Logic vs. Illogic

[punkfiveo]

Just one quick question...

 

 

Generally, why is it that if something is found to be illogical it is discredited?

[Peregrine]

Because if you don't discard illogic, you have to accept things no matter how pointless, impossible, contradictory, etc, they are.

Would you like to present some examples of illogical things we should accept, and why?

 

Or should I just lock this, since it's going nowhere if you don't?

[Malchik]

I don't know that I agree with the initial comment. Any logical paradigm is based upon certain given concepts. If something is illogical (I believe this is the technical definition) it usually implies that there is something wrong with the paradigm. In other words the existence of the illogical invalidates the logic, not the other way round.

 

On the other hand if you are using the term 'logic' incorrectly as a sort of slang for 'commonly held belief' then as Peregrine said, you'd better be a bit more specific as to what you are referring to.

[DreamOfTheRood]

5:01 - punkfiveo asks a question in the Off-Topic section.

5:17 - Peregrine threatens to lock it.

 

I think the question here is primarily invalid, because it is categorizing 'illogic' as something on the same playing field logic. 'Illogic' is not a thing; it is a corruption of a thing, namely logic.

 

For instance, let's say you were to posit an argument on the metaphysical union of the soul and the body that was based on the corporeal nature of floating rocks. For one thing, that's absurd, but more important, floating rocks have nothing to do with the soul or the body. Thus, you're argument would not be logical.

[Peregrine]

I threatened to lock it because, as you have noticed, the question is so poorly defined that you can't have a debate on it. I'll be perfectly happy to leave it open if he (or I guess someone else, since he doesn't seem to be showing up again) decides to give a clearer question that can be debated.