If you say there are no absolutes then this is an absolute statement. It's either true or false. If it's true, then it's false, which is logically contradiction. So, it can only be false and there are such things as logical absolutes.
That's very simplistic reasoning. It is more accurate to say that "there are no absolutes" is a relative proposition, just like everything else in language, and therefore a relative truth. That mode of thinking uses a much more accurate and up to date philosophy of language and logic than your reasoning.
If you're using arguments like that, I would suggest reading up on the philosophy of language a little bit, otherwise rebuttals won't make a lot of sense to you.
The laws of logic are simplistic. Your going to tell me the law of non-contradiction is not true, or something can't be itself and not itself at the same time, is not true?
No, I am saying the law of non-contradiction does not apply because no one I have met who claims "there are no absolutes" claims that their statement is absolute. They propose it as a relative one. Therefore your saying "this is an absolute statement" is a strawman argument based on a simplistic understanding of their perspective. Maybe you should try and understand them a bit better.
Subjectivity is relativism. If all things were subjective, then nothing is true, except the notion that all things are subjective,which means the statement itself is subjective and not absolute. I'm not saying that some forms of knowledge can't be subjective. I am saying that there ARE logical absolutes. That is the issue. Again, do logical absolutes exist? If you say no, then you're giving me an absolute; namely, that no logical absolutes exist.
Subjectivity is relativism? Erm...no. Subjectivism and relativism are two very different things. Even I know that.
Do you seriously think people who claim there aren't absolute truths haven't thought about what you say? Geez.
Seriously, dude, take Clutch's advice and actually learn something about relativists. Right now you sound like you get all your information from theologians. Trust me, they really aint good at accurately representing othr views.
if the law of non-contradiction is not absolute, then it isn't a law is it? That would also mean that we could go around contradicting ourselves all the time and that would be be fine, right? If there are no logical absolutes, then you have no logical basis for your statements. It would then be purely subjective and meaningless.
I swear, you could be a great professor someday. I love listening to what you have to say :) It's always very interesting and I find I can identify with what you're saying. Well done!
In my earlier post my spell check replaced my misspelling of the word "assent" with "accent".
This is the quote to which I was referring:
"The syllogism is not applied to the principles of the sciences, and is of no avail in intermediate axioms, as being very unequal to the subtilty of nature. It forces assent, therefore, and not things.
Again, my point is that logic has come a long way since Aristotle.
If people's logic was bigger and stronger than their ego, then many would be much more intelligent and smarter but a lot of people would just be down for a long time and become depressed because of realising things about themselves... Or maybe this wouldn't be the answer to such a 'what if'?
I guess my point is that by criticizing medieval logical rhetoric as though that is all there is to the philosophy of logic, you are unfairly representing what logic actually is.
You are talking about only about categorical or syllogistic logic, such as that espoused by Aristotle. This sort of logic is designed not to uncover truth, but to "force the accent of the audience" as Frances Bacon stated in 'Novum Organum'.
There are superior logical systems espoused by more modern thinkers, such as Wittgenstien which involve symbolic, mathematical logic and philosophical concepts.
And judging by your channel, you're a jejune, supercilious, retarded curmudgeon with an improper grasp on the use of grammar.
I guess that means we go together quite nicely then, doesn't it? Now would you like to contribute to the conversation, or spend you free time being childish and bitter instead?
dude... This is all great and genius'n shit. But I'm getting tired of having to look up words in the dictionary which you keep using. It's hard to understand you man, and I know that others here on youtube have trouble with it too. My question is, who are you trying to communicate with? Because it's sure as hell not children, and teenagers are pretty much outta the question too because they don't know as many words as you know. U r one of a kind, and I think that only adults fully understand you
Really? But I don't think I'm using complicated words. =S
(I actually almost typed 'sonorous language' there first, then thought better of it.)
I've only been approached with one or two other people who've had trouble keeping up with the language, but that's to be expected anyway. Everyone else has seemed fine.
Throw some examples my way so I can see more where you're coming from.
I would imagine that many people who watch the videos and want to put views forward about it would not admit to not knowing what many of the words mean for fear of not being taken seriously..
Including me! Although I'm not afraid to admit that I don't understand much of what you are saying.. but that still doesn't mean I can't appreciate how deeply you think things through and how much sense it actually makes when you convey it in the ways you do.
Personally, my biggest complain about philosophy has not been an abundance of syllables. I frequently have trouble understanding it for reasons I can never seem to pin down.
I added that thumbs up to this comment for one reason. I think that it is a style of art to speak, act, and make videos like this and in this fashion. Strong, meaningful, creative, and complicated words used to express oneself so good is cool as hell in my opinion, and it is ART. But if you kept seeing paintings of trees and water all the time, wouldn't you say, PAINT SOMETHING ELSE TOO, or PAINT IT DIFFERENTLY THIS TIME.
Other than that, I love your stuff Clutch! Great job!
Something I was reading in my textbook the other day made me think of the way society is. There's something called appeal to tradition which means arguing that a claim must be true because it's a part of tradition. Yet, claims and traditions should neither be accepted or rejected without good reason. I read a lot more in my textbook, but I'm going through information overload right now from reading my textbook and my brain hurts.
The Power of Critical Thinking by Lewis Vaughn and Chris MacDonald. It's a Canadian textbook. I'm not sure if it's available in other countries like the UK or not.
i think you make some good points at the root of it it is imposible to know anything with apsolute certainty. in reality our knowledge is on the balance of probabillity and conformity to experience. however an asertion of other ways of knowing is an asertion for ways of knowing with no way of knowing in what way knowing is.
Logic is a branch of philosophy and mathematics that deals with the formal principles, methods and criteria of validity of inference, reasoning and knowledge. Logic is concerned with "what is true" and how we can know whether something is true.
The smart guy in this video has a hypothesis that logic can't exactly help us know whether something is true. Ironically, that's his own wrong logic. BTW, I am PhD in computer science.
i think logic is undoubtedly a very powerfull tool for understanding. there are many things which it is dificult to aply logic to and many times where logic leads to false conclusions. can i ask you what logic there is in telling me your a computer science phd, i have to respect your inteligence but you seem to be infering that you must be right because of your quallification. this of course is an irational asertion. (just having fun)
With due respect, I pointed out the irony of using logic to prove that logic can't be used for discernment. :D Interestingly, the theory of logic indeed has this self-dependency and all other theories depend on the validity of the theory of logic.
you have got a point i think what hes trying to say is that logic is a tool and in and of itself it needs to be corectly aplied to bare fruit. point taken though i make you right.
Boolean logic deals with the basic operations of truth values: AND, OR, NOT and combinations thereof. Predicate logic extends this with existential quantifiers and universal quantifiers which introduce bound variables ranging over finite sets; the predicate itself takes on "only the values true and false".
Sounds just about right to what I learned in Set Theory class. Logic is, indeed, a human construct, based on certain fundamental axioms and constructed from there. It should be noted I have no "philosophical" training in logic; I've learned it in the context of mathematics.
I was a little worried when I saw the title of the video but yet again you've done your homework and made a good video.
what is the set of all things which exist? are we to assume this set evolves or is it a static constant? how could we devise an experiment to determine the difference?
There is no set of all sets. The question of such a thing is called Russell's Paradox. Our current model of set theory avoids this paradox with the definition of a "class" and there IS a class of all sets. But then there's no class of all classes and the abstraction of class is a word I don't remember atm.
Why the questions about sets? I learned logic in Set Theory as Set Theory and logic are the tools used to construct all of mathematics. To answer: set's don't evolve. They're ojbects
Logic can be dangerous to the individual. One can use logic to keep oneself trapped within a false reality.
Christians can come up with any logically sound arguments to keep their false beliefs. The fact of the matter is, there's never been any evidence for a king of the universe, at all.
"if bible prophecies are true, there must be a god!" this is logically correct, but the argument doesn't account for incorrect prophecies, and the fact that this doesn't prove a king of the universe, at all.
Although a lot of people have heard the validity of logic they don't actaully understand or welcome it. I think part of his reason for making this is to bring across a point in a way that people can understand and appreciate rather than just "it's logic, so it's true" approach.
When I first took philosophy two years ago we had a one hour lesson on how a logical syllogism works, then jumped straight into the arguments for the existence of God. I had no training on the implications and applications of a syllogism, and as such had no idea how to critique certain arguments. I'm not assuming everyone is an idiot. I'm assuming that there are people out there who too missed out on this valuable line of thinking. Maybe the teachers thought it was self-evident. I did not.
What I'm doing more than anything is assuming that I'M an idiot, trying to build my philosophies from scratch. Each step along the way I present my ideas to the public, view the criticisms, and refine my ideas. I'm going right back to the basics.
And, as self-evident as it may seem to you, there will still be people out there who disagree with me on this.
if that were the case, then nobody should discuss anything. he is a very intelligent young man, and i admire how humble he is when it comes to boasting his intelect. quit arguing for the sake of arguing, you make yourself seem even more idiotic than you prob. are in real life. goodbye! :)
Logic is the method one uses to process information. Perception of information is subjective. Logic is random from person to person. Conclusions are always personal to some extent. Continually reevaluating one's logic, perceived information, and conclusions is called science. Maintaining the same logic, perceived information, and conclusions is called faith. Science is growth. Faith is literally retarded.
Logical people are always wrong because they build conclusions based on their assumptions. If you just stop assuming things, the truth becomes obvious.
Well you could just question everything for all of eternity, never take a stand on anything, crawl into a cave and question your question over and over and over......
Sure thing. :) You seem to know what you're talking about from your video, though. There's so much info in the textbook I'm reading that I'm feeling overwhelmed with information right now. :P
Well, I've read a few books and taken a philosophy course at high school, but I still consider myself very much the layman. Logic is just one of those subjects that shuts your brain down if you take too much in at once, isn't it? =P
oh, and by the way mr 'clutch', now that I have a youtube account theres no avoiding me! =P and you still owe me my money from the last time I saw you lol!
now I'm gunna go and watch all those videos youve been telling me to watch for over a year. they better all be as cool as this one :)
If you say there are no absolutes then this is an absolute statement. It's either true or false. If it's true, then it's false, which is logically contradiction. So, it can only be false and there are such things as logical absolutes.
miket1m 3 years ago
That's very simplistic reasoning. It is more accurate to say that "there are no absolutes" is a relative proposition, just like everything else in language, and therefore a relative truth. That mode of thinking uses a much more accurate and up to date philosophy of language and logic than your reasoning.
If you're using arguments like that, I would suggest reading up on the philosophy of language a little bit, otherwise rebuttals won't make a lot of sense to you.
Clutchology 3 years ago
The laws of logic are simplistic. Your going to tell me the law of non-contradiction is not true, or something can't be itself and not itself at the same time, is not true?
miket1m 3 years ago
No, I am saying the law of non-contradiction does not apply because no one I have met who claims "there are no absolutes" claims that their statement is absolute. They propose it as a relative one. Therefore your saying "this is an absolute statement" is a strawman argument based on a simplistic understanding of their perspective. Maybe you should try and understand them a bit better.
Clutchology 3 years ago
Subjectivity is relativism. If all things were subjective, then nothing is true, except the notion that all things are subjective,which means the statement itself is subjective and not absolute. I'm not saying that some forms of knowledge can't be subjective. I am saying that there ARE logical absolutes. That is the issue. Again, do logical absolutes exist? If you say no, then you're giving me an absolute; namely, that no logical absolutes exist.
miket1m 3 years ago
Subjectivity is relativism? Erm...no. Subjectivism and relativism are two very different things. Even I know that.
Do you seriously think people who claim there aren't absolute truths haven't thought about what you say? Geez.
Seriously, dude, take Clutch's advice and actually learn something about relativists. Right now you sound like you get all your information from theologians. Trust me, they really aint good at accurately representing othr views.
clashification 3 years ago
if the law of non-contradiction is not absolute, then it isn't a law is it? That would also mean that we could go around contradicting ourselves all the time and that would be be fine, right? If there are no logical absolutes, then you have no logical basis for your statements. It would then be purely subjective and meaningless.
miket1m 3 years ago
I would just like to know what logic you are using to say that there are no logical absolutes? Without them, you cannot prove anything.
miket1m 3 years ago
I swear, you could be a great professor someday. I love listening to what you have to say :) It's always very interesting and I find I can identify with what you're saying. Well done!
autumnzephyr 3 years ago
Interesting.
Chuloloc 3 years ago
In my earlier post my spell check replaced my misspelling of the word "assent" with "accent".
This is the quote to which I was referring:
"The syllogism is not applied to the principles of the sciences, and is of no avail in intermediate axioms, as being very unequal to the subtilty of nature. It forces assent, therefore, and not things.
Again, my point is that logic has come a long way since Aristotle.
majesticlizard 3 years ago
If people's logic was bigger and stronger than their ego, then many would be much more intelligent and smarter but a lot of people would just be down for a long time and become depressed because of realising things about themselves... Or maybe this wouldn't be the answer to such a 'what if'?
Abno6 3 years ago
I guess my point is that by criticizing medieval logical rhetoric as though that is all there is to the philosophy of logic, you are unfairly representing what logic actually is.
majesticlizard 3 years ago
You are talking about only about categorical or syllogistic logic, such as that espoused by Aristotle. This sort of logic is designed not to uncover truth, but to "force the accent of the audience" as Frances Bacon stated in 'Novum Organum'.
There are superior logical systems espoused by more modern thinkers, such as Wittgenstien which involve symbolic, mathematical logic and philosophical concepts.
majesticlizard 3 years ago
you're a boring repetitive uncreative idiot, and your voice is highly irritating.
Totentanz616 3 years ago
And judging by your channel, you're a jejune, supercilious, retarded curmudgeon with an improper grasp on the use of grammar.
I guess that means we go together quite nicely then, doesn't it? Now would you like to contribute to the conversation, or spend you free time being childish and bitter instead?
Clutchology 3 years ago
dude... This is all great and genius'n shit. But I'm getting tired of having to look up words in the dictionary which you keep using. It's hard to understand you man, and I know that others here on youtube have trouble with it too. My question is, who are you trying to communicate with? Because it's sure as hell not children, and teenagers are pretty much outta the question too because they don't know as many words as you know. U r one of a kind, and I think that only adults fully understand you
Abno6 3 years ago
Really? But I don't think I'm using complicated words. =S
(I actually almost typed 'sonorous language' there first, then thought better of it.)
I've only been approached with one or two other people who've had trouble keeping up with the language, but that's to be expected anyway. Everyone else has seemed fine.
Throw some examples my way so I can see more where you're coming from.
Clutchology 3 years ago
I would imagine that many people who watch the videos and want to put views forward about it would not admit to not knowing what many of the words mean for fear of not being taken seriously..
Including me! Although I'm not afraid to admit that I don't understand much of what you are saying.. but that still doesn't mean I can't appreciate how deeply you think things through and how much sense it actually makes when you convey it in the ways you do.
HeathwoodStudios 3 years ago
Personally, my biggest complain about philosophy has not been an abundance of syllables. I frequently have trouble understanding it for reasons I can never seem to pin down.
lazyperfectionist1 3 years ago
i think the brits in general just have a much larger vocabulary pool than the rest of the world lol
dyhs2006 3 years ago
You clearly don't live in my area of the U.K. ;]
Clutchology 3 years ago
Yaaaaawn! this is getting so old!!! -_- zzzzzz
TroyboysWorld 3 years ago
If it bores you, don't watch it.
Clutchology 3 years ago
I added that thumbs up to this comment for one reason. I think that it is a style of art to speak, act, and make videos like this and in this fashion. Strong, meaningful, creative, and complicated words used to express oneself so good is cool as hell in my opinion, and it is ART. But if you kept seeing paintings of trees and water all the time, wouldn't you say, PAINT SOMETHING ELSE TOO, or PAINT IT DIFFERENTLY THIS TIME.
Other than that, I love your stuff Clutch! Great job!
Abno6 3 years ago
Something I was reading in my textbook the other day made me think of the way society is. There's something called appeal to tradition which means arguing that a claim must be true because it's a part of tradition. Yet, claims and traditions should neither be accepted or rejected without good reason. I read a lot more in my textbook, but I'm going through information overload right now from reading my textbook and my brain hurts.
HaleyMary 3 years ago
What is your textbook called?
Catherine8here 3 years ago
The Power of Critical Thinking by Lewis Vaughn and Chris MacDonald. It's a Canadian textbook. I'm not sure if it's available in other countries like the UK or not.
HaleyMary 3 years ago
Buzzed haircut great, longer hair bad... ;)
medicguy007 3 years ago
i think you make some good points at the root of it it is imposible to know anything with apsolute certainty. in reality our knowledge is on the balance of probabillity and conformity to experience. however an asertion of other ways of knowing is an asertion for ways of knowing with no way of knowing in what way knowing is.
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
Logic is a branch of philosophy and mathematics that deals with the formal principles, methods and criteria of validity of inference, reasoning and knowledge. Logic is concerned with "what is true" and how we can know whether something is true.
me2super 3 years ago
whats your point?
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
The smart guy in this video has a hypothesis that logic can't exactly help us know whether something is true. Ironically, that's his own wrong logic. BTW, I am PhD in computer science.
me2super 3 years ago
i think logic is undoubtedly a very powerfull tool for understanding. there are many things which it is dificult to aply logic to and many times where logic leads to false conclusions. can i ask you what logic there is in telling me your a computer science phd, i have to respect your inteligence but you seem to be infering that you must be right because of your quallification. this of course is an irational asertion. (just having fun)
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
With due respect, I pointed out the irony of using logic to prove that logic can't be used for discernment. :D Interestingly, the theory of logic indeed has this self-dependency and all other theories depend on the validity of the theory of logic.
me2super 3 years ago
Let us not forget Godel's incompleteness theorem. No logical system can be both consistent and complete.
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
you have got a point i think what hes trying to say is that logic is a tool and in and of itself it needs to be corectly aplied to bare fruit. point taken though i make you right.
ooglebydoogleby 3 years ago
when you were talking about throwing out logic, i couldn't help but think about religion considering that's what it brings to the table.
darkedge21 3 years ago
I think that's the sublty of this video, for an audience that knows his current criticisms of the world.
grambottle033 3 years ago
Boolean logic deals with the basic operations of truth values: AND, OR, NOT and combinations thereof. Predicate logic extends this with existential quantifiers and universal quantifiers which introduce bound variables ranging over finite sets; the predicate itself takes on "only the values true and false".
me2super 3 years ago
Sounds just about right to what I learned in Set Theory class. Logic is, indeed, a human construct, based on certain fundamental axioms and constructed from there. It should be noted I have no "philosophical" training in logic; I've learned it in the context of mathematics.
I was a little worried when I saw the title of the video but yet again you've done your homework and made a good video.
grambottle033 3 years ago
what is the set of all things which exist? are we to assume this set evolves or is it a static constant? how could we devise an experiment to determine the difference?
simonodell 3 years ago
There is no set of all sets. The question of such a thing is called Russell's Paradox. Our current model of set theory avoids this paradox with the definition of a "class" and there IS a class of all sets. But then there's no class of all classes and the abstraction of class is a word I don't remember atm.
Why the questions about sets? I learned logic in Set Theory as Set Theory and logic are the tools used to construct all of mathematics. To answer: set's don't evolve. They're ojbects
grambottle033 3 years ago
You're amazing, Clutch. Your perspective is an order of magnitude even more refreshing than that of rationality over faith. I admire you.
zebruh 3 years ago
logically, if there is a one-true-god, there must also be a zero-false-god :P
simonodell 3 years ago
slam dunk!
Anastasius37 3 years ago
Wow, I find your definition of logic to be quite accurate. Nice video once again, kudos to you.
xXVoiceOfThePeopleXx 3 years ago
my reply was directed to HoaxM3Not btw...
AmberThinks 3 years ago
I enjoyed the video. Even though I have my beliefs, your videos actually make me think a few things over... again. Good job.
-Tierra
tierra18tn 3 years ago
Logic can be dangerous to the individual. One can use logic to keep oneself trapped within a false reality.
Christians can come up with any logically sound arguments to keep their false beliefs. The fact of the matter is, there's never been any evidence for a king of the universe, at all.
"if bible prophecies are true, there must be a god!" this is logically correct, but the argument doesn't account for incorrect prophecies, and the fact that this doesn't prove a king of the universe, at all.
TheJacolyte 3 years ago
Why are you wasting your time telling people something that they already know. Are you trying to make yourself seem smart?
HoaxM3Not 3 years ago
Although a lot of people have heard the validity of logic they don't actaully understand or welcome it. I think part of his reason for making this is to bring across a point in a way that people can understand and appreciate rather than just "it's logic, so it's true" approach.
amanda13val 3 years ago
Who thinks that something that is logical is true? He's assuming people are idiots.
HoaxM3Not 3 years ago
He isn't assuming anything. He's holds a subjective thought and is now explaining it to whoever that wants to hear it.
amanda13val 3 years ago
When I first took philosophy two years ago we had a one hour lesson on how a logical syllogism works, then jumped straight into the arguments for the existence of God. I had no training on the implications and applications of a syllogism, and as such had no idea how to critique certain arguments. I'm not assuming everyone is an idiot. I'm assuming that there are people out there who too missed out on this valuable line of thinking. Maybe the teachers thought it was self-evident. I did not.
Clutchology 3 years ago
What I'm doing more than anything is assuming that I'M an idiot, trying to build my philosophies from scratch. Each step along the way I present my ideas to the public, view the criticisms, and refine my ideas. I'm going right back to the basics.
And, as self-evident as it may seem to you, there will still be people out there who disagree with me on this.
Clutchology 3 years ago
People are idiots.
RRSAlabama 3 years ago
if that were the case, then nobody should discuss anything. he is a very intelligent young man, and i admire how humble he is when it comes to boasting his intelect. quit arguing for the sake of arguing, you make yourself seem even more idiotic than you prob. are in real life. goodbye! :)
AmberThinks 3 years ago
★★★★★
creedgaming 3 years ago 2
Damn good video.
ieatwiteoutforfun 3 years ago
I love Crosisborg for recommending you to a bigger audience.
banyah87 3 years ago 2
Logic is the method one uses to process information. Perception of information is subjective. Logic is random from person to person. Conclusions are always personal to some extent. Continually reevaluating one's logic, perceived information, and conclusions is called science. Maintaining the same logic, perceived information, and conclusions is called faith. Science is growth. Faith is literally retarded.
Illuxx777 3 years ago 2
Stupendously Logical! :)
simplydaft 3 years ago
Logical people are always wrong because they build conclusions based on their assumptions. If you just stop assuming things, the truth becomes obvious.
I dare you to try.
InReasonWeTrust 3 years ago
See, THIS is why I subscribe to you.
Venaloid 3 years ago
Ditto.
JohnTraviss 3 years ago
I still disagree but it's another 5 stars video. ^__^
itsbizbuz 3 years ago
In simple terms, logic at its best is uniquely deterministic.
bpabbott1st 3 years ago
I'm liking your more recent videos. Your style is really starting to pull away from the stereotypical atheist point of view. It's new and refreshing.
Keep it up! :)
ABoffman 3 years ago 2
Well you could just question everything for all of eternity, never take a stand on anything, crawl into a cave and question your question over and over and over......
shaybshay 3 years ago
Awesome vid. I'm taking logic this fall at university and have been reading about this stuff all week. :)
HaleyMary 3 years ago
Sweet! Maybe you could educate me when you're done =P
Clutchology 3 years ago
Sure thing. :) You seem to know what you're talking about from your video, though. There's so much info in the textbook I'm reading that I'm feeling overwhelmed with information right now. :P
HaleyMary 3 years ago
Well, I've read a few books and taken a philosophy course at high school, but I still consider myself very much the layman. Logic is just one of those subjects that shuts your brain down if you take too much in at once, isn't it? =P
Clutchology 3 years ago
Agreed. :) I find that after an hour of going over my textbook I have to take a break otherwise I would probably go crazy. :P
HaleyMary 3 years ago
Can't say I agree =P
JaktheAtheist 3 years ago
whys that?
oh, and by the way mr 'clutch', now that I have a youtube account theres no avoiding me! =P and you still owe me my money from the last time I saw you lol!
now I'm gunna go and watch all those videos youve been telling me to watch for over a year. they better all be as cool as this one :)
clashification 3 years ago
Oh crap.
You realise I was joking, right? About watching my videos and about paying you back your money. XD
Clutchology 3 years ago
Ratatat is the shit.
the0mafia0whore 3 years ago
Hell yeah =D
jamesbrennand 3 years ago
I second that motion!
Clutchology 3 years ago
well said :o)
SnakeyEyesIsGOD 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
First!!!!1!11!11!!1!1111!!one
sorry to make a useless comment, I will make a purposefull one once ive watched/ lol
Kcfilms5 3 years ago