Why does the Right stand any chance - at all?

Post Reply New Topic

Indeed.

The Vulcans were hypocrites. First off, it’s perfectly logical to have emotions. It’s only immoral to be guided exclusively by them. Emotion-only existence is not fundamentally different from an animalistic existence based on instinct and nothing else. Sentient beings have the ability to accept or reject reactivity in favor of something that yields more favorable circumstances.

Second, Vulcans are deluding themselves by denying even pleasurable emotions. There’s a reason they prefer pure logic. If they didn’t find pleasure in it, or even virtue, they wouldn’t choose it. That makes their particular reasoning absurd.

Logical thoughts and actions are virtuous. But it doesn’t do you any good if what you consider logic really isn’t.


Much of this I agree with, although I would say it is easy to cast stones on Vulcans, when you are not one (kind of how NT's do the same to Aspies). Their planet and past are violent, full of large swings between opposing emotions. The old Gods of Vulcan always had two aspects (like Egypt, the Vulcan's are modeled at least partially on Jews). They could not enjoy happiness without also being beholden to heated anger lusts.

In general though, you are correct, the Vulcan's are out to lunch on the finer points. The Vulcan's even learned this when Surak was brought forward in time ST: Enterprise "Awkening".

Asking me or anyone to prove logic is insane. Yes, I avoided it, but only because you want certainty when you should be looking for understanding. I could explain a logical proof is a kind of computational receipt, but what stops you from doubting something else of what I say because of lack of 100% certainty? Probably nothing.

So I cut you off before you can play this ridiculous game forever.

Is there a thread on Vulcan Logic already?

Actually I forgot to mention homophobia...prejudice against sexual orientation trumps religion as well. What is perhaps most amusing is a lot of these christian clowns claim to believe the bible is "the literal word of god" but can't quote a single verse of scripture. At least Jews and muslims memorise their holy books.

I never watched Enterprise. But yes, I did have Surak in mind. He experienced a loss of reason (some kind of crisis all Vulcans experience at some point) and needed a mind-meld with Picard to complete some kind of diplomatic task (I THINK that’s right). IRL everyone has some kind of crack in logic. What matters is that we do our best with the mental faculties we do have and not worry about the rest.

Funny you mentioned computational Logic... I recently started programming in Python even though I have ZERO background in computer science. I used to play with BASIC on a CoCo3 (80’s equivalent of a ChromeBook) when I was a kid, I TRIED learning Swift, but somehow Python just clicked. I made a generative music program using nothing but functions, then started converting those into objects, rewriting the whole thing. It pretty much works, but I still have some bugs to work out. My next goal is to break my dependence on DAWs for synthesis. For now, until I learn enough to write my own synthesizer, I’ve downloaded TensorFlow and plan to use NSynth to handle sound generation. I don’t enjoy taking the lazy way out, especially if I have the model already in my head. But I’m not gettin any younger, either. Besides, experimenting with ML never hurt anyone.

And you’re right...trying to prove logic is an exercise in insanity. Same idea with the scientific method. Same thing with ANYTHING that requires a thought process and reliance on the senses. All reasoning is inherently circular. If circular reasoning is fallacious, then it’s impossible to know anything with any degree of certainty. You can’t even claim a percentage of certainty, never mind absolutes. To claim a percentage of certainty, you have to be aware of SOMETHING absolute in order to have a basis for comparison. That’s impossible since (what?) you can’t independently know anything in absolute terms.

That’s why people hate absolutes so much—they’re humanly impossible to know. Postmodern logic essentially embraces the absurd and celebrates incoherency, owing to the problem of knowing absolutes. The failure of postmodernism is that absolutes don’t require human understanding to exist. Do absolutes exist? Yes, of course, they do. But in order to prove that, you must use logic, which itself can only be assumed, not proven. Once again, human logic fails on the grounds of circularity. Even though absolutes exist, we cannot make a reasoned claim to know them.

It’s not a “game” I’m trying to play. The only way you can make an intellectually honest claim to know anything is if you actually know EVERYTHING. If you don’t know everything there is to know, you can’t claim to know anything.

The closest I’ve come to working through that is with objective axioms. But even they pose problems because it doesn’t logically follow that they MUST necessarily be true. If objective axioms provide a logical loophole, what’s stopping me from making any claim I want? If you can solve that problem, then it’s possible to know something.

To illustrate how this affects us IRL, take atheism vs. theism. Atheists are always (at least in my experience) mystified that their best arguments never sway believers. Theists, Christians especially, have the same experience. When you put forth your perfect, airtight argument, you end up getting ignored, handwaved, or you get a goalpost moved. Why is that? The only conclusion you can draw from that is the other side must be delusional. Ok...but which side is right? Either God exists or He doesn’t. How do you know which one it is?