|
Deductive logical reasoning is a basic form of valid
logical
reasoning.
Deductive logical reasoning,
deduction, starts out with a
general statement, or hypothesis, and
examines possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion.
In deductive inference, we
go from the general to the specific.
Inductive logical reasoning is the opposite of deductive logical reasoning.
Inductive logical reasoning makes broad generalizations from specific
observations.
In inductive inference,
we go from the specific to the general.
Valid inductive or deductive
inference requires observation
until a pattern is discerned.
Now we infer a generalization as an
explanation, hypothesis or
theory.
Inference in logic is:
- a proposition reached by a
process of inference from assumed premises
- the process of deriving
logical
consequences of
assumed premises.
- the process of arriving at a conclusion not
logically derivable from the assumed premises that possesses the assumed
premises.
Due to the truth of the
preceding statement it is imperative that pattern matches be based on a logic
accurate assessment of reality including an accurate unbiased understanding of
the world outside of personal experience.
If you subscribe to ANY belief system
then you disallow yourself the ability to think in a rational logic
manner.
Anyone who tries to
convince you a belief system will save you is a snake.
Honest
rational logical thought requires the sacrifice of
SACRED
COWS !!!
The
Law of Non-Contradiction states that
no statement
(proposition, assertion, etc.) can be
both true and not true
(false).
The Law of excluded
middle is generally given as "A is B or A is not B;"
object (A) either
has or lacks a given property (B).
An alternate formulation of this
(with propositions instead of objects) is "p or not p" - but not both.
"There is nothing between asserting and denying." -
Aristotle
The
Law of Identity states that A equals A or "if
any statement is true, then this statement is true."
The
Law of Rational Inference monitors
inferences between premises and conclusions.
If A equals B, and B
equals C, then A equals C.
"The law of rational inference teaches that
if premise A and B are valid, then, by what
Martin Luther called
resistless logic, that conclusion C follows." - C. Matthew
McMahon
logic is defined herein
as:
A system of valid reasoning.
The branch of philosophy that
analyzes inference.
The
principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation.
The
nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing,
and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
A branch of philosophy that
deals with the formal principles, methods and criteria of
validity of inference, reasoning
and knowledge.
Logic, concerned with the study of the principles of
reasoning, examines the structure of a statement as distinguished from the
content of a statement.
Logic attempts exact reasoning through formal
thought systems.
Symbolic logic, a meta-language concerned with truth,
represents logical expressions through the use of symbols and
variables.
Propositional logic, also known as sentential logic and
statement logic, is the branch of logic that studies ways of joining and/or
modifying propositions, statements or sentences to form more complex
propositions, statements or sentences, as well as logical relationships and
properties derived from joining.
Boolian logic deals with the basic
operations of truth values: AND, OR, NOT and combinations thereof resulting in
either a true or false answer.
Boolean logic is important for computer
science because it fits nicely with the binary numbering system, in which each
bit has a value of either 1 or 0.
Predicate logic contains the
elements of propositional logic, propositional variables and constants, but
adds predicates and quantifiers.
Symbols, typically used in place of
nouns and pro-nouns, are combined into sentences by means of predicates.
The rules of natural deduction describe how we may proceed from valid
premises to valid conclusions, where the premises and conclusions are
expressions in predicate logic.
The syntax determines which
collections of symbols are legal
expressions while the semantics determine the meanings behind these
expressions.
Predicate logic, first-order logic, is completely formal so
that it can be mechanically determined whether a given expression is true or
legal.
modal logic
Modal logic is a type of formal logic primarily developed in the
1960s that extends classical propositional and predicate logic to include
operators expressing modality.
A modal is a word that expresses a
modality which qualifies a statement.
This text will only be
understood only by someone who can follow a thread.
This text deals
with philosophy: the logic of language is misunderstood.
This text might
be summed up in the following two sentences:
What
can be said at all can be said clearly.
What we cannot talk
about we must pass over in
silence.
The aim
of this text is to reveal limits to the expression of
thought.
(Although what can be said may be stated clearly and
succinctly many times it is
NOT in the interest of the speaker or writer to do so.'
In the case of
propaganda and
deception -
imperative.
To discern propaganda one must follow the logical thought
thread of the proposition being presented.
This edited version of
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus is an attempt to show one logical thought thread
in the Labyrinth of the
Akashic Records.
All numbering and thoughts by Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Some dead ends of the logical thought thread of the Labyrinth of
Ludwig, also known as rabbit holes, have been omitted for the sake of clearity
and brevity.)
2
|
In logic nothing
is accidental.
|
2.01
|
We are quite
unable to imagine spatial objects
outside space or temporal objects outside time.
|
|
|
|
|
2.03
|
In relationships objects are causually linked to one
another like the links of
a chain.
|
2.04
|
In relationships
objects stand in a determinate relation to one another.
|
|
|
2.05
|
The totality of
existing relationships of objects comprises reality.
|
2.12
|
An image is a
model of reality - a snapshot of reality.
|
|
|
2.18
|
What any image,
of whatever form, must have in common with reality, in order to be able to
depict reality – correctly or incorrectly – in any way at all, is
logical form, i.e. the form of reality.
|
2.19
|
Logical images
can depict reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4
|
A thought is a
statement.
|
4.001
|
The totality of
statements is language.
|
4.021
4.022
4.023
|
Man possesses
the ability to construct languages capable of expressing materially related
thoughts, without having any idea how each word
has meaning or what its meaning is – just as people speak without knowing
how the individual sounds are produced.
Everyday language is a part of
the human organism and is no less complicated.
It is not humanly
possible to gather immediately what the logic of language is.
Language disguises thought.
So much so, that
from its outward form of
language it is impossible to infer the form of the thought beneath it,
because its outward form is not designed to reveal the form of the thought, but
for entirely different purposes. The tacit conventions on which the
understanding of everyday language depends are enormously complicated.
|
4.003
|
Philosophers arise
during a cultural wide logic failure.
|
4.01
|
A statement is
an image of reality -
a model of reality as we
imagine it.
|
4.014
|
A gramophone
record, the musical idea, the written notes, and the sound-waves, all stand to
one another in the same internal relation of depicting knowledge that holds
between language and culture. They are all constructed according to a common
logical pattern.
|
4.0141
|
There is a general rule, a
common logical pattern, by means of which the musician can obtain
the symphony from the
score, and which makes it possible to derive the symphony from the groove
on the gramophone record, and, using this first rule, to derive the score
again. The common logical pattern is the general rule that creates the inner
similarity between a musical score, a symphony and a gramophone record - things
which are constructed in such entirely different ways but which produce
identical results.
|
4.015
|
The possibility of all imagery, of all our
pictorial modes of expression, is contained in the logic of depiction.
|
4.02
|
We understand
the sense of a statement without it having been explained in detail through a
commonly held logic of depiction.
|
4.021
|
A statement is a
image of reality: if I understand a statement, I know the situation that it
represents without having had its details explained to
me.
|
|
|
4.023
|
A statement
restricts reality to two alternatives: true or false. In order to do that, it
must chronicle reality
completely. A statement is a description of a state of affairs. Just as a
description of an object describes it by
its properties, so a statement describes reality by its properties. A statement
constructs a reality with the help of a logical scaffolding, so that one can
actually see from the statement how everything stands logically if the
statement is true.
|
4.024
|
To recognize
the truth of a true statement is to logically
understand the noumenon.
|
4.025
|
When translating one language
into another, translators do not proceed
by translating each
statement of the one into a statement of the other, but merely by
translating the
constituents of statements. (And the dictionary
translates not only
substantives, but also verbs, adjectives, and conjunctions, etc.; and it treats
them all in the same way.) Therefore all
translations will be
corrupt.
|
4.026
|
The meanings of
simple symbols (words) must be explained to us or defined for us if we are to
fully understand them.
|
|
|
4.03
|
A statement must
use old expressions to communicate a situation.
|
4.032
|
It is only in
so far as a statement is logically articulated that it is an image of a
situation.
|
4.06
|
A statement can
be true or false only in virtue of being an
image of reality.
|
4.1
|
Statements
represent the existence and non-existence of actual states of
affairs.
|
4.11
|
Philosophy aims at the
logical clarification of thoughts.
|
4.112
4.113
4.114
4.115
|
Philosophy is not a body
of doctrine but an activity.
A philosophical work consists
essentially of elucidations.
Philosophy is the
clarification of actual statements.
Without philosophy thoughts are
cloudy and indistinct:
Sophia's task is to make them clear and to
give them sharp boundaries.
|
4.116
|
Philosophy defines the limits to the sphere of
natural science.
|
4.117
|
Philosophy defines the limits to what can be thought and
what cannot be thought.
|
4.118
|
Philosophy will verify what cannot be said, by presenting clearly
what can be said.
|
4.119
|
Everything that
can be thought at all can be thought clearly. Everything that can be put into
words can be put clearly into words. (Clarity is many times not an intent of
the speaker or author.)
|
4.12
|
Statements can represent reality, but they cannot represent what
they must have in common with reality in order to be able to represent it - the
logical form of reality. In order to be able to represent
the logical form of reality with
statements, we have to be able to station ourselves as observers somewhere
outside logic, outside reality.
|
4.121
|
Statements do not represent the logical form of
reality:
the
logical form of reality is mirrored in them.
Statements
reveal the logical form of
reality.
|
4.125
|
The existence of
an internal relation between possible situations expresses itself in language
by means of an internal relation between the statements representing those
possible situations.
|
4.21
|
The simplest
kind of statement, an elementary statement, asserts the existence of
a state of
affairs.
|
4.211
|
If a statement's
is elementary there can be no elementary statement contradicting
it.
|
4.22
|
An elementary
statement consists of names. It is a nexus, a concatenation, of
names.
|
4.23
|
It is only in
the nexus of an elementary statement that a name occurs in a
statement.
|
4.25
|
If an elementary
statement is true, the state of affairs exists:
if an elementary statement is false, the state of affairs does not exist.
|
|
|
4.411
|
It immediately strikes one as
probable that the introduction of elementary statements provides the basis
for understanding all other kinds of statement. Indeed the understanding of general statements
palpably depends on the understanding of elementary statements. (If
elementary statements are misunderstood then a
false understanding of reality will be forged.)
|
| 4.46 |
Among the possible groups of truth-conditions there are two
extreme cases.
In one of these cases the statement is true for all the
truth-possibilities of the elementary statements.
We say that the
truth-conditions are tautological.
In the second case the statement is
false for all the truth-possibilities: the truth-conditions are
contradictory .
In the first
case we call the statement a tautology; in the second, a
contradiction.
|
| 4.461 |
Statements show
what they say; tautologies and contradictions show that they say
nothing.
A tautology has no truth-conditions, since it is
unconditionally true: and a contradiction is true on no
condition.
Tautologies and contradictions lack sense.
(For
example, I know nothing about the weather when I know that it is either raining
or not raining.)
|
| 4.46211 |
Tautologies and
contradictions are not, however, nonsensical.
They are part of the
symbolism of language, much as '0' is
part of the symbolism of
arithmetic.
|
| 4.462 |
Tautologies and
contradictions are not images of reality. They do not represent any possible
situations.
For the former admit all possible situations, and latter
none .
In a tautology the conditions of agreement with reality –
the representational relations – cancel one another, so that it does not
stand in any representational relation to reality.
|
| 4.463 |
The
truth-conditions of a statement determine the range that it leaves open. A
tautology leaves open to reality the whole –
the Ineffable Whole – of logical
space: a contradiction fills the whole of logical space leaving no point in
logical space for reality.
Tautologies and contradictions are thus
unable to determine reality in any way.
|
| 4.464 |
A tautology's truth is
certain, a statement's
possible, a contradiction's
impossible.
Certain,
possible,
impossible:
the first
indication of a scale to be used in
the theory of
probability.
|
| 4.465 |
The logical
product of a tautology and a statement says the same thing as the statement.
This product, therefore, is identical with the statement.
It is impossible to alter what is
essential to a symbol without altering its essence.
|
| 4.5 |
What is essential in the most general propositional form must be
included in its description.
The existence of a general propositional
form is proven by the fact that there cannot be a statement whose form could
not have been foreseen.
The general form of a statement is:
This is how things
stand.
|
4.51
|
If I am in
possession of a basic truthful understanding of all elementary statements then
I can intuitively deduct from that library of elementary statements the actual
conditions of reality.
Out of
that knowledge I can construct a structural definition of the limits of the
common logical language pattern's ability to define reality
accurately.
|
5
|
A statement is a
truth-function of elementary statements.
(An
elementary statement is a truth-function of itself.)
|
5.01
|
Elementary statements are the
truth-arguments of statements.
|
5.1
|
Truth-functions arranged in series is the
foundation of the theory of probability.
|
5.123
|
If God forged a reality in which
certain elementary statements were true, then by that very act God would have
also forged a reality in which all the statements that follow from those
elementary statements are true.
|
5.124
|
A statement affirms every
statement that follows from it.
|
5.13
|
The truth of one statement
following from the truth of others can be seen in the structure of the
statement.
|
5.131
|
The truth of one statement
following from the truth of others, finds expression in the structural relation
of the forms of the statements to one another. These relations exist
independently of definitions, the relations are internal and their existence is
an immediate result of the existence of the statements.
|
5.143
|
Contradiction is that common
factor of statements which no statement has in common with another. Tautology
is the common factor of all statements that have nothing in common with one
another. Contradiction, one might say, vanishes outside all statements:
tautology vanishes inside them. Contradiction is the outer limit of statements:
tautology is the unsubstantial point at their center
|
5.153
|
In itself, a statement is neither
probable nor improbable.
Either an event occurs or it
does not: there is no middle way.
|
5.154
|
Suppose an urn contains black and
white balls.
I draw one
ball after another, putting them back into the urn and shaking it.
I
establish that the number of black balls and the number of white balls
approximate one another when I recognize the
probability of my drawing a white ball
is equal to the probability of my drawing a black one.
I confirm by this
experiment the probability
of my ability to judge the quantity of balls realitive to one another by
taking a small sample repeatedly from the
urn.
|
5.155
|
The minimal unit for
a probability
statement is this: The circumstances – of which I have no further
knowledge – give such and
such a degree of probability to the occurrence of a particular event.
|
5.156
|
It is in this way that probability is a
generalization . It involves a general description of a propositional form.
We use probability only in
default of certainty – if our knowledge is not indeed complete. (A
statement may well be an incomplete image of a certain situation, but it is
always a complete image of a conceptualized situation.)
A probability statement is derived from
other statements.
|
5.3
|
All statements are results of
truth-operations on elementary statements. A truth-operation is the way in
which a truth-function is produced out of elementary statements. It is of the
essence of truth-operations that, just as elementary statements yield a
truth-function of themselves, so too in the same way truth-functions yield
further truth- functions. When a truth-operation is applied to truth-functions
of elementary statements, it always generates another truth-function of
elementary statements. When a truth-operation is applied to the results of
truth-operations on elementary statements, there is always a single operation
on elementary statements that has the same result. Every statement is the
result of truth-operations on elementary statements.
|
5.32
|
All truth-functions are results
of successive applications to elementary statements of a finite number of
truth-operations.
|
5.45
|
If there are primitive logical
archetypical truths, then any logic pattern that fails to show clearly how
those logical archetypical truths are placed relatively to one another to
justify their existence will be incorrect.
|
5.451
|
If logic has primitive logical
archetypical truths, they must be independent of one another.
|
5.4541
|
The solutions of the problems
of logic must be simple, since they set the standard of simplicity. Men have
always had a presentiment that there must be a realm in which the answers to
questions are symmetrically combined – a priori –
to form a self-contained
system. A realm subject to the law: Simplex sigillum veri.
|
5.47
|
It is clear that whatever we can
say in advance about the form of all statements, we must be able to say all at
once . An elementary statement really contains all logical operations within
itself.
|
5.471
|
The general propositional form
is the essence of a statement.
|
5.4711
|
To give the essence of a
statement means to give the essence of all description, and thus the essence of
reality.
|
5.472
|
The description of the most
general propositional form is the description of the one and only general
primitive archetypical truth in logic.
|
5.473
|
Logic must look after itself. If
a archetypical truth is possible , then it is also capable of signifying.
Whatever is possible in logic is also permitted.
|
5.47321
|
Occam's Razor is, of course, not
an arbitrary rule,
nor one that is justified by its success in practice: its point is that
unnecessary units in a language mean nothing. Symbols that serve one purpose
are logically equivalent, and symbols that serve none are logically
meaningless.
|
5.476
|
It is clear that this is not a
question of a number of primitive archetypical truths that have to be
signified, but rather of the expression of underlying rule.
|
5.511
|
How can logic –
all-embracing logic,
which mirrors reality – use such peculiar crotchets and contrivances?
Only because they are all connected with one another in an infinitely fine
network, the great mirror of
Creation.
|
5.526
|
We can describe reality
completely by means of fully generalized statements
without first
correlating any name with a particular object.
|
5.5261
|
A fully generalized statement,
like every other statement, is composite.
The mark of a composite symbol is
that it has something in common with other symbols.
|
5.5262
|
The truth or falsity of every
statement does make some alteration in the
general conceptual
construction of reality. The range that the totality of elementary
statements leaves open for the construction of reality is exactly the same as
that which is delimited by entirely general statements.
|
5.5301
|
It is self-evident that
identity is not a relation between objects.
|
5.5423
|
To perceive a
complex statement means to
perceive that its
constituents are related to one another in such and such a way. Contradictions
arise when constituent elementary statements have been improperly
conceptualized which explains the existence of apparent
contradictions.
|
5.552
|
The 'experience' that we need in
order to correctly understand logic is not that something or other is the state
of affairs, but that something actually exists.
|
5.555
|
Clearly we have some concept of
elementary statements quite apart from their particular logical forms. When
there is a system by which we can create symbols, the system is what is
important for logic and not the individual symbols. We need to understand what
makes it possible for us to create those symbols.
|
5.556
|
There cannot be a hierarchy of
the forms of elementary statements. We can foresee only what we ourselves can
construct.
|
5.5561
|
Empirical reality is limited by
the totality of objects. The limit also makes itself manifest in the totality
of elementary statements. Hierarchies are and must be independent of reality.
|
5.5563
|
In fact, all the statements of
our everyday language, just as they stand, are in perfect logical order. –
That utterly simple thing, which we have to formulate here, is not a likeness
of the truth, but the truth itself in its
entirety. (Our problems are not
abstract, but perhaps the most concrete that there are.)
|
5.6
|
The limits of my language set
the limits of my reality.
|
5.61
|
Logic pervades reality: the
limits of reality are also the limits of logic. We cannot think what we cannot
think; so what we cannot think we cannot say either.
|
5.62
|
Reality is my world: this is
manifest in that the limits of language are the limits of my
world.
|
5.621
|
My world and my reality are
one.
|
5.641
|
Thus there really is a sense in
which philosophy can talk about the self in a non-psychological way. What
brings the self into philosophy is the fact that 'reality is my world'. The
philosophical self is not the human
being, not the human body, or
the human soul, with which
psychology deals, but rather
the metaphysical
subject, the limit of reality – not a part of it.
|
6.1
|
The statements
of logic are tautologies.
|
6.112
|
Statements of
logic must be assigned a
unique status among all statements.
|
6.113
|
Logical
statements can be recognized as true immedialtely from the symbols alone, and
this fact contains in itself the whole philosophy of
logic..
|
6.114
|
The truth or
falsity of non-logical statements cannot be recognized from the statements
alone.
|
|
|
6.12
|
The fact that
the statements of logic are tautologies shows the formal – logical –
properties of language and reality.
|
6.1202
|
It is clear
that one could achieve the same purpose by using contradictions instead of
tautologies.
|
6.121
|
In a logical
statement, statements are brought into equilibrium with one another, and the
state of equilibrium then indicates the logical constitution of these
statements.
|
6.123
|
The statements
of logic describe the scaffolding of reality, or rather they represent it.
|
6.124
|
If we know the
logical syntax of any language, then we have already
been given all the statements of logic.
|
6.125
|
Thus there can
be no surprises in
logic.
|
|
|
6.126
|
In logic process
and result are equivalent. (Hence
the absence of
surprise.)
|
|
|
6.127
|
Proof in logic
is merely a mechanical expedient to facilitate the recognition of tautologies in complicated
cases.
|
|
|
6.13
|
Logic is not a body of doctrine, but
a mirror-image of
reality.
Logic is
transcendental.
|
6.2
|
Mathematics is a
logical method.
The statements of mathematics are equations, and
therefore pseudo-statements.
|
6.21
|
We make use of mathematical statements as inferences from
statements that do not belong to mathematics to others that likewise do not
belong to mathematics.
|
6.211
|
(In
philosophy the question, 'What do we actually use this word or this statement
for?' repeatedly leads to valuable
insights.)
|
6.22
|
The logic of
reality, shown in tautologies by the statements of logic, is shown in equations
by mathematics.
|
6.23
|
If two
expressions are combined by means of the sign of equality, that means that they
can be substituted for one another - this characterizes their logical
form.
|
6.233
|
The question
whether intuition is needed for the solution of mathematical problems must be
given the answer that in this case
language itself provides the necessary intuition.
|
6.2331
|
The process of
calculating serves to bring about that intuition.
|
6.24
|
Mathematics
arrives at equations through the method of substitution. The substitutability
of substitution is in accordance with the equations.
|
6.3
|
The exploration
of logic means the exploration of everything that is subject to law. Outside
logic, or law, everything is accidental.
|
6.31
|
The mathematical
law of induction cannot possibly be a law of logic, since it is obviously a
statement with sense. - Nor, therefore, can it be an a priori law.
|
6.32
|
The law of
causality is not a law but the form of a law.
{"All
actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and
determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in
contradiction to its nature."- Ayn Rand
"If one thing the same
in nature at different times, or two things the same in nature, are to act in
situations the same in their nature, they must act on both occasions in the
same way."- HW B. Joseph}
|
|
|
|
|
6.33
|
We do not have
an a priori
understanding of the law of conservation, but rather
a priori knowledge of the
possibility of its logical form.
|
6.34
|
All such
statements, including the principle of sufficient reason,
the laws of continuity
in nature and of least effort in nature, etc. - all these are a priori
insights about the forms in which the statements of science can be
cast.
|
6.341
|
Newtonian
mechanics, for example, imposes a unified form on the description of
reality.
|
6.342
|
Describing reality by means of Newtonian mechanics
tells us nothing about reality: what it
does tell us about reality is the precise way it is possible to describe
reality by these means.
|
6.343
|
Newtonian
mechanics is an attempt to construct according to a single plan all the true
statements that we need for the description of reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.36
|
If there were a
law of causality, it might be put in the following way: There are
Laws of Nature.
|
6.3611
|
We cannot
compare a process with 'the passage of time' – there is no such thing
– but only with another process (such as the working of a chronometer).
Hence we can describe the lapse of time only by relying on some other
process.
|
6.362
|
The procedure of
induction consists in accepting as true the simplest law that can be reconciled
with our experiences. Occam's
Razor suggests this.
|
6.363
|
Using Occam's
Razor rentlessly has no logical justification, only a
psychological one.
|
6.3631
|
It is clear
that there are no grounds for believing that the simplest eventuality will in
fact be realized as a belief does not declare actuality.
|
6.36311
|
It is an
hypothesis that we will see
the sun will rise tomorrow: we do not know whether we will see it rise. (From
past experience we can expect the sun to rise and when we understand the actual
motion of the planets in relation to the sun we have faith that, yes indeed,
the sun will rise tomorrow but we have no guarantee that
we ourselves will be standing there alive to
witness the sun emerging over the horizon.)
|
6.375
|
Just as
the only necessity that exists is logical
necessity, so too the only
impossibility that exists is
logical
impossibility.
|
6.3751
|
For example, the
simultaneous presence of two
colors at the same place in the visual field is impossible, in fact
logically
impossible, since it is ruled out by the
logical structure of
color.
|
6.3752
|
It is clear that
the logical product of two elementary statements can
neither be a tautology nor a
contradiction.
|
6.3753
|
The statement that a point in the visual field
has two different colors at the same time is a contradiction.
|
6.4
|
An understanding of reality must
lie outside reality.
|
6.41
|
In reality everything is as it
is, and everything happens as it does happen.
|
6.43
|
The reality of
the happy man is a different one from the reality of the unhappy
man.
|
6.4311
|
Death is not an
event in life: we do not live to experience death.
|
6.4312
|
If we take
eternity to mean not infinite
temporal duration but timelessness, then
eternal life belongs to those
who live in the present.
|
6.44
|
It is not how things are in reality
that is mystical, but that reality actually exists.
|
6.5
|
When the answer
cannot be put into words, neither can the question be put into
words.
|
6.51
|
Skepticism is
not irrefutable, but obviously nonsensical, when it tries to raise doubts where
no questions can be asked. For doubt can exist only where a question exists, a
question only where an answer exists, and an
answer only where something can be
said.
Trendy Skepticism : The Badge of The Emotionally Unfit &
Intellectually Bankrupt
|
6.52
|
Even when all
possible scientific questions have been answered, the problems of life remain
completely untouched. Of course there are then no questions left, and this
itself is the answer.
|
6.521
|
The
solution of the problem of life is seen in
the vanishing of the problem.
|
6.522
|
Is not this the
reason why those who have found after a long period of doubt that the sense of
life became clear to them have then been unable to say what constituted that
sense?
|
6.523
|
There are,
indeed, things that cannot be put into words.
They make themselves
manifest. They are what is mystical.
|
7
|
What we cannot
speak about we must pass over in silence.
|
|
|
Weltanschauung is the conceptualization that all
ideologies, beliefs, political systems - variations on rational logical systems
of thought - are limited and defined by the schemata of common linguistic
understanding - in other words they are
conditional
truths.
|
|
 |
This web site is not a commercial web site and
is presented for educational purposes only.
This website defines a new
perspective with which to engage reality to which its author adheres. The
author feels that the falsification of reality outside personal experience has
forged a populace unable to discern propaganda from reality and that this has
been done purposefully by an international corporate cartel through their
agents who wish to foist a corrupt version of reality on the human race.
Religious intolerance occurs when any group refuses to tolerate religious
practices, religious beliefs or persons due to their religious ideology. This
web site marks the founding of a system of philosophy named The Truth of the
Way of the Lumière Infinie - a rational gnostic mystery religion based
on reason which requires no leap of faith, accepts no tithes, has no supreme
leader, no church buildings and in which each and every individual is
encouraged to develop a personal relation with the Creator and Sustainer
through the pursuit of the knowledge of reality in the hope of curing the
spiritual corruption that has enveloped the human spirit. The tenets of The
Truth of the Way of the Lumière Infinie are spelled out in detail on
this web site by the author. Violent acts against individuals due to their
religious beliefs in America is considered a "hate crime."
This web site
in no way condones violence. To the contrary the intent here is to reduce the
violence that is already occurring due to the international corporate cartels
desire to control the human race. The international corporate cartel already
controls the world economic system, corporate media worldwide, the global
industrial military entertainment complex and is responsible for the collapse
of morals, the elevation of self-centered behavior and the destruction of
global ecosystems. Civilization is based on coöperation. Coöperation
does not occur at the point of a gun.
American social mores and values
have declined precipitously over the last century as the corrupt international
cartel has garnered more and more power. This power rests in the ability to
deceive the populace in general through corporate media by pressing emotional
buttons which have been preprogrammed into the population through prior
corporate media psychological operations. The results have been the destruction
of the family and the destruction of social structures that do not adhere to
the corrupt international elites vision of a perfect world. Through distraction
and coercion the direction of thought of the bulk of the population has been
directed toward solutions proposed by the corrupt international elite that
further consolidates their power and which further their purposes.
All
views and opinions presented on this web site are the views and opinions of
individual human men and women that, through their writings, showed the
capacity for intelligent, reasonable, rational, insightful and unpopular
thought. All factual information presented on this web site is believed to be
true and accurate and is presented as originally presented in print media which
may or may not have originally presented the facts truthfully. Opinion and
thoughts have been adapted, edited, corrected, redacted, combined, added to,
re-edited and re-corrected as nearly all opinion and thought has been
throughout time but has been done so in the spirit of the original writer with
the intent of making his or her thoughts and opinions clearer and relevant to
the reader in the present time.
Fair Use Notice
This site may contain
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our
efforts to advance understanding of criminal justice, human rights, political,
economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe
this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for
in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those
who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes. For more information see:
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted
material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |
 Copyright
© Lawrence Turner
All Rights Reserved
|
)