constituting our situation descended from logical causes exclusively, then, in that the consequence of this would be that every degree of austerity or benigness characterising our experience possible in the logical abstract would thus in principle be manifestable, so the condition of human beings existing in such a situation could in principle exhibit an absolute inequity, rendering from the isolated position of those happening to be absolutely unfortunate a situation perhaps incomprehensible in terms of a legitimatly requirable capacity for comprehension.
It is argued then, in that the concept of justifiably requiring acceptance of a situation outwith the requisite evidence for acceptability would, again in principle, constitute a contradiction in terms, thus such a situation logically would be irreconcilable with the concept of a Creator God.
This idea of expanding on the hypothesis that the Human Condition is a, ‘logical entity’ – in the absence of a logical proof the proposition must remain a hypothesis – is then hopefully to specify more thoroughly what the nature of such a situation in the abstract logically would be, thus permitting a comparison with the reality which human beings do in practice experience and so in turn perhaps advancing a means of substantiating, other than by the usual scientific (and perhaps less apposite) arguments, a verdict on the question of the reconcilability or otherwise of our situation with the concept of a Creator God.

Quoting Robert Lockhart

with regard to the proposition previously advanced - it has been postulated that, were every factor constituting our situation descended from logical causes exclusively, then, in that the consequence of this would be that every degree of austerity or benigness characterising our experience possible in the logical abstract would thus in principle be manifestable, so the condition of human beings existing in such a situation could in principle exhibit an absolute inequity, rendering from the isolated position of those happening to be absolutely unfortunate a situation perhaps incomprehensible in terms of a legitimatly requirable capacity for comprehension.

That sentence literally made me laugh out loud. I'd nominate you for this (if you had published the above), although they don't seem to still be running it: http://www.denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm

I'll check the site when I've got time! - Hopefully not too denigrating! (Though I guess, one way or another, it likely rather will be and, yes - writing on my phone while on the train doesn't admit of editing sentences to reduce the number of clauses contained. Strictly grammatically ok though.) Anyway, though obviously in your opinion poorly expressed, I'd still say the argument has validity - more in fact than I think you are ever likely to suspect! Merry Xmas! :)

The only reference I can find to 'logical entity' is in a javascript programming tutorial. Otherwise, an entity is a thing that actually exists, and logic as far as I know makes no existential demands.

"Logical entities always evaluate as a Boolean result."

(from here.)

Well the human condition is alive or dead - I guess that's fairly boolean.

Therefore, adhering to the principles of logical deduction, I develop the conclusion in terms of descending consequences that the question is a pile of dingos' unmentionables.

It would probably be necessary to frame the question in the context of the class in order to understand the answer it is looking for, but it reminds me of Descartes' conclusion "I think therefore I am", than proceeding from that point in a logical fashion.

Best interpretation I can think of is that the human condition is the entity, and it is being described as logical -- but not logical in the sense of formal logic or deductive inference, but rather logical in the wider sense that it is something which can be understood by way of reasoning.

Quoting Moliere

. . not logical in the sense of formal logic or deductive inference, but rather logical in the wider sense that it is something which can be understood by way of reasoning.

What is there to understand, by way of reasoning, in the many unreasonable injustices which partly characterize the human condition?

Reply to jkop I don't know. I was just trying to give the best interp of question that I could. I'm not even sure if I'm right, it was just the only thing that made sense to me.

Reply to Moliere
I think I agree.
Or at least I could not make sense of it otherwise.

To me it is something akin to...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_animal

Quoting Moliere

but not logical in the sense of formal logic or deductive inference, but rather logical in the wider sense that it is something which can be understood by way of reasoning.

One problem though is that he used the phrase "logical deduction." It's kind of difficult to make a case that he wasn't referring to logic in the sense of deductive inference when he uses the phrase "logical deduction." I think we can easily go overboard with the principle of charity. Some folks just don't communicate well, or they don't know what the fnck they're talking about, or they're incoherent, etc.

As an aside, I never liked the formal/informal distinction with respect to logic. I don't think that the idea of an informal logic, in the sense of a logic that doesn't have to do with form (or relationships of propositions etc.), makes any sense. Symbolic/non-symbolic, or logical language/natural language or variable/non-variable, or something like that would be a better distinction in my opinion.

Anyway, not as an aside, the upshot of this is that there's not really an informal, significantly different sort of logic (in any broad sense) to refer to.

Quoting Terrapin Station

I think we can easily go overboard with the principle of charity.

I wouldn't go that far, but I think it is a principle that applies to peer to peer communication, and very definitely not to exam questions.

Some of you guys seem to be admirably informed on the subject of ‘Logic’ - on that at any rate - as it constitutes a technical discipline developed initially wiithin the general subject of philosophy by the likes of Aristotle et al (or so I'm given to understand) in their study of the roll of syllogisms, categories, etc. as these pertain to the principles of justified reasoning. So - perhaps naive of me then to expect such a cognoscenti to indulge the less esoteric use of the term, 'logical' as it was employed by me in the posts I previously submitted in this thread - even though that more general sense of the word was I think sufficiently rigorous for the purpose of the proposition being advanced!
Anyway that being admitted - and hopefully without our exchanges becoming unduly limited by rather arid technical exceptions - surely the irreducible script concerning the proposition previously put is this:
Given the validity of the assumption that everything must have a cause, then the two competing accounts in terms of human understanding for the origin of the nature of our Human Condition are either that it was consciously ordained or that it is unconsciously descended - in a cause and effect manner - from unknown first principles.

Hypothesising then that the latter is the case, the argument is that this cause would result in a reality characterised in principle by nihilism (in the manner briefly aluded to previously) and so in a situation irreconcilable with - and thus distinguishable from - a situation the acceptance of which on our part a Creator God could justifiably require. (The roll of the ‘apologia’ of 'Religious Faith' in this context as a means of reconciling such a predicament would also require be discredited.)

NB. As to the remarks regarding the credibility of the phrase, 'logical entity', an entity needn't be a physical thing. An idea may be an entity. - Any closed system all of the elements of which are consistently interrelated thereby constitutes a logical entity.

Quoting Terrapin Station

One problem though is that he used the phrase "logical deduction." It's kind of difficult to make a case that he wasn't referring to logic in the sense of deductive inference when he uses the phrase "logical deduction."

Good point. I was just giving it a go, I suppose.

I think we can easily go overboard with the principle of charity.

:D

I think I agree with un when he says it doesn't apply with exam questions. At least, not as much.

I'll note I'm quite the fan of the principle, though. Perhaps even to my own detriment.

As an aside, I never liked the formal/informal distinction with respect to logic. I don't think that the idea of an informal logic, in the sense of a logic that doesn't have to do with form (or relationships of propositions etc.), makes any sense. Symbolic/non-symbolic, or logical language/natural language or variable/non-variable, or something like that would be a better distinction in my opinion.

Have you had the chance to read Finocchiaro? I think he does justice to informal logic. Maybe just a preference of ways of expressing the same thing, but it seems to me that his approach warrants the "informal" approach (in that he studies logic, but it is not the study of logicians but is rather the study of people using reasoning in historical contexts -- in particular he focuses on Gramsci and Galileo a lot)

Anyway, not as an aside, the upshot of this is that there's not really an informal, significantly different sort of logic (in any broad sense) to refer to.

Perhaps a bit off the point from the initial question, but it looks like we've tripped across another topic to discuss in another thread. :) Not sure i even disagree here, but it does seem to go pretty far astray from the OP.

Quoting Moliere

Have you had the chance to read Finocchiaro?

I don't believe I've ever read anything by him, no. I'll try to check some out.

Applied logic made more sense to me than symbolic, but they're both formal. Informal logic seems to be a controversial term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_logic

- As with many, experience has retrospectively enabled me to realise that when young I was indefensibly maltreated and sadly deprived (to my obvious detriment in this thread) of the advantages typically afforded other men - like for example being given the leisure and opportunity to study formal logic! - no doubt on account of my being cruelly forced, at the expense of having no pocket-money otherwise, to maintain a 'paper-round'! :)

Terrapin Station: Your recent post in this thread - I've only just noticed it - that as an atheist you don't think our situation could in principle be described as logicaly descended from some unknown primal cause but that nonetheless you simultaineously do think it might result from 'natural causes' : This enigmatic view strikes me as a particular example of impenetrable confusion - unless that is, alone among men, you are aware of a species of relation existing between phenomena unrelated to 'cause-and-effect'. (Love to be informed on this super-human insight). Talk about ilogical and, 'laughing out loud'? Well - "'tis the season to be merry" and - your attempts at point-scoring have certainly succeeded in creating some mirth! Once again - Merry Xmas! :)