I beg for a question
Mar. 2nd, 2005 05:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kleenexwomanCan you go insane from cognitive dissonance?
I shouldn't have tried to take Logic and Sociology in the same semester. Trying to reconcile what I've learned in both classes is making me crazy.
One of the things that Sheptoski is trying to get us to realize is that there is no objective position on a lot of things. This idea really bugs me. I am intellectually motivated by the desire to be right. Not in a "I cannot ever be wrong, so whatever I say goes" way, but in a "OMG, am I wrong? Tell me how I'm wrong please" way. I'm trying to push my worldview ever closer to a completely objective reality, and I can't do that if there is no objective reality. I don't want to be wrong, and if there's no objective reality, then there is no way I can be right.
Unfortunately, the only thing I have applied the previous statement to is the difference between my Logic class and my Sociology class.
Logic today was pure logical process. We've started getting into the use of mathematical symbols for logical statements, and it's actually a lot of fun--I get to use my high school algebra to demonstrate my amazing knowledge of parentheses. We did truth tables today, which concentrate on assigning truth values to letters and working out the validity of a statement mathematically from matrices. Very little real-life application here (who takes the time to assign letters to statements in a debate and then make a graph out of it, besides incorrigible math nerds?), but enjoyable as a puzzle. I like Logic; everything fits into place. It's either true or it isn't, and there's no Why or How or What If, just pure, smooth conclusion.
Sociology today was a discussion of why humans aren't rational. The arguments given:
A) We don't have all the facts, or we don't have accurate information, in any given situation.
B) We don't have unlimited cognitive powers or time.
Just having come from Logic class, I was still thinking in terms of thought processes. I suggested that these in and of themselves weren't indications of humans being irrational, but rather indications of limitations on the possiblity of rational thought. One of the other things we'd been discussing was the tendency of humans to ignore information that might undermine their worldview, which is something I can't reconcile with rational thought; the desire to be rational was, to me, the desire to have a realistic and therefore objective worldview, which cannot be achieved by ignoring information.
Apparently this is incorrect, and process, in ration, means little if you don't have the right information and accurate conclusions. No points for effort. So ration is the real-life version of logic, where one must work with facts and rules about the real world, and not logic, to arrive at an accurate conclusion.
This implies that the real world is not, in fact, logical, since logic doesn't always work in it.
This is the best argument for the existence of God that I have ever heard.
My oversimplified views on religion in general: God is not logical. If the universe is logical and mechanistic, there is no need for God to keep it running. If God exists, then there is no need for the universe to be logical and mechanistic in order to keep running. Boiled down to terms which would earn me points on a quiz:
A) If God exists, the universe is not logical.
B) If the universe is logical, God does not exist.
It has been proven that the universe is not logical, since logic does not work in the universe. Therefore, God exists.
I am not happy about this conclusion. Is there a religion that believes in God but is really pissed off about God's existence?
ETA: This argument is logical but may not be rational, as I may have been misinterpreting his comment. He may have meant that the reality defined by humans is not logical, as humans are not logical beings. Since he is a sociologist and not a cosmologist, this is the most likely interpretation.
In this case, I can go on believing that the rest of the universe is perfectly logical and that it's only humans that screw everything up with their crazy emotions and beliefs.
I shouldn't have tried to take Logic and Sociology in the same semester. Trying to reconcile what I've learned in both classes is making me crazy.
One of the things that Sheptoski is trying to get us to realize is that there is no objective position on a lot of things. This idea really bugs me. I am intellectually motivated by the desire to be right. Not in a "I cannot ever be wrong, so whatever I say goes" way, but in a "OMG, am I wrong? Tell me how I'm wrong please" way. I'm trying to push my worldview ever closer to a completely objective reality, and I can't do that if there is no objective reality. I don't want to be wrong, and if there's no objective reality, then there is no way I can be right.
Unfortunately, the only thing I have applied the previous statement to is the difference between my Logic class and my Sociology class.
Logic today was pure logical process. We've started getting into the use of mathematical symbols for logical statements, and it's actually a lot of fun--I get to use my high school algebra to demonstrate my amazing knowledge of parentheses. We did truth tables today, which concentrate on assigning truth values to letters and working out the validity of a statement mathematically from matrices. Very little real-life application here (who takes the time to assign letters to statements in a debate and then make a graph out of it, besides incorrigible math nerds?), but enjoyable as a puzzle. I like Logic; everything fits into place. It's either true or it isn't, and there's no Why or How or What If, just pure, smooth conclusion.
Sociology today was a discussion of why humans aren't rational. The arguments given:
A) We don't have all the facts, or we don't have accurate information, in any given situation.
B) We don't have unlimited cognitive powers or time.
Just having come from Logic class, I was still thinking in terms of thought processes. I suggested that these in and of themselves weren't indications of humans being irrational, but rather indications of limitations on the possiblity of rational thought. One of the other things we'd been discussing was the tendency of humans to ignore information that might undermine their worldview, which is something I can't reconcile with rational thought; the desire to be rational was, to me, the desire to have a realistic and therefore objective worldview, which cannot be achieved by ignoring information.
Apparently this is incorrect, and process, in ration, means little if you don't have the right information and accurate conclusions. No points for effort. So ration is the real-life version of logic, where one must work with facts and rules about the real world, and not logic, to arrive at an accurate conclusion.
This implies that the real world is not, in fact, logical, since logic doesn't always work in it.
This is the best argument for the existence of God that I have ever heard.
My oversimplified views on religion in general: God is not logical. If the universe is logical and mechanistic, there is no need for God to keep it running. If God exists, then there is no need for the universe to be logical and mechanistic in order to keep running. Boiled down to terms which would earn me points on a quiz:
A) If God exists, the universe is not logical.
B) If the universe is logical, God does not exist.
It has been proven that the universe is not logical, since logic does not work in the universe. Therefore, God exists.
I am not happy about this conclusion. Is there a religion that believes in God but is really pissed off about God's existence?
ETA: This argument is logical but may not be rational, as I may have been misinterpreting his comment. He may have meant that the reality defined by humans is not logical, as humans are not logical beings. Since he is a sociologist and not a cosmologist, this is the most likely interpretation.
In this case, I can go on believing that the rest of the universe is perfectly logical and that it's only humans that screw everything up with their crazy emotions and beliefs.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 05:51 pm (UTC)This reminds me of the problem of theodicy and the infinite good / worldly suffering contradiction. The classic solution for that contradiction is that God gave humans free will, which exists as a good on a higher order than worldly suffering.
That never really worked very well for me, because I think that it implies that you can't have free will without some worldly suffering. If anything is possible through God, though, then why couldn't the laws of the universe be written so that worldly suffering is excluded by, rather than necessary for, free will?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-03 08:08 pm (UTC)The response that comes immediately to mind is that God is in fact malevolent, or at least imperfect. The imperfect idea is a little more pertinent because it also suggests that God is not entirely omnipotent, but rather subject to higher universal laws. Like the old "Could God make a rock so big even He couldn't lift it?" chestnut. Perhaps logic is higher than God.
Suffering follows from free will, I think, because with free will there is the implication of choice, and with choice comes "right choice" and "wrong choice". And of course nobody's going to choose "right choice" every time.