Logic studies methods of reasoning. Logic is to reasoning as culinary science is to cooking.

Ok, so method, outcome. Or perhaps the same as saying, "Cause" reason, "Effect" logic. ? I'm trying to understand order, or sequence in this.

Logic studies methods of reasoning — fdrake

Sorry, I just re-read that. Is that not putting the cart before the horse? Reasoning was, before logic was?

Logic is the best way for reason to work. It is not the only way. "The insane are not those who have lost their reason, but those who have lost all except logic."

Logic is the best way for reason to work. — Gregory

But if reason came before logic, then reason does not need logic in order to be? Again, sort of putting the cart before the horse. Forgive my ignorance I just want to understand, that's all. Babylonian and Summeria were before logic, and they had pretty good cities and what have you, without logic.

Reasoning was, before logic was? — Antidote

Insofar as logic is understood as the study of methods of reasoning, yes. Humans have been able to reason long before we could write.

Humans have been able to reason long before we could write. — fdrake

Ok, that's good. So I could reasonably say, "Reason was used to create logic by the Ancient Greeks". Or put another way, Reason gave birth to Logic.

Seems mostly fine to me.

Reason is a power. Logic is a mold you put it in. Whether we are reason itself, see the thread on Sartre on this forum

Thank you, I'll take a look at that.

So I could also write this as, "Reason was the cause, that gave rise to the effect of Logic". ?

And if there was an "error" in logic, then Reason would be the best tool to find it? Because logic would not be able to find an error in logic (like a snake eating its own tail).

Logic cannot exist without reason but reason can exist without logic?

"The insane are not those who have lost their reason, but those who have lost all except logic." — Gregory

Sorry, again, this looks like the cart is before the horse again. Surely, its the other way around? Those who have lost reason, but still maintain logic are insane?

Those who have lost reason, but still maintain logic? — Antidote

They think so much that relativism kicks in but they are unable to handle it. That's why they say crazy things. That quote was from Chesterton but could have been from Jung.

Logic cannot exist without reason but reason can exist without logic? — Antidote

A koan in the East is used to counter the logic of Aristotle. They stand opposed, apparently. Hegel might be a bridge between them. Read his first published book. Jung thought Hegel's subconscious was leaking out ideas, but Jung was not a philosopher. He might have been right on a psychological level though. Aristotle could maybe beat Hegel at chess, so to speak

Ok, so again its reasonable to say, if reason were a branch on a tree, and logic a sub branch of that tree and i cut off the branch of reason, the branch of logic has gone too. So where there is no reason there can be no logic?

Because you would be connecting thoughts with intuition. Logic and intuition are the halves of reason. This is all hard to explain. Logic and intuition interact in multiple ways, very various

If we use cause and effect to make sure we maintain order, then the correct order is thus, unless I'm being stupid...

Intuition which cannot be defined logically belongs to reason , or reason belongs to intuition because both of these can exist without logic. Therefore logic sits at the bottom of the cause and effect chain. We can remove logic without remove the others. We cannot remove the others without losing logic.

If we use cause and effect to make sure we maintain order, then the correct order is thus, unless I'm being stupid...

Intuition which cannot be defined logically belongs to reason , or reason belongs to intuition because both of these can exist without logic. Therefore logic sits at the bottom of the cause and effect chain. We can remove logic without remove the others. — Antidote

Very good

We cannot remove the others without losing logic — Antidote

Logical skepticism can freeze intuition, at least apparently, and reason then acts strangely

Cause and effect says, one thing follows another, not two things. Intuition doesnt need to be involved at all. Reason comes before logic, thats it.

Reason is a faculty, logic is something it does. Reality is separate form our normal cognition. We don't grasp it accurately, without work

If you remove "logic" you are left with "reason". Everything in life is simple, just like me.

Reason is a descriptor of how we think about or approach a problem: deductively, inductively, abductively, backward inductive, critically, counter factually, by intuition, etc.

Logic is a mathematical based process of Identifying valid and invalid arguments within language. This can be done because language has a mathematical nature to it even though it deals with many abstract concepts, where as, math would be considered pure logic.

Reason is naturally intuitive. It learns logic. Whether logic is logical is debated. With the insane logic eats itself like a snake eating its tail. The insane are very smart but can't handle their genuis. In our eyes they are an example of a botched attempt to be genuis.

Firstly, I have to point out that I'm as dumb as a lump of wood, so I need things to be explained in as simple terms as possible, what is the difference between "reason" and "logic"? I ask this because the Ancient Greeks (Plato and the like) created logic, but when you look at the definitions of logic, they talk about "reason". Now, before Ancient Greek, there was no logic system in place because the Greeks hadn't come up with yet. However, the Egyptians had already built their pyramids by then, and "being the 1st wonder of the world" nothing has surpassed it. They also farmed land, etc etc.

Now, they were using the power of reason there, not logic. So can someone please help out a stupid person like me and draw up their thoughts? — Antidote

Logic is an assortment of rules, or indicators, that define a type of thinking - reasoning. If you are using logic, then your are using reason, or being reasonable. If not using logic, then you are not using reason. You are learning, imagining, remembering, supposing, or one of the other types of thinking that we do. Reason/Logic, coupled with observation, is science. Logic is to reason as the scientific method is to science. The former is a formal set of rules that define the latter. The rules are meant to make a formal distinction between different types of thinking and their uses.

I read philosophy to classic rock

I'm possibly being simple here but there are fundamental differences between reason and logic. For instance, logic say,

A = B, therefore B = A

Logically this is sound, because logic is interested in sequence.

Reason, however, knows this is not true because reason is interested in Order.

Fast and slow is not the same as Slow and Fast.

Reason can see this, logic cannot. Therefore logic can never arrive at real Truth. It cannot explain our world.

I'm possibly being simple here but there are fundamental differences between reason and logic. For instance, logic say,

A = B, therefore B = A

Logically this is sound, because logic is interested in sequence.

Reason, however, knows this is not true because reason is interested in Order. — Antidote

Citation?

Logic is the same as reason. If you are using one, you are using the other because one formally defines the other. If you are being reasonable, you are being logical.

Merriam -Webster says:
Logic:
A. a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning.

B. a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty

Logical:
capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion

Firstly, I have to point out that I'm as dumb as a lump of wood, so I need things to be explained in as simple terms as possible, what is the difference between "reason" and "logic"? I ask this because the Ancient Greeks (Plato and the like) created logic, but when you look at the definitions of logic, they talk about "reason". Now, before Ancient Greek, there was no logic system in place because the Greeks hadn't come up with yet. However, the Egyptians had already built their pyramids by then, and "being the 1st wonder of the world" nothing has surpassed it. They also farmed land, etc etc.

Now, they were using the power of reason there, not logic. So can someone please help out a stupid person like me and draw up their thoughts? — Antidote

It seems likely to me that the person who asks such a reasonable and pertinent question about terms as confused in our tradition as these, is a thoughtful and perceptive person.

I expect there is more consensus nowadays about use of the term "logic". For the most part people seem content to use this word to refer to something like rules or systems of inference, including syllogistic, propositional, and predicate logic, for example. Sometimes people speak as if abstract systems of symbolic logic are the only sort of proper logic. So far as I can tell, that view is confused. Rules of inference need not be expressed in such terms, and may be expressed in ordinary language.

It seems to me there's less consensus on use of the term "reason". The way people tend to use this word depends on the sort of conversations they tend to have. Some logicians tend to speak about "reasoning" as if it's synonymous with logical thinking or logical speaking -- thinking or speaking in keeping with formal rules of inference, drawing valid conclusions from a consistent set of premises, defining terms in keeping with the principle of the excluded middle, and so on. Some radical postmodern critics speak about "reason" as if it is a confused prejudice of ancient and modern philosophers subconsciously motivated to legitimize the authority of an oppressive social order.

I'm influenced by another line of usage in our tradition. I tend to use the word "reason" and its cognates to refer to the peculiar human custom of "giving and taking reasons" by speaking. I further characterize this practice of reasoning as an exchange of assertions that have the role in speech of justifying actions. Some of the deeds thus justified are acts of speech. Some of these speech acts are assertions, or are in other words discursive claims.

Formal rules of inference are products of culture and convention, made explicit at particular historical periods. The custom of "reasoning" by using assertions to justify actions is a more generic practice, which surely emerged in the world before the articulation of formal rules of inference, and presumably was a condition of or factor in the emergence of explicit rules of inference.

I take it the custom of exchanging reasons in speech is exemplary of a yet more generic process of "rational thinking" that does not depend on language, and that is common to many forms of intelligent animal life. Some people may prefer to use the term "reason" to apply to this more generic form of thought, as does Hume, for instance. I aim to use the term "reason" exclusively to characterize the peculiar human custom I've indicated, without objecting to or entailing any conflict with the more generic use exemplified by Hume.

It seems likely to me that the person who asks such a reasonable and pertinent question about terms as confused in our tradition as these, is a thoughtful and perceptive person. — Cabbage Farmer

You give too much credit, I'm just a simple person and as such am prone to error like anyone else, so I state this from the off so people don't mistakenly think I am in possession of the truth (I'm just testing everything). I have a passion for Truth, not necessarily consensus, but actual truth in fact. There are errors in anything we do, and to be honest, this type of subject is more prone than any other so if I'm wrong, great because I get an education, but if not well then maybe fiction can be replaced by fact.

I'm also aware how our language (spoken and written) can be misleading for all of us. The errors that it can produce are terrible, because it means someone may have the truth, and yet in the communication, the truth is lost and the false is accepted instead. So I try to be simple and baby steps all the time, to reduce error. My Dad would say to me, "KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid!" :)

But don't take my word for it, because I may have made a mistake. Some people want an argument, I don't. I want an answer and the facts.

The "Logic" system can be defined because it was created, so the rules are known. However, Reason doesn't seem to be the same. It seems to have a quality to it that is indefinable and yet it is considered less important than Logic, or worse they are considered the same. If this was an accident, it can be put right. If it was intentional, then that's something much worse (as in a deliberate error to mislead people, myself included).

You give too much credit, I'm just a simple person and as such am prone to error like anyone else, so I state this from the off so people don't mistakenly think I am in possession of the truth (I'm just testing everything). I have a passion for Truth, not necessarily consensus, but actual truth in fact. There are errors in anything we do, and to be honest, this type of subject is more prone than any other so if I'm wrong, great because I get an education, but if not well then maybe fiction can be replaced by fact. — Antidote

It sounds to me that we are kindred spirits. I say similar things about myself, about conversations like these, and about the ignorance, error and confusion that comes naturally to things like us. Perhaps you've also been inspired by the example of Socrates?

I agree that truth has priority over agreement. Nonetheless, I aim not only to seek the truth and speak the truth, but also to identify and expand consensus and common ground, in order to promote the common good.

It seems the search for common ground tends to direct my search for truth and the exercise of my critical powers in conversations like these.

I'm also aware how our language (spoken and written) can be misleading for all of us. The errors that it can produce are terrible, because it means someone may have the truth, and yet in the communication, the truth is lost and the false is accepted instead. So I try to be simple and baby steps all the time, to reduce error. My Dad would say to me, "KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid!" :)

But don't take my word for it, because I may have made a mistake. Some people want an argument, I don't. I want an answer and the facts. — Antidote

A wonderful custom!

I like to call myself a knucklehead, and I advise others to think like a knucklehead, by breaking complex problems into small manageable parts. It seems to me this sort of practice helps us avoid flying off the handle and chasing our tails in confused discursive adventures.

The "Logic" system can be defined because it was created, so the rules are known. However, Reason doesn't seem to be the same. It seems to have a quality to it that is indefinable and yet it is considered less important than Logic, or worse they are considered the same. If this was an accident, it can be put right. If it was intentional, then that's something much worse (as in a deliberate error to mislead people, myself included). — Antidote

I'm strongly inclined to agree with you, Antidote. And by now I'm fairly certain that if you're as dumb as a stump, then I am too.

It seems to me that reason is the more basic and natural power in things like us. By contrast, logic seems a more artificial, arbitrary, and fragile custom that depends on a prior practice of reasoning.

I'm not sure to what extent our traditional confusion in such matters is the result of intentionally misleading gestures. It's not clear to me that there is an objective basis according to which we might sort out the motives and intentions of the authors who have contributed to our confusion.

It sounds to me that we are kindred spirits. I say similar things about myself, about conversations like these, and about the ignorance, error and confusion that comes naturally to things like us. Perhaps you've also been inspired by the example of Socrates?

I agree that truth has priority over agreement. Nonetheless, I aim not only to seek the truth and speak the truth, but also to identify and expand consensus and common ground, in order to promote the common good.

It seems the search for common ground tends to direct my search for truth and the exercise of my critical powers in conversations like these. — Cabbage Farmer

I would have to agree :) Everything I have seen gravitates to (or is attracted to) that of the same vibration. This is sort of like a universal guiding force that draws like-kind together. I'm still trying to compose myself having seen the "inspiration" of Socrates and the like. Some lessons in life are suppose to hard I guess.

Definitely so, the built-in potential error with agreement, as I bet you know, is that if all are mad and all agree, all are still mad. Not a great outcome in any real terms. We definitely do seem to be of the same wavelength!

What a beautiful way to describe it, I definitely agree. From what I gather, there is an infinite spectrum of vibration, always one greater, always one lesser.

this sort of practice helps us avoid flying off the handle and chasing our tails in confused discursive adventures — Cabbage Farmer

Said the straight scientist. I'm sure a lot of the distraction in the name of entertainment works for some, but most certainty not for the likes of us. Reason must be purpose. And I only turn to purpose for a reason usually to learn something I don't know. Have you looked at Egypt much or before?

It seems to me that reason is the more basic and natural power in things like us. By contrast, logic seems a more artificial, arbitrary, and fragile custom that depends on a prior practice of reasoning. — Cabbage Farmer

Definitely so, logic is the lesser of the two by far but then it would be, logic was man made. I see logic at the beginning but then its soon surpassed by reason in the gap between.

I'm not sure to what extent our traditional confusion in such matters is the result of intentionally misleading gestures. It's not clear to me that there is an objective basis according to which we might sort out the motives and intentions of the authors — Cabbage Farmer

This is what I want to understand. Have you heard Kasabian - Days are Forgotten? Great tune. I think Plato's Republic - Book 1 gives an insight but I'm open and if the fiction can be put right then its something I guess.

to be explained in as simple terms as possible, what is the difference between "reason" and "logic' — Antidote

I agree with a lot of what's been posted above, but wanted add something about the nature of reason.

Reason is clearly a multi-faceted ability but one facet is the ability to understand the relation of cause and effect - to understand why things happen, on one level, or the connection between ideas, on the other (i.e. 'if X is larger than Y, and Z is larger than X, then Z must also be larger than Y.)

If you can imagine back to ancient times, the realisation of 'the power of reason' must have been an intoxicating experience. For people in those days, life was indeed nasty, brutish and short, for the most part, and largely comprised sheer brute force and dumb labor, repetition and habit. In in the old stone age, it took millennia to slightly improve the stone axe. The abilities that became available through the discovery of reason - through the discovery of the causes of things, and the relationship of cause and effect - must have been intoxicating. It opens up endless vistas of possibility.

Nowadays, I think reason is often both misunderstood and taken for granted. First because it's associated with scientific rationalism, which has a very narrow view of reason, and secondly, because we assume it's a natural faculty, that has evolved, and so can be understood through the prism of evolutionary biology. And that sells it short, in my opinion.