The Logic Of The Curve

[ibsh...@gmail.com]

There are many people who consider themselves rational or logical. Many of them have an incomplete understanding of what logic and rationality means.

If you think in straight lines, you will think that a curve is illogical. In fact the logic of the curve is more advanced than the logic of the line. If you advance your understanding of mathematical logic, you will know that a curve can be approximated by infinitesimally smaller lines. There is logic to such things as feeling and spirituality, although it may differ from one’s own logic. There is vastly profound logic in nature, and it is a higher logic than anything that the merely logical mind knows how to devise. The complexity of a tree or a brain is astonishing, and a mind that holds such things in contempt is a mind that has either an inadequate knowledge or inadequate cognitive faculties.

I can reason well enough. I also know that there is more to life and to reality than what is believed by the merely rational. Rationalism of one form or another will always be followed by romanticism of one form or another. The mind has contempt for such things as nature and feeling until it has studied them enough to find in them greater logic than anything that it has itself known how to devise. At that point contempt gives way to respect and even awe. And the lack of such respect is a mark of either inadequate cognition or inadequate knowledge.

The proponents of this inadequate linear thinking keep making a habit of portraying anyone with any affinity for curvature as a loon. It is seen as drugs, mental illness, what have you. They are wrong – absolutely wrong. There are all sorts of things running by all sorts of logic. A curve has at its root as much, if not more, logic, than a line. And in seeing such things as illogical, the linear mind blindly and ignorantly stomps on things more complex and intricate than itself and denies the world the benefit of what such things have to offer.

That something runs by a logic different than oneself does not make it illogical. It makes it run by a different logic. The logical stance is to figure out the logic by which the thing in itself runs. To call it illogical is an illogic in itself. The logic is a method, not an ideology. And the true task of the rational mind is to understand the underlying logic and work with it to accomplish genuinely beneficial results.

[Ron Elam]

Google Bard wrote: I have analyzed the passage for logical fallacies and found the following:

Ad hominem fallacy: The author attacks the character of those who believe in logic and rationality, rather than their arguments. For example, the author says that those who believe in logic and rationality have "an inadequate knowledge or inadequate cognitive faculties."
Straw man fallacy: The author misrepresents the views of those who believe in logic and rationality. For example, the author says that those who believe in logic and rationality "hold such things in contempt" as nature and feeling. However, this is not a fair representation of the views of most people who believe in logic and rationality.
False dilemma fallacy: The author presents a false choice between logic and rationality on the one hand, and feeling and spirituality on the other. However, these are not mutually exclusive categories. It is possible to be both logical and rational, and to also have feelings and be spiritual.
Begging the question fallacy: The author assumes the truth of their conclusion in their argument. For example, the author says that "there is vastly profound logic in nature, and it is a higher logic than anything that the merely logical mind knows how to devise." However, this is simply asserting that the logic of nature is superior to the logic of the mind, without providing any evidence to support this claim.
Overall, the passage contains a number of logical fallacies. These fallacies make it difficult to take the author's argument seriously.


what are other fallacies in the text?


In addition to the fallacies I mentioned in my previous response, I also found the following fallacies in the text:

False analogy fallacy: The author compares logic and rationality to a line, and feeling and spirituality to a curve. However, this is a false analogy. Logic and rationality are not linear, and feeling and spirituality are not curved.
Non sequitur fallacy: The author makes a number of statements that do not follow logically from one another. For example, the author says that "the complexity of a tree or a brain is astonishing, and a mind that holds such things in contempt is a mind that has either an inadequate knowledge or inadequate cognitive faculties." However, there is no logical connection between the complexity of a tree or a brain and the contempt that someone might hold for them.
Hasty generalization fallacy: The author makes a number of generalizations about people who believe in logic and rationality, without providing any evidence to support these generalizations. For example, the author says that "many of them have an incomplete understanding of what logic and rationality means." However, there is no evidence to support this claim.
Overall, the passage contains a number of logical fallacies. These fallacies make it difficult to take the author's argument seriously.

[Ron Elam]

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 4:41:01 PM UTC-6, ibsh...@gmail.com wrote:

Me: what is the fallacy in the following: I can reason well enough. I also know that there is more to life and to reality than what is believed by the merely rational.

Google Bard: The fallacy in the statement "I can reason well enough. I also know that there is more to life and to reality than what is believed by the merely rational" is the fallacy of false dichotomy. The statement implies that there are only two ways to view reality: through reason or through some other means. However, this is not the case. There are many different ways to view reality, and each person has their own unique perspective. The statement also implies that those who rely on reason are somehow limited in their understanding of reality. This is also not true. Reason is a powerful tool that can help us to understand the world around us. However, it is not the only tool that we have available to us. We can also use our intuition, our emotions, and our experiences to gain insights into reality. The statement "I can reason well enough. I also know that there is more to life and to reality than what is believed by the merely rational" is an attempt to close down the conversation and to prevent us from exploring all of the different ways that we can view reality. It is important to be open to different perspectives and to be willing to consider all of the evidence before making up our minds about what is real.