I'm glad I didn't fulfill your expectations then. : )
Please don't associate the others with me.
Ok.
A problem I have with the rigidity of your approach to life is its inability (To me at least. Perhaps you can dispel that for me.) to accommodate values and subjective judgements. You can say, "If you do A the likely outcome is B but if you do X the likely outcome will be Y." However, that can't tell you whether B or Y will be good or bad or even satisfying.
You have to ask, what is value? What is the context? What is of more value to a starving man lost in the wilderness? Finding a gold coin or wandering upon an apple tree? How do you arrive at that answer? What is of more value next? Finding a shack with a cot from which seek shelter from the elements or a top of the line Rolls Royce that is out of gas?
The utility to the individual for that given purpose is what establishes the value, for that person. When a person has all his or her needs met then the hierarchy of values changes. Finding a mate, learning a career, all takes place in individual context, according to the 'subjective judgment' of that individual. Each individual evaluates what he or she deems of more value and makes choices.
How does logic determine the appreciation of music, art, poetry, etc.? Is that something beyond the senses or is simply primal reaction? If primal, what accounts for differences in taste. If something else, what?
Interesting question. Logic concerns thought. Music, art, poetry and other esthetic considerations are of other kind. Music is non verbal, so other than the thought required to build instruments, learn to read notes, proper tuning, etc., logic doesn't enter into it. Unless someone is attempting to achieve a specific symbolic goal, such as sad music or celebrating exultation, then some thought as to whether one is fulfilling one's purpose or not. Purpose implies thought.
To some degree what accounts for differences is cultural. Note the difference between the Big Band era, Rock and Roll and hip hop. To a certain degree this is a herd phenomenon.
In my early twenties I had a friend who was an English teacher at a University. He was questioning me about my thoughts about the world, and I was expounding and he laughed and said, “That is delightful, everything you say is sheer poetry.” I said, “What do you mean?” He replied, “You say whatever you want to.” Why some people find poetry appealing is up to them, what they choose to value.
Do you run a quick pretest before you think or say something? Can you parse your thoughts before you think them? How do you account for engrained knowledge from your early life which may be subjective instead of objective?
No, I don't need to do that. I have spent a lot of time studying and thinking these things through. I have studied nearly every school of philosophy and religion worldwide. Along the way I discovered logic, quite by accident and began studying that, much of I hadn't understood before that began to fall into place. The contradictions between the different schools of thought and the commonalities. I had to look at what I 'believed' and evaluate that in light of my experiences and what I could verify for myself. Eventually I came to, what is to me, a coherent philosophy, one that is congruent with reality as I experience it. At this point one doesn't need to pretest or parse anything.
I think we often make assumptions which we don't recognize as such. I assume (Yes I said It) you think you have overcome that by intuiting the truth of everything.
There is a distinction to be made between assumption, assertion and axiom. The only thing I can really take as an axiom is that I exist. Descarte's dictum, flawed though it is, is close enough to the truth. And since the rules of reality are such as they are, I have to take that as a given as well. (Everyone else does to no matter what they say. The only exceptions to this are the people who intentionally kill themselves. But no one, no matter what they say about reality being amenable to human thought, intentionally steps in front of a semi-truck racing down the highway. They understand and acknowledge the laws of reality quite well thank you.)
Whether something is a true proposition is dependent upon knowing the truth. Being outside the realm of our senses does not negate its truthfulness. It could easily be a truth we have yet to discover. It may not lead to a logical syllogism but it could be truth nonetheless. Is E+MC2 a valid syllogism? What do our senses say about that?
Whether a proposition is a 'true proposition' depends upon the definition of the terms that make up the proposition. Now you are getting to the crux of the matter. A proposition is made up of terms, which are words, which represent concepts. The process of identifying and defining those concepts is dependent upon logic. A perception is experienced enough times to establish a class, or set, for which a symbol then represents that experience. In language words, in other forms of thought, such as math or calculus, other symbols, but all are arrived at logically in the same manner.
Let me clarify what I mean. When we were driving across country my sister was about 1 year old or so, just beginning to talk. As we drove across country every animal with a head, 4 legs, and tail was a “dog.” She had the perceptual ability to note the shape of the animal but not the experience of separating differing sets of similar looking elements.
So when you say, “knowing the truth” what you actually mean is that the proposition's definitions are congruent with reality. Thus saying, “a horse is a reptile” is not while “a horse is a mammal is” by definition.
Being outside the realm of our senses does not negate its truthfulness. means being unable to determine whether the definition is congruent with reality, thus its truthfullness. Now, people get all hung up at this point because abstracts are not subject to the 'realm of the senses' but as definitions that contain multiple elements they have logical validity. For example there is no “mammal” because it is an abstraction that subsumes a whole plethora of species. What often happens is that an abstract can contain a number of other abstractions and people lose track of the fact that the abstract is ultimately grounded in concrete experience.
This leads to your next question. The terms in E=MC2 are all abstractions. This is not a syllogism but was arrived at by a whole series of syllogisms where the conclusion of one syllogism forms the premise of another syllogism, and that of another, and so on, (termed a Sorites). Now Einstien's equation is based upon mathematical logic so isn't strictly dependent upon the syllogisms of formal logic (although I could make an argument that it ultimately is) but the initial definitions that those terms represent are.
What is your thought about conjecture? Is it a valid way of thinking or a waste of time? Don't the quantum sciences do a lot of that? Aren't many problems solved that way? To you, how is conjecture different from imagination?
Conjecture is fine as long as it is stated as conjecture and not attempted to be smuggled in as fact. It has its use in thought exercises and hypothesis. To use a recent AGism, conjecture would be a sub-set of imagination.
I see strict logic as useful in much of our lives but not in its entirety. To adhere rigidly to formal logic is very sterile and anti-creative.
Strict logic? I'm not sure what that means. My point is that if it concerns thought, the only tool is logic. These discussions are mostly philosophical and thus, subject to the rigors of logic. In everyday life you use logic implicitly, (without consciously realizing you are doing so – it is called common sense) far more than you probably realize. What I object to is when people try to pass off arguments, make assertions in discussions such as these, that clearly violate the laws of logic.
And, for example, there is a whole school of political philosophy that holds that liberalism is only possible via fallacious thinking. There is a whole realm of economic philosophy that maintains the same thing, for different reasons. The two are related and cross paths frequently. In these applications formal logic is extremely creative. So I think your view of logic isn't all that accurate but that's ok too. I was once a liberal Democrat, as my parents were. We all learn along the way.
Thanks.