Aetherous

I was really going for that.

I can't agree...but am really not interested personally in further discussions about truth (although, have at it). I probably should have started the topic in a less opinionated way. I'll get on with having weekly notes on here soon, so we can get to some actual discussion of Logic.

I suspect much of the polling was fake (don't have any evidence of this, just a gut feeling). If you tell the public there's absolutely no chance for the undesirable candidate to win, then they will lose hope and not vote for him...compared to if you say the race is tight, then they show up in droves to try to win.

Regarding this onslaught of fake news about "fake news", I liked this real news article about it: http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-propaganda-about-russian-propaganda

Coincidentally, I've been contemplating those same words lately. Seems to me like any lack in courage is the direct cause of a lack of love. For instance, think of a typical high school scenario...you see a kid getting picked on and beat up by a group of strong bullies. Do you speak up and risk getting pummeled yourself? A lack of courage causes injustice to flourish, and your love is silenced by fear. And courage (facing something you are averse to, doing something you're scared of) has its root in genuine love...why else would a person dive into the dragon's mouth, but to save the village? In another thread, I came to the conclusion that truth is one of the foundations of love. I'd also say that courage must be there, too.

https://www.amazon.com/Buddhahood-This-Life-Commentary-Vimalamitra/dp/1614293457/

Diplomacy is a subtle art. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-taiwan-arms-idUSKBN0TZ2C520151217

Here's one: http://thisisvideogames.com/gamergatewiki/images/f/f5/Rethorical_and_logical_fallacies_Infographic.png Don't know if it's accurate or complete. The online course in the original post also has a section on the fallacies. I'll get to it in this thread in probably 6 months.

We're using the word truth in different ways. I'm only using it as meaning: "an accurate description of reality", or the dictionary defintion: "the state of being the case".

If there is a truth expressed in poetic language, then it can absolutely be done. I think there's no such thing as proving an entire poem true or false...a poem is just a poem (just like an ocean is just an ocean), unless it tells a truth in some way. In that case, it'd help to plainly state what's true in it. We should go back to the definition of truth: the state of being the case. What's true would be an idea which is the case...which accords with reality. It's possible for any truth which is expressed poetically to be spoken of plainly, if someone could just think of how to do it. I'm not personally the one to say what's true in Blake's poem...I only understand half of it. I'm also not the one to ask serious questions about Logic...I only took a class in undergrad, and am relearning beginning with this video course in this thread. However, I know enough to be confident in saying that any truth is defined as true by certain rules, which also define what's false...those rules are the subject of Logic.

That sounds more like a world follower than a leader.

If there is actually a truth hidden beneath symbols, dreams, nonlinear expression, paradoxes, etc...then it falls under Logic. It might not be expressed or thought about in a way using Logic, but it can be...and what makes it true is that it passes Logic's requirements, even if no one knows how it does so.

About being a bull in the diplomatic china shop...politics have changed in America. That is all.

We could leave it at that. ...I'll not post in here anymore, due to having no desire to continue the discussion.

Truth is a foundation of love. If you have a feeling of love which turns out to be based upon lies, you realize that it's not actually love...for instance, lets say you're married but you secretly find out your spouse has been cheating on you for the past year, and you overhear that it's specifically because they think you're boring as a human being. If you didn't find these things out, you'd still be kissing them each morning on your way to work. If we were to be given the red pill (truth with a breaking of what appeared to be love) or the blue pill (untruth, but with apparent love), what would you choose in that situation? Personally I'd choose the red pill. Or another type of love...lets say you're a spiritual person who believes that loving others is the way. But then someone who voted for Trump, who is pro-war, wearing a Pepe the Frog t-shirt, appears. The hatred simmers, and although you're strong enough to not act out on it, the knee jerk reaction is one of tension. Without truth, you'd still think you're capable of loving all people...with truth, you're able to see the ways in which you can better accomplish your ideal. I don't think it's an either/or, as we've been trained to believe. It's not that truth is an opposite of love, that it's devoid of feeling, or only located in the head...or that love is devoid of truthfulness, is only located in the heart, or is the only fulfilling emotion. There is an emotion related to truthfulness. There's also a type of love that's located in the head...the fraudulent type that simply repeats the word, without living it truthfully. As for answering the question - would you rather be right or be happy? ...Being wrong isn't a good answer. Lets talk about happiness, using the marriage/cheating example. Are you happier not knowing that your relationship is worthless to your partner, or are you happier knowing where you actually stand? Some would think that breaking up after being cheated on is a recipe for unhappiness, but I would suggest that continuing a failed relationship where you're unwittingly being cheated on is much worse.

Having enough physical activity throughout the day to be tired. Having no electronics and lights (besides candles) after it gets dark out.

Logic is a human tool...anyone that can speak a language can learn it. Animals don't have the capacity for it.

Week One:

I love it. The premises are questionable. For one, we don't have knowledge of all men and whether they lived or died...we just assume they died because that's what we're aware of. We're also aware of stories regarding people that don't die, though...these could be entirely mythological, or could just be rare cases. This fact that no one knows opens up the possibility of immortality. Two - you may not be "all men", but you're a human being (one of the "men" or humans). Unless, as a human being, there is some aspect which doesn't die, in either some or all. Some people say that all of human souls are immortal, and the bodies just die. Here's an argument: P1: I'm a human being. P2: It's possible that there have been human beings who didn't physically die...no one knows with certainty. P3: It's possible that there's a part of human beings which lives on after physical death. C: I may be immortal in some way.

So she goes and kisses a frog, and sees that it's still a frog, despite her father calling her princess. She found a lie. The only way I would say that truth is beyond logic, is because Logic always gives us a description or analysis of reality - "the map is not the place". Aside from that, Logic is the prerequisite of all truth. Anti-Logic, arguing against Logic, is either coming from a place of not understanding what Logic is, or a willful promotion of what's false.

I think you're right...although I don't know about what situation or Bum you mean... I plan on watching one of these videos (in the original post) each week, taking notes, and discussing it in this thread...I bet the class will go into Logic's limitations.

I guess Logic is limited only by its non-use.

Anything that we can talk about as being a true or false statement. Anyway...I'm not the best person to answer these questions. I just think Logic is great and is a foundation of thinking that most people are missing, so I wrote "all truth".

Merriam Webster provides one of the definitions of truth as: "the state of being the case". For all instances where something can either be the case, or not be the case, the tools of Logic can be applied.