Logical and Dialectical Reasoning in Scripture

[bbyrd009]

Talmudic scholars are credited with raising dialectic argument to an art - Google Search
eastern dialectic and torah - Google Search

 

[bbyrd009]

A Brief Lesson in Exploitation

We may not know exactly what goes on in the mind of a sheep when it’s being herded, but we can safely assume that it is not a strenuous process of independent thinking.

Robert Cialdini, the famed professor of psychology at Arizona State University and bestselling author of books on persuasion, draws a fascinating connection between the process of herding animals and the process of exploiting humans using social proof.

"As slaughterhouse operators have long known, the mentality of a herd makes it easy to manage. Simply get some members moving in the desired direction and the others - responding not so much to the lead animal as to those immediately surrounding them - will peacefully and mechanically go along."

"A forceful leader can reasonably expect to persuade some sizable proportion of group members. Then the raw information that a substantial number of group members has been convinced can, by itself, convince the rest. Thus the most influential leaders are those who know how to arrange group conditions to allow the principle of social proof to work maximally in their favor."

"For the exploiters, whose interest will be served by an unthinking, mechanical reaction to their requests, our tendency for automatic consistency is a gold mine."

This might give you some pause the next time you nonchalantly engage in social norms...they aren't all what they seem.
Todd William
Provocative Ideas

the more relevant hits are embedded in the text though. Or rather not embedded, must be manually...whatever

 

[bbyrd009]

dialecticism allows for new information to inform future decisions; logic and the Hegelian dialectic oppose new information

 

[bbyrd009]

bump
for Elijah

 

[Helen]

This is an interesting thread, I had never read it all the way through before. :)

 

[bbyrd009]

This is an interesting thread, I had never read it all the way through before. :)

you do get a different impression that way huh

what does not get answered becomes a sort of answer, stuff like that

 

[bbyrd009]

Dialecticism in Jewish thought - Google Search

infested with the Hegelian Dialectic though, i guess; this one might be ok
https://culcog.berkeley.edu/Publications/2007_Peng_taoism.pdf

 

[Truth]

Dialecticism in Jewish thought - Google Search

I left you a message in your conversation box about this thread, I presume that the above link is a site to learn about this form of study??
I have had a simple understanding, that Hebrew thought was concrete, and roman- greco, or western thought was abstract !!

 

[bbyrd009]

I left you a message in your conversation box about this thread, I presume that the above link is a site to learn about this form of study??
I have had a simple understanding, that Hebrew thought was concrete, and roman- greco, or western thought was abstract !!

that is more a supporting link, i would read post 1 first.
most of those--the lower ones--all seem to want to steer one into a pretty dense (to me) discussion of the Hegelian ("satan's") Dialectic; except for the one with "Tao" in the title, surely.

i understand bc the word "dialectic" is used this seems pretty esoteric, maybe even pointless
but it might be seen that Christ appeared at the rise of Logical ("Greek") Thought,
more than the Fall of the Roman Empire.

And we are all intimately fam with the Hegelian Dialectic, an implied winner and loser, see, whether we know it by that term or not.

Paul even gives a discourse--a brilliant one actually--using the Eastern ("naive") Dialectic style, discussing runners in a race (an implied winner and loser), wherein he says "run the race so as to win," which, believe it or not, interprets into "don't run that race, that competitive thing that humans do where there is only one winner," which is only illuminated further down.

 

[bbyrd009]

I have had a simple understanding, that Hebrew thought was concrete, and roman- greco, or western thought was abstract !!

logic does lead to philosophy, as strange as that might sound; i could dig up a thesis for that; briefly, logic cannot completely encompass truth, due to uncertainty, giving rise to philosophy. And neither one of these are "bad" per se; they just won't get you to Truth.

And the Hebrews, being at the crossroads of the known world then, were really the clearing house of different schools of thought, as reflected in...hmm, lots of things, Jesus' choice of...associations, say? Or those who professed faith in Christ, according to Scripture?

I could prolly list ten diff schools of thought that were involved, John Baptist was a Nazarite, the wise men were Magi (Persian Jews, apparently, who declined to Return), Paul was a Zealot, there were Pharisees who believed Jesus, Peter appropriates Stoic language, an Ethiopian Eunuch gives the nod, Jesus stays with Samaritans, Judas and Pontius--both believers of a sort--rep Rome.

So the Hebrews were pretty much just like we are today, many competing schools of thought.

 

[bbyrd009]

"
1. Analytic thinkers are more subject to nine-ending pricing than holistic thinkers.

“Analytic thinkers tend to view the nine-ending price as lower because of the difference in the left-most digit. In contrast, holistic thinkers tend to view all price digits as a whole and are less subject to the nine-ending price effect,” Tu said. “We identified that when individuals are more inclined to holistic thinking (versus analytic thinking), the effectiveness of a nine-ending pricing tactic is pretty weak.” https://neurosciencenews.com/psychology-penny-difference-9629/

 

[bbyrd009]

http://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/books/b9789004236394s015

 

[Truth]

A Brief Lesson in Exploitation

We may not know exactly what goes on in the mind of a sheep when it’s being herded, but we can safely assume that it is not a strenuous process of independent thinking.

Robert Cialdini, the famed professor of psychology at Arizona State University and bestselling author of books on persuasion, draws a fascinating connection between the process of herding animals and the process of exploiting humans using social proof.

"As slaughterhouse operators have long known, the mentality of a herd makes it easy to manage. Simply get some members moving in the desired direction and the others - responding not so much to the lead animal as to those immediately surrounding them - will peacefully and mechanically go along."

"A forceful leader can reasonably expect to persuade some sizable proportion of group members. Then the raw information that a substantial number of group members has been convinced can, by itself, convince the rest. Thus the most influential leaders are those who know how to arrange group conditions to allow the principle of social proof to work maximally in their favor."

"For the exploiters, whose interest will be served by an unthinking, mechanical reaction to their requests, our tendency for automatic consistency is a gold mine."

This might give you some pause the next time you nonchalantly engage in social norms...they aren't all what they seem.
Todd William
Provocative Ideas

the more relevant hits are embedded in the text though. Or rather not embedded, must be manually...whatever

VERY INTERESTING!!! I was watching a show on TV a few months back, it was kinda like [ your on candid camera] a funny show! any way the setting was in a doctors office waiting room, about 12 people in the room, three were plants, actors. about every 90 seconds a bell would ring, and the actors would stand up! soon after the other people one by one would stand up, soon the actors left, and the new people that came into the office would soon begin to stand up as the others did. Talk about Sheep, it was quite funny, but a true glimpse into the mindset of people!

 

[Enoch111]

Talmudic scholars are credited with raising dialectic argument to an art - Google Search
eastern dialectic and torah - Google Search

Looks like Christians will have to start attending rabbinic schools. We should see Rabbi bbyrd009 shortly.

 

[bbyrd009]

Looks like Christians will have to start attending rabbinic schools. We should see Rabbi bbyrd009 shortly.

wadr if High School taught us anything worthy, the Hegelian Dialectic that we are all so intimate with would be common knowledge, and the term would not even make you blink. But now something you have been raised from the cradle with does not even have a name in your lexicon, and as far as you are concerned everyone reasons the same way you do, right?

 

[bbyrd009]

if High School taught us anything worthy, the Hegelian Dialectic that we are all so intimate with would be common knowledge, and the term would not even make you blink. But now something you have been raised from the cradle with does not even have a name in your lexicon, and as far as you are concerned everyone reasons the same way you do, right?

 

[bbyrd009]

dialecticism allows for new information to inform future decisions; logic and the Hegelian dialectic oppose new information

Scientists Say They've Found The Driver of False Beliefs, And It's Not a Lack of Intelligence

might have some bearing too

 

[Wafer]

I have never heard of this different type of logic, although I am aware of "oriental expressions", and some of those expressions are altogether wacko.

The modern problem is not a different type of logic, it is that "logic" means a list of rules by which we judge something to be valid or invalid. The list of rules is invisible, and everybody has their own list of rules, and there is no way to be sure that everybody's rules are the same as anybody else's rules. And of course everybody has a rule that your argument must be something they like.

Then there is the rule that people don't talk about: They are reluctant to learn something new unless they learn it by their own efforts. People are proud to say "I used to believe such and such but one day I realized that was not so." If you try to tell them it's not so before they figure it out for themselves, they call you names.

Pride trumps logic. Always.

 

[aspen]

Scientists Say They've Found The Driver of False Beliefs, And It's Not a Lack of Intelligence

might have some bearing too

Yep. Just take a look at all the terrible singers on reality show contests....

 

[OzSpen]

The modern problem is not a different type of logic, it is that "logic" means a list of rules by which we judge something to be valid or invalid. The list of rules is invisible, and everybody has their own list of rules, and there is no way to be sure that everybody's rules are the same as anybody else's rules. And of course everybody has a rule that your argument must be something they like.

Wafer,

I would not have made sense of those sentences without the use of logic.

You stated: 'everybody has their (sic) own list of rules, and there is no way to be sure that everybody's rules are the same as anybody else's rules'.

Do you realise the need to use logic of grammar and syntax to compose that sentence? In fact you used the collective noun, 'everybody', which is singular and referred to it by the use of the possessive plural, 'their' (unfortunately the NIV violates this rule throughout its translation of OT and NT).

Grammar and syntax have a logic - if the reader is to understand the meaning of the sentence then that logic has to be followed. Note that we can ask questions of every word in a correct sentence, and we can find the answer to that question in the sentence....

If the writing is not logical, then the reader will not be convinced of the logic of the analysis.​

A 'definition of grammar is the study of the way words are used to make sentences.An example of grammar is how commas and semicolons are supposed to be used'.

Syntax is 'the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language'. If I wrote, 'God world Son only so gave he his one only and so loved for' (John 3:16) violates fundamentals of syntax. These rules are not unseen but we too often take them for granted. I've picked up a few of them in my lengthy article, Language police take aim: English grammar takes a nose dive in importance

What I think causes some Christians to balk at the idea of using logic in communication is what is seen in liberal theology using the historical-critical method where people promote autonomous human reason to arrive at conclusions that are contrary to Scripture.

This shows how humanistic reasoning can be abused, but it does not negate the use of logic in our communication. Those who are opposing the use of logic, are engaging in a self-defeating exercise. This is because they are using logic in the sentences they write to oppose the use of logic which they oppose.

Many things in Christian exegesis, theology, apologetics, Bible study, etc., can be abused. The abuse of something does not negate its legitimacy when used for the correct purposes. One or 10 faulty Fords (motor vehicles) doesn’t make every Ford junk – I drive a Mitsubishi.

See my article, Logic and Christian discussions

Oz