The Truth as the Seat of the Mind

[James_Tyler]

I have often wondered why people with impeccable logic, but with differing beliefs, often fail to change each other’s minds. Why does logic fail?

I believe that “Truth” is the foundation of the mind. Logic is a means. Logic is a method by which we discover “Truth”. It is how we expand the “Truth” which we have already accepted. It is “Truth” and our sense of it that shapes our emotional state. Logic helps to lead us to our intellectual destinations and we live in the “Truth” that we discover there. But if we believe something false and use that thing as a fact then the logic we build upon it is faulty, Not necessarily because the method of logic is poorly employed.

“Truth” is gained by logical means but also by “trust”. If I truly trust my God, or my wife, or my friend, or my government then i believe what they say. What they have said and what i have believed is a part of the foundation of my mind. My logic operates in the light of it. It operates the same as another person’s who believes different things.

Logic can be faultily practiced but often i think irreconcilable disagreements exist because some part of an accepted “Truth” has been gained by trusting to the wrong information. So if someone’s logic is sound then it seems logical that we must examine the accepted truths. In what do we trust?

Assertion 1: “Accepted truth is the foundation of logic.”
Assertion 2: “Accepted truth is the foundation of the emotional state.”
Assertion 4: "Accepted truth is one part of the “soul”

 

[Bahman]

I have often wondered why people with impeccable logic, but with differing beliefs, often fail to change each other’s minds. Why does logic fail?

I believe that “Truth” is the foundation of the mind. Logic is a means. Logic is a method by which we discover “Truth”. It is how we expand the “Truth” which we have already accepted. It is “Truth” and our sense of it that shapes our emotional state. Logic helps to lead us to our intellectual destinations and we live in the “Truth” that we discover there. But if we believe something false and use that thing as a fact then the logic we build upon it is faulty, Not necessarily because the method of logic is poorly employed.

“Truth” is gained by logical means but also by “trust”. If I truly trust my God, or my wife, or my friend, or my government then i believe what they say. What they have said and what i have believed is a part of the foundation of my mind. My logic operates in the light of it. It operates the same as another person’s who believes different things.

Logic can be faultily practiced but often i think irreconcilable disagreements exist because some part of an accepted “Truth” has been gained by trusting to the wrong information. So if someone’s logic is sound then it seems logical that we must examine the accepted truths. In what do we trust?

Assertion 1: “Accepted truth is the foundation of logic.”
Assertion 2: “Accepted truth is the foundation of the emotional state.”
Assertion 4: "Accepted truth is one part of the “soul”

Because what so called conclusion extracted from a logical argument is based on axioms which are well accepted but not necessary true!

 

[Rhubarb]

Logic doesn’t depend upon truth. It tracks truth. That truth is dependent upon consistency. Consistent systems can be formulated, and, using the rules of logic ‘truth’ can be determined within the confines of that system. Even if that consistent system is completely false. (By the standards we judge truth and falsity in ‘our world’.)

Logic also depends upon premises to get to a conclusion. All arguments of logic require certain premises to be taken as granted in order to get things going. For example, I think a premise that pretty much everyone on these forums will accept is “God, as Christians interpret Him, exists.” This premise isn’t something that everyone will agree with. And, if the conclusion depends upon this premise, questioning the premise automatically questions the conclusion. For example:

1. The moon is made of green cheese.
2. If the moon is made of green cheese, Rhubarb is a wizard.
   C) Therefore, Rhubarb is a wizard.

This argument is perfectly valid. All logicians are obliged to admit this, if they understand logic. However, premise 1 is false. (Oddly enough, premise 2 is true) BUT the conclusion depends on both 1 and 2 in order for C to be true. So, simply by questioning 1, C is no longer sure.

 

[Aloysium]

Not being particularly logical and given to wild assertions, I would say that the truth is not so much the seat of the mind as it is what the mind truly desires. The truth lies in what is, and it includes the person, created in the image of God. We are relational beings, knower knowing the known. We all commune with some aspect of reality and guard that truth. We are also prone to lies in order to maintain mental equilibrium. But, the soul finds its fulfillment in the Truth itself, the Triune Godhead who creates and maintains us within its eternal relationship of love.

 

[Michael19682]

…the knower knowing the known…

@Aloysium
Logic can assist the knower in knowing the known.
For example, logic leads us to believe that our faith is not in vain. Through faith we takes steps to commune with God. The result is that we develop greater logic and understanding in discerning God in created things. One definition of a person with no faith is one who has not experientially investigated the conclusion God Answers Prayers. The persons sense of logic might be innate, but that sense alone does not innately grant experience with all logical arguments. We might know the truth in a global sense, but still we become lost if we don’t follow the particulars of the directions.

 

[fisherman_carl]

1. The moon is made of green cheese.
2. If the moon is made of green cheese, Rhubarb is a wizard.
   C) Therefore, Rhubarb is a wizard.

This argument is perfectly valid. All logicians are obliged to admit this,

 

[Partinobodycula]

In what do we trust?

Trust logic, but distrust the information upon which that logic operates. Begin with what you know to be true and then proceed from there.

What do you know to be true?

The answer to that question is actually quite simple, “I am”. The challenge for logic lies in understanding what I am, and why I am. How you choose to answer those questions is up to you. And how you choose to act, based upon those answers, is also up to you. But in the end the only “Truth” of which you can be certain is, “I am”. For all of your imagined wisdom that’s the only truth you have.