Laws Of Thinking

[MaxShimba]

Do you believe in the Laws of thinking?

Lets see what Plato said:

"Socrates, in a Platonic dialogue, described three principles derived from introspection. He asserted that these three axioms contradict each other."

First , that nothing can become greater or less, either in number or magnitude, while remaining equal to itself … Secondly, that without addition or subtraction there is no increase or diminution of anything, but only equality … Thirdly, that what was not before cannot be afterwards, without becoming and having become. – Plato, Theatetus, 155

Aristotle said the following:
The three classic laws of thought are attributed to Aristotle and were foundational in scholastic logic. They are:

law of identity
law of noncontradiction
law of excluded middle

Thinking is the action of using one's mind and/or interllect to produce logical thoughts.

COGITATE implies deep or intent thinking while SPECULATE is and/or implies a reasoning about things theoretical or problematic.



Are we bound by these laws?

Be blessed

 

[MaxShimba]

Do you believe in the Laws of thinking?

Lets see what Plato said:

"Socrates, in a Platonic dialogue, described three principles derived from introspection. He asserted that these three axioms contradict each other."

First , that nothing can become greater or less, either in number or magnitude, while remaining equal to itself … Secondly, that without addition or subtraction there is no increase or diminution of anything, but only equality … Thirdly, that what was not before cannot be afterwards, without becoming and having become. – Plato, Theatetus, 155

Aristotle said the following:
The three classic laws of thought are attributed to Aristotle and were foundational in scholastic logic. They are:

law of identity
law of noncontradiction
law of excluded middle

Are we bound by these laws?

Be blessed

I think we are. One must be bound by the laws. Not executing the laws is worse and dangerous in the society and one self.

 

[MaxShimba]

I think we are. One must be bound by the laws. Not executing the laws is worse and dangerous in the society and one self.

That means someone can conclude that a judgment may be founded on the formal conditions of all thinking, which are contained in the Reason.

 

[MaxShimba]

Do you believe in the Laws of thinking?

Lets see what Plato said:

"Socrates, in a Platonic dialogue, described three principles derived from introspection. He asserted that these three axioms contradict each other."

First , that nothing can become greater or less, either in number or magnitude, while remaining equal to itself … Secondly, that without addition or subtraction there is no increase or diminution of anything, but only equality … Thirdly, that what was not before cannot be afterwards, without becoming and having become. – Plato, Theatetus, 155

Aristotle said the following:
The three classic laws of thought are attributed to Aristotle and were foundational in scholastic logic. They are:

law of identity
law of noncontradiction
law of excluded middle

Are we bound by these laws?

Be blessed

The principle of sufficient reason (also called the Causal Doctrine) states that anything that happens does so for a definite reason. In virtue of which no fact can be real or no statement true unless it has sufficient reason why it should be otherwise. It is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz.

The principle has a variety of expressions, all of which are perhaps best summarized by the following:

For every entity x, if x exists, then there is a sufficient explanation why x exists.
For every event e, if e occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation why e occurs.
For every proposition p, if p is true, then there is a sufficient explanation why p is true.

I like the reasoning in thinking.

 

[MaxShimba]

The principle of sufficient reason (also called the Causal Doctrine) states that anything that happens does so for a definite reason. In virtue of which no fact can be real or no statement true unless it has sufficient reason why it should be otherwise. It is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz.

The principle has a variety of expressions, all of which are perhaps best summarized by the following:

For every entity x, if x exists, then there is a sufficient explanation why x exists.
For every event e, if e occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation why e occurs.
For every proposition p, if p is true, then there is a sufficient explanation why p is true.

I like the reasoning in thinking.

Doedoe, you once again put this in a right way. Max, this is a good one. Gottfried Leibniz, you are the man.

Well there must be reasoning in every thinking.

 

[MaxShimba]

Supposing I said there was a planet without schools or teachers, study was unknown, and yet the inhabitants - doing nothing but living and walking about - came to know all things, to carry in their minds the whole of learning: would you not think I was romancing? Well, just this, which seems so fanciful as to be nothing but the invention of a fertile imagination, is a reality. It is the child's way of learning. This is the path he follows. He learns everything without knowing he is learning it, and in doing so passes little from the unconscious to the conscious, treading always in the paths of joy and love.

Maria Montesorri, MD

 

[Pundit]

The principle of sufficient reason (also called the Causal Doctrine) states that anything that happens does so for a definite reason. In virtue of which no fact can be real or no statement true unless it has sufficient reason why it should be otherwise. It is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz.

You will notice that Leibniz is smart enough to talk not in absolute terms, but in terms of "sufficient" reason.Essentially he is saying nothing is fully knowable.

As for believing in the laws of thinking, believing is not in my vocabulary.And from that sage Leibniz, we can see that nothing is fully knowable, philosophically speaking, including your own existence. Here even Descartes with his "I think, therefore I am" can be mistaken to be thinking, while he is actually a thought in some deity's head.

So you can see, we cannot truly know about anything, let alone the abstact laws of thinking. We can only try to deal with the relatives, the probabilities, the "sufficient" etc.

The following two statements are contradictory"anything that happens does so for a definite reason" and "In virtue of which no fact can be real or no statement true unless it has sufficient reason why it should be otherwise"

Did you mean ...." why it should not be otherwise" alternatively "why it should be"?

If you claim to know every act has a definite reason, but cannot attribute absoluteness to the reason, can you really demonstrate that every act has a definite reason?

 

[MaxShimba]

Supposing I said there was a planet without schools or teachers, study was unknown, and yet the inhabitants - doing nothing but living and walking about - came to know all things, to carry in their minds the whole of learning: would you not think I was romancing? Well, just this, which seems so fanciful as to be nothing but the invention of a fertile imagination, is a reality. It is the child's way of learning. This is the path he follows. He learns everything without knowing he is learning it, and in doing so passes little from the unconscious to the conscious, treading always in the paths of joy and love.

Maria Montesorri, MD

Maria Montessori, born in 1870, was the first woman in Italy to receive a medical degree. She worked in the fields of psychiatry, education and anthropology. She believed that each child is born with a unique potential to be revealed, rather than as a "blank slate" waiting to be written upon. Her main contributions to the work of those of us raising and educating children are in these areas:

Preparing the most natural and life-supporting environments for the child
Observing the child living freely in this environment
Continually adapting the environment in order that the chid may fulfill his or her greatest potential, physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually.

That is one way of practicing the LAW OF THINKING

 

[MaxShimba]

You will notice that Leibniz is smart enough to talk not in absolute terms, but in terms of "sufficient" reason.Essentially he is saying nothing is fully knowable.

As for believing in the laws of thinking, believing is not in my vocabulary.And from that sage Leibniz, we can see that nothing is fully knowable, philosophically speaking, including your own existence. Here even Descartes with his "I think, therefore I am" can be mistaken to be thinking, while he is actually a thought in some deity's head.

So you can see, we cannot truly know about anything, let alone the abstact laws of thinking. We can only try to deal with the relatives, the probabilities, the "sufficient" etc.

The following two statements are contradictory"anything that happens does so for a definite reason" and "In virtue of which no fact can be real or no statement true unless it has sufficient reason why it should be otherwise"

Did you mean ...." why it should not be otherwise" alternatively "why it should be"?

If you claim to know every act has a definite reason, but cannot attribute absoluteness to the reason, can you really demonstrate that every act has a definite reason?

Don't be difficult to your self by refusing to think. The laws of thinking according to Gottfried Leibniz says as follows:

For every entity x, if x exists, then there is a sufficient explanation why x exists.
For every event e, if e occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation why e occurs.
For every proposition p, if p is true, then there is a sufficient explanation why p is true.

Now, unless you come with supporting evidence that disputes against the above reasoning of Gottfried and/or come with your new laws of thinking, your dispute will always be unjustifiable and defacto ad infinitum.

 

[Pundit]

The brunt of my argument is due to the usage of "sufficient explanation", Leibniz was smart enough to avoid the hairy absolutism.

If you have ever read Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, you will agree that sometimes what seems to be "sufficient explanation" is actually an apparent explanation and not the real explanation.The real explanation can be implausible to the unaided eye.

The question is not whether or not for every happenning there is sufficient explanation, this would in some analyses amount to stating the obviopus in a rather anthropic way.My interest is, is there an absolute reason for every happenning?

Unless this question is addressed, the entire "sufficient explanation" house of cards will collapse on itself.

When you talk of "sufficient explanation" you raise the question of "Sufficient explanation to who?". To the ancients the fact that their immediate vicinity seemed flat was sufficient explanation on why they thought the earth was flat, but it was not an absolute explanation, for once it was not an absolutely true explanation, it may have carried a degree of truth in that on a small scale the curvature of the sufrace of the earth can be unnoticeable, but it is far from absolutely tru.

I am interested in the full explanation, the absolute explanation, not the suffient explanation.

Why did Leibniz use the relative "sufficient explanation" and not the absolute "explanation"?

 

[MaxShimba]

One of the popular religious Prophet said, the sun sleeps in the mud at night. Now, do you tell me this Prophet is a liar and his credibilty is null and void because he said and claimed that the sun actualy sleeps in the mud?

At the equinox of the year 1999 to 2000 the Computer Sciencetists said that there will the a crush of computers due to the defacto mathematical binary logics in the brain of the computer "000" the famous Y2K. Now, do you tell me that all computer gigs infor and advises are not justifiable because of failure of Y2K?

Leibniz theorems are justifiable, that we need to think and reason in our doings.

Thats is my opinions

 

[MaxShimba]

Pursuant to Leibniz theorems and pursuant to logics, it does make whole lot of sence to think while reasoning in our daily life.

I don't think it does make sence to do things without reasoning and thinking.

There is a say, Knowledge is a King. Knowledge or cognizance is the fact or condition of having information or being learned or information and principles acquired by mankind by study, investigation, observation, experience, the truth, information, and principles acquired. It is strongly implies the aquairing of profound, recondite, or bookish learning.

 

[MaxShimba]

Thinking is the action of using one's mind and/or interllect to produce logical thoughts.

COGITATE implies deep or intent thinking while SPECULATE is and/or implies a reasoning about things theoretical or problematic.

 

[MaxShimba]

Think, Cogitate, reflect, reason, speculate, deliberate mean to use one's powers of conception, jdugment or inference.

Think is generaly and may apply to any mental activity, but used alone often suggests attainment of clear ideas or conclusions.

 

[MaxShimba]

Cognitive psychology is concerned with how people acquire, process, and store information. Major areas of interest in cognitive psychology include language, attention, memory, decision-making, and problem solving. Cognitive psychology has many practical applications. For example, cognitive principles are often used in the creation of educational curriculum and software design.

 

[MaxShimba]

You will notice that Leibniz is smart enough to talk not in absolute terms, but in terms of "sufficient" reason.Essentially he is saying nothing is fully knowable.

As for believing in the laws of thinking, believing is not in my vocabulary.And from that sage Leibniz, we can see that nothing is fully knowable, philosophically speaking, including your own existence. Here even Descartes with his "I think, therefore I am" can be mistaken to be thinking, while he is actually a thought in some deity's head.

So you can see, we cannot truly know about anything, let alone the abstact laws of thinking. We can only try to deal with the relatives, the probabilities, the "sufficient" etc.

The following two statements are contradictory"anything that happens does so for a definite reason" and "In virtue of which no fact can be real or no statement true unless it has sufficient reason why it should be otherwise"

Did you mean ...." why it should not be otherwise" alternatively "why it should be"?

If you claim to know every act has a definite reason, but cannot attribute absoluteness to the reason, can you really demonstrate that every act has a definite reason?

Ooooops, someone needs to think.

 

[Andrew Nyerere]

I like one thing that Aristotle said,
That,whatever happens today,it was not impossible to say it ,two or three years ago,that this thing would happen today.
Or the statement by Pantanjali that,
Future evi can be avided by thinking.

That little child you are talking abot will neer be educated if there is no teacher,
Three things are needed in order to learn.
1. First one has to aware of the existence of that which he neeeds to earn about.
2.then he needs an Authority,to give him an informed opinion about that thing.
3.He thinks about the thing,and then even forms new ideas of his own.

 

[MaxShimba]

Critical thinking is the ability to think clearly and rationally. It includes the ability to engage in reflective and independent thinking. Someone with critical thinking skills is able to do the following :

understand the logical connections between ideas

identify, construct and evaluate arguments

detect inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning

solve problems systematically

identify the relevance and importance of ideas

reflect on the justification of one's own beliefs and values

Critical thinking is not a matter of accumulating information. A person with a good memory and who knows a lot of facts is not necessarily good at critical thinking. A critical thinker is able to deduce consequences from what he knows, and he knows how to make use of information to solve problems, and to seek relevant sources of information to inform himself.

Critical thinking should not be confused with being argumentative or being critical of other people. Although critical thinking skills can be used in exposing fallacies and bad reasoning, critical thinking can also play an important tole in cooperative reasoning and constructive tasks. Critical thinking can help us acquire knowledge, improve our theories, and strengthen arguments. We can use critical thinking to enhance work processes and improve social institutions.

Good critical thinking might be seen as the foundation of science and a liberal democratic society. Science requires the critical use of reason in experimentation and theory confirmation. The proper functioning of a liberal democracy requires citizens who can think critically about social issues to inform their judgments about proper governance and to overcome biases and prejudice.

 

[MaxShimba]

A person can be good at critical thinking, meaning that the person can have the appropriate dispositions and be adept at the cognitive processes, while still not being a good (in the moral sense) critical thinker. For example, a person can be adept at developing arguments and then, unethically, use this skill to mislead and exploit a gullible person, perpetrate a fraud, or deliberately confuse and confound, and frustrate a project.
The experts were faced with an interesting problem. Some, a minority, would prefer to think that critical thinking, by its very nature, is inconsistent with the kinds of unethical and deliberately counterproductive examples given. They find it hard to imagine a person who was good at critical thinking not also being good in the broader personal and social sense. In other words, if a person were "really" a "good critical thinker" in the procedural sense and if the person had all the appropriate dispositions, then the person simply would not do those kinds of exploitive and aggravating things.
The large majority, however, hold the opposite judgment. They are firm in the view that good critical thinking has nothing to do with... any given set of ethical values or social mores. The majority of experts maintain that critical thinking conceived of as we have described it above, is, regrettably, not inconsistent with its unethical use. A tool, an approach to situations, these can go either way, ethically speaking, depending on the character, integrity, and principles of the persons who possess them. So, in the final analysis the majority of experts maintained that "it is an inappropriate use of the term to deny that someone is engaged in critical thinking on the grounds that one disapproves ethically of what the person is doing.

 

[MaxShimba]

The two beneficial dispositions that are encouraged (but not guaranteed) by critical thinking education:

"Fairminded thinkers take into account the interests of everyone affected by the problem and proposed solutions. They are more committed to finding the best solution than to getting their way." And a critical thinker "has confidence that, in the long run, one's own higher interests and those of humankind at large will be best served by giving the freest play to reason,... despite the deep-seated obstacles in the native character of the human mind and in society as we know it."