Does subjective logic exist in philosophy?

[Reficulris]

It exists as a concept or you wouldn't be able to ask this question.

I'd say that for relativists/post modernists all logic would be considered subjective.

If you're asking if Ti as a concept exists in the canon of philosophy the answer would be "don't think so, its a socionics construct and socionics leans more towards psychology than philosophy" Also "socionics is an obscure topic and even philosophers wouldn't try to define terms from it"

That being said: "cogito ergo sum" is the quintessential example of subjective logic. It's truth is proven by it's self-reference. Even though it's supposed to be something that is universal, Descartes' main point was that HE couldn doubt so there was something (he) that was able to doubt (read the book if you think I mistranslate "cogito").

Idealists in general use "subjective logic" to prove all kind of stuff. Berkely has an interesting maxim about the existance of god (everything exists only if it is observed, since not everything is observed by something all the time that would mean that stuff stops existing if you don't look at it. That's absurd...so....god exists, he's the thing that observes everything all the time).

oh well.. enjoy

[mfckr]

It's always subjective.

[Reficulris]

So, what constitutes logic, where is the line between objective and subjective, and can a truth be of logic?

Yes!

The longer answer:

"what is logic" is the question asked by logicians and epistemologists. They're still quarelling about it. Read wiki for the lay-man usage.

There would be no "line" between subjective or objective logic. Its a matter of stance.

Realists would say the world happens a certain way, so the thing that describes that way is logic (and correct), things that describe something else are..well, false, stupid, misleading (and not logic).

Wittgenstein said the following about his book "tractatus" which was a highly "logical" book "this is everything we can say about this stuff, this is the way things work. Of the rest we don't need to speak" (go away philosophical critique monkeys!)

Ideologists, relativists and post modernists do not believe in a verifyable external world which is static and unchangable. Rather they take a more relaxed stance towards the external world and focus on the logic of the subject (idealists) or on some kind of meta level illogical stance (relativists and post modernists). For them logic would always be subjective, as is everything else. (See @mfckr's post as an example).

Wittgenstein wrote a highly "subjective" treatise about language and logic later in life in which he denounces his earlier work and takes a very social constructivist (post modernist) view.

So...in short... Attitude towards logic follows on your empistomological stance which leans on your metaphisical foundations/assumptions (or lack thereoff).

Ofc you can ground metaphysical statements on logic and so forth, we like circular reasoning

Truth is opening an entirely new can of worms, going back to epistemology. If these type of subjects interest you as a hobby, go study philosophy. If you want an answer, go study theology!

TLDR: I left metaphysics for Ethics....for the money!!!! ;-)

[mu4]

Yes!

The longer answer:

"what is logic" is the question asked by logicians and epistemologists. They're still quarelling about it. Read wiki for the lay-man usage.

There would be no "line" between subjective or objective logic. Its a matter of stance.

Realists would say the world happens a certain way, so the thing that describes that way is logic (and correct), things that describe something else are..well, false, stupid, misleading (and not logic).

Wittgenstein said the following about his book "tractatus" which was a highly "logical" book "this is everything we can say about this stuff, this is the way things work. Of the rest we don't need to speak" (go away philosophical critique monkeys!)

Ideologists, relativists and post modernists do not believe in a verifyable external world which is static and unchangable. Rather they take a more relaxed stance towards the external world and focus on the logic of the subject (idealists) or on some kind of meta level illogical stance (relativists and post modernists). For them logic would always be subjective, as is everything else. (See @mfckr's post as an example).

Wittgenstein wrote a highly "subjective" treatise about language and logic later in life in which he denounces his earlier work and takes a very social constructivist (post modernist) view.

So...in short... Attitude towards logic follows on your empistomological stance which leans on your metaphisical foundations/assumptions (or lack thereoff).

Ofc you can ground metaphysical statements on logic and so forth, we like circular reasoning

Truth is opening an entirely new can of worms, going back to epistemology. If these type of subjects interest you as a hobby, go study philosophy. If you want an answer, go study theology!

TLDR: I left metaphysics for Ethics....for the money!!!! ;-)

Basically, Parmenides "Way of Truth", "Way of Opinion"...

Essentially people want to be called "logical" and choose which way they want to associate with. Seems like a battle born of conceit.

[Saberstorm]

Ti is not subjective in the sense of it being illogical. Ti is subjective in the sense that it directly opposes Fi. A Ti dominate has Fi Role. The Role Function represses the Program Function. This means that they share a similar quality and address a similar need.

A person with Fi role is outwardly polite, however they are afraid of stating their values. They are stoic or dour on the outside and will often avoid value judgments, like declaring a favorite food or color. They might NOT be willing to answer certain questions that seem simple to people, like "is it hot outside?" A Ti dominate might answer "I do not know if it is hot outside." Because hot is a value judgement. They do not make value judgments and will view you with suspicion for seeking to know what they value.

They fear that people do not love what they love. They fear that others doubt their desires.

The Ti is something they have confidence in. It solves the problem of showing what you love, because of its total comprehensiveness and dispassion. It is deductive and can be used to move forwards or backwards. It can dissect, and it can state something abstractly as a universal. Thus, the fear that others will reject your values is averted because you value what is universal, abstract, comprehensive, deductive, and analytic.

Ti replaces the need for Fi. They are similar enough to have a repressive relationship. They are a psychological dichotomy not a philosophical one. Ti outside of Jungian psychoanalysis is merely the logic of systems, and is the same as any logic. Its function in psychoanalysis is subjective and repressive of personal values. It is not subjective outside of psychoanalysis. However, it is not empirical. Ti outside of psychoanalysis is speculative.

Te outside of psychoanalysis is concrete. What is Te inside of psychoanalysis? Te represses Fe. A Te dominate is "open to reality" and they feel as if they are on a "ship of fools." The group ethic is a danger as the group could be sailing the ship off the edge of the earth. A Te dominate fears Fe.

The Fe role function makes a Te dominate act as a very team orientated person when you first meet them. However he fears the group and wants everybody to be "open to reality." They fear the objective ethic of the group so in psychoanalysis Te and Fe are repressive.

This, by the way, is the opposite of Meyers-Briggs...

[Reficulris]

I mostly implied this, so my apologies for my "implicit logic" The above hits on Jung's origin of types, which is that a scientist cannot be a poet, and vice versa. And this is pretty much where I think a lot of typology failures stem from, and why I think his other works are probably superior.

Anglesaxian philosophers would agree that a poet can't be a scientist (not in the same work that is).

Continental (european, non-uk philosophers) would not agree, most of the good scientific/philosophical treateases (not the current academical works) are written in poetic, bordering on art form.

Typology is in a way simplifying in extremes, you're either this or that, so in that sense you're right, it's a problem. However, if typology would take into accounts all complexities of character it would not be typology anymore but a description of all possible individuals, which is..less usefull and feasable.

[Taknamay]

What about hard-logic proof? If you limit your conclusions to tautologies, then of course philosophy is objective

[Reficulris]

If you define logic as objective than ofcourse logic is objective.

[krieger]

it was sort of possible to have this debate when science and engineering were in their infancy; as for now, only noobs continue it, including those infesting academic institutions around the world.

so, no. logic is objective. if you engineer a car under the supposition that 2 + 2 = 5 or likewise fallacy, driving it will kill you. which is why the only people still debating this shit are those far away from positions in life where their decisions have an effect on anything material. the others are weeded out by their mistakes.

[mu4]

it was sort of possible to have this debate when science and engineering were in their infancy; as for now, only noobs continue it, including those infesting academic institutions around the world.

so, no. logic is objective. if you engineer a car under the supposition that 2 + 2 = 5 or likewise fallacy, driving it will kill you. which is why the only people still debating this shit are those far away from positions in life where their decisions have an effect on anything material. the others are weeded out by their mistakes.

The debate could be over "representation of logic" vs "thing in itself".

Perhaps logic is neither subjective nor objective but determined by the application of logic towards real or absurd constructs. What does 1 jesus + 2 unicorn =?.

Science and engineering approaches this from quantification of the real and applying logic. I don't choose to think about this problem too much because imo it's quite the waste of time. It matters very little if logic is objective or subjective, because most often people fail to establish the variables which dooms logic to certain failure. Garbage in Garbage out.

[14Raptor19]

Going by the Heart as the most elemental and whizzing of spectra distortions and manic pixie dream girl horns of the Bunny bizarre always enriches and awakens mint condition silver!!

[peteronfireee2]

it was sort of possible to have this debate when science and engineering were in their infancy; as for now, only noobs continue it, including those infesting academic institutions around the world.

LMAO. I miss Labcoat.

Anyway,

Ti is subjective in the sense that they prioritize what makes sense, to them, and not necessarily based on what's popular/what the experts say.

Te is objective in the sense that they prioritize what works, in the real world, and not necessarily based on speculation/theory

[Sol]

subjective logics is in terms, any interpretations
Te and Ti coexist. to doubt in existence of one of them means to doubt in logics existing there at all
is any logics in philosophy? or it's produced by madhouses only?