linwood said:
I am of a mind to think that the purpose of logic is to get rid of perspective.
To strip a thing down until you have only what can be evidenced.
To assume a premise is to destroy the validity of the conclusion.
Please, do elaborate. I have not been on in days so please forgive me for bringing up what undoubtably seems like the past to you now. As for the rest of the quote, it seem that I took your first quote out of context, or misunderstood the circumstance in which it was written. In theory it was a grave contradiction, but my logic failed due to an incorrect premise. It seems my mistake did well to prove 2 point. Making this discrepancy living proof of your intended meaning, and mine as an example of the dissimilar premise making the logic wrong. Funny how things work out sometimes huh?
linwood said:
You simply cannot invent your own premise in a logical construct and hope to have any universal validity for your conclusion. Spirituality cannot be broken down logically unless all who examine the logic are willing to assume the same premises. Some of us try to assume nothing.
By assuming nothing, are you referring to skeptics, or ignorance. Or perhaps neither. Perhaps universal validity is relativity. But unless we understand individual circumstances or premises what then can we liken them to? Perhaps this is too philisophical for this thread. I hope, however, that you do not think I was inventing my own premise. Mostly because it would mean you're right. (and debaters hate being wrong
) But the premise, should my memory serve me, was that logic takes place of evidense in unfounded theories (not supported with evidense). Perhaps I never managed to incorporate discernment with my earlier statements. And perhaps I was using my own premise, but I do not think it was I who 'invented' it. (Their is nothing new under the sun) The problem, though, with everything is what even you say in this quote: "Spirituality cannot be broken down logically unless all who examine the logic are willing to assume the same premises."
This was the only thing I had against Ceridwen's argument. He/She likened the premise to another founded premise in search of universal validity, yet did not find it because the premises were not the same. This is all I was arguing but on a much more complex and metaphysical level than I ever intended to go. Indeed, I have changed the wordings of this reply dozens of times so that the thoughts could be expressed clearly. If my relativity logic were immaculate then this would be an example of it proving itself. Funny again how these things work out.
P.S. I love your signiture. :clap If ever given the opporitunity, I wont to try it.