What is the opposite of logic?

Sex magic.
 
Kmal said:
There is no logical reason to have faith? How about a logical reason to not have faith? Logical/ rational, address both if you'd like.
Click to expand...

Faith is the assumption that something is true despite there being no evidence whatsoever for it or even a logical probability. If you have "faith" in something you are taking a gamble because there is no evidence or proof, not even a high probability that's its true. Empirical thinking is based on theories, true, which is guess work, however the aim is always to DISPROVE the theory, and if it cannot be disproved then that indirectly proves it's truth and thus evidence can be accumulated for why it is true. So faith opposes everything that logic stands for, because it asks someone to believe something despite the fact that it may make no sense and have no evidence/basis whatsoever. Hope is also in the same vein of faith in that sense; because hope is often less based on probability than it is based on the WISH that something would happen and a strong emotion. Just because I hope gravity doesn't exist doesn't mean that one day gravity won't exist because I hoped hard enough. Likewise, just because I have faith that the sky is blue, does not mean the sky is blue BECAUSE I have faith. There's a logical explanation for why the sky is blue and if I had faith that it was green it wouldn't change the fact that in fact, it is blue.
 
slant said:
Faith is the assumption that something is true despite there being no evidence whatsoever for it or even a logical probability. If you have "faith" in something you are taking a gamble because there is no evidence or proof, not even a high probability that's its true. Empirical thinking is based on theories, true, which is guess work, however the aim is always to DISPROVE the theory, and if it cannot be disproved then that indirectly proves it's truth and thus evidence can be accumulated for why it is true. So faith opposes everything that logic stands for, because it asks someone to believe something despite the fact that it may make no sense and have no evidence/basis whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Consider faith as also confidence or trust, faith does not only mean one thing. If you were to not trust in logic, then what would it be? If you were to not trust in science, then what use would it have? You've built confidence on its operation- you saw and were convinced. There are unseen things that can be felt, like emotions, abstract ideas before implementation, and you can have confidence in them too.
 
But the key difference is this: I KNOW logic and empirical method to be true because of concrete evidence.
People who have faith BELIEVE something to be true....with nothing to support it but emotions.
 
slant said:
But the key difference is this: I KNOW logic and empirical method to be true because of concrete evidence.
People who have faith BELIEVE something to be true....with nothing to support it but emotions.
Click to expand...
My emotions are real to me, but I cant feel what others feel. Just because someone says "you feel good, and accepting of others today" doesnt mean you are; but if you truly feel good and accepting of others, then you dont believe it your self?
 
Logic is to make sense as
Deception is to not make sense?
Something may be off
 
Last edited:
Interesting topic:

Just to add
By using logic you can deny Logic at its core, simply when you think about what knowledge means, because Logic is based on knowledge.
 
Logic is, imho, like 'shapes'. 'colors'.

A type of form, if we're talking about meta-attributes.

So not emotions, not fallacy, not religion, not irrationality, not conformity nor blind faith. They are playing 'within', violations of a rule, deviation of shapes. So is deception.
Opposite; negative? Or absence?
I'll go with absence, for what is negative but a different direction?

Absence of shapes;
systems,
order.

Chaos?
TheDaringHatTrick said:
Splogic.

Nonsense. Randomness. Chaos. That which exists outside an ordered system.
Click to expand...
Splogic? What is this? :P
But this is good, AS USUAL TDHT *roar*
.......

Ah.

Impulse?
 
Intuitively I first thought of chaos instead of illogic. By calling something illogical we create a binary opposition that defines everything through a certain pattern of reasoning, and so what we see as illogical is still a part of logic, otherwise we wouldn't be able to define it as an opposite. I don't find the answer satisfactory, because all we're doing is establishing a scale by which to judge things. A more interesting question is therefore: what is the opposite of logic in the sense of being outside of it?

However, putting chaos opposite logic might do the same, only in a different way. In that case we see logic as representing order in the universe and equate a human way of perceiving patterns with some ontological reality. But they're not by necessity the same.

I feel that this question is a bit like trying to contradict Hegel. Whatever your arguments against Hegelian dialectics is, any attempt to oppose it is actually contained in the idea of thesis and antithesis and thereby subsumed by Hegel's Spirit.

Therefore, the answer given by Christmas above is actually profound. The opposite of logic could be glitter. It could be a potato or a feather. By giving such an answer we're refusing to acknowledge the power of logic to define itself and its opposite, and hence glitter becomes the true opposite. Yet by claiming it is the opposite, we're suddenly bringing glitter into the realm of logic, and we're back in square one. So we have to keep bringing new objects into the mix until there are so many opposites that logic has no function anymore. I guess that state could be called chaos.
 
If the opposite of belief is doubt, then the opposite of logic is being.
 
On one level the answer is that we must remain silent on the matter. From the moment that one says anything, one is within the realm of logic. You can't represent in language what structures your language.

An alternative would be to take the question as meaning: "What is the opposite pole to complete reliance on logic in an argument?" - And here I would say "complete reliance on rhetoric".
 
Fidicen said:
I guess that state could be called chaos.
Click to expand...

Indeed

giphy.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top