Echogem222
Active Member
Though I presume we all understand the basics of logic which are commonly known, there is a fairly well-known hole in logic that many choose to ignore:
Example: The Paradox of the Literal and Figurative
Imagine someone says, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." In traditional logic, if we take this statement literally, we might analyze it as follows:
A. Premise 1: The person claims they could eat a horse.
B. Premise 2: Eating an entire horse is humanly impossible due to its size and the limitations of human appetite and digestion.
C. Logical Conclusion: The statement is false or absurd.
However, this analysis falls apart when we recognize that the statement is not meant to be taken literally. It's a hyperbolic way of expressing extreme hunger. The real meaning isn't about eating a horse but conveying the intensity of hunger. Traditional logic, without considering the non-literal use of language, leads to a misinterpretation. In other words, we need awareness to know it's not meant to be taken literally. And just like awareness is needed to understand something like that correctly, it's also possible that all of reality exists differently to than the way we think it does. So even something so basic as 1+1=2, may not actually be true. In the case of 1+1=2 being false, it would be like an optical illusion, from one standpoint, 1+1=2 seems to make sense, but when you see the full context of reality, you realize that's just your mind playing tricks on you.
But it's not even just logic, our own existence we seem to have awareness of, may actually be false. The reason being is that the effect of awareness could just be a deception, it could just seem like we're aware we exist, when in reality things are different. In other words, all things require faith. Does this mean that all forms of faith are equal to each other? This is unlikely due to the effect of different faiths seeming to lead to different conclusions.
Example: The Paradox of the Literal and Figurative
Imagine someone says, "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." In traditional logic, if we take this statement literally, we might analyze it as follows:
A. Premise 1: The person claims they could eat a horse.
B. Premise 2: Eating an entire horse is humanly impossible due to its size and the limitations of human appetite and digestion.
C. Logical Conclusion: The statement is false or absurd.
However, this analysis falls apart when we recognize that the statement is not meant to be taken literally. It's a hyperbolic way of expressing extreme hunger. The real meaning isn't about eating a horse but conveying the intensity of hunger. Traditional logic, without considering the non-literal use of language, leads to a misinterpretation. In other words, we need awareness to know it's not meant to be taken literally. And just like awareness is needed to understand something like that correctly, it's also possible that all of reality exists differently to than the way we think it does. So even something so basic as 1+1=2, may not actually be true. In the case of 1+1=2 being false, it would be like an optical illusion, from one standpoint, 1+1=2 seems to make sense, but when you see the full context of reality, you realize that's just your mind playing tricks on you.
But it's not even just logic, our own existence we seem to have awareness of, may actually be false. The reason being is that the effect of awareness could just be a deception, it could just seem like we're aware we exist, when in reality things are different. In other words, all things require faith. Does this mean that all forms of faith are equal to each other? This is unlikely due to the effect of different faiths seeming to lead to different conclusions.
