It's truly fascinating, for anyone interested not just in understanding logic, but beyond that, by studying what lies behind logic which is cause and effect, even trying to reach the ultimate limit with no limit except ending in the Absolute Cause.
Alongside my explanations during discussions in METAPHILOSOPHY, and as we delve deeper into the era of absoluteness, I've been intensifying the understanding of the dimension of reasoning from the beginning until now, so philosophers don't get stuck in confusion in their own corners.
But they must rise to embrace a new paradigm in philosophy.
Early Phase of Reasoning - Cause and Effect
THAT'S WHY WE BEGIN BY GRADUALLY DISCUSSING THE NEED TO REASON WITH CAUSE AND EFFECT, which even at this simple level still greatly neglects reasoning with cause and effect. Where the premises are not connected to reality, thus lacking objectivity.
Reasoning Beyond Cause and Effect - Absolute Logical Consequences
Here we reason not only starting from observing the signs of its reasonableness in terms of cause and effect, but also looking deeper beyond what underlies cause and effect, namely "reasoning with absolute logical consequences."
You can read all related things on my Medium blog. Or you can search on Google and adding the keyword "seremonia"
- For example, "seremonia logical consequences," "seremonia metaphilosophy," and others, then the search results will provide articles mostly from me.
THE BOTTOM LINE❓If you are truly a dedicated philosopher with a more directed thinking, whether you call it from the street philosopher or academic philosopher group, then you need to open yourself to the peak dimension of reasoning.
WOLFGANG SMITH
Why is it that every time I present the concept of "logical consequences" publicly anywhere, it tends to be blocked? Because indeed the concept cannot be refuted, and ironically, those who usually promote Western or Eastern philosophers, but apparently for this one may not be popular among philosophy academics.
Yes, Wolfgang Smith introduced the concept of reasoning with absolute logical consequences. HE CALLS IT "VERTICAL CAUSATION" - vertical causality.
Vertical Causality
https://philos-sophia.org/vertical-causation-wholeness/
Vertical causality is like a direct effect, without a long process of time. For example, one thing directly affects another, without waiting long.
Vertical causality involves physical or mental causes that occur directly. Unlike horizontal causality that involves relationships between events and clearer effects.
Vertical causality also involves the action of the whole. Usually, in physics, more attention is given to horizontal causality, which focuses more on clear cause-and-effect relationships.
So, vertical causality is like an action that directly impacts its final outcome, without many stages or time needed.
✅ I call it absolute logical consequences which are not relative logical consequences and also not deductive logical consequences, where the premises are still based on cause and effect (horizontal causality).
CONCURRENCE OF CAUSALITY & UNITY OF CAUSALITY
I term my absolute logical consequences "concurrency of causality."
✅ The concurrency of causality is because it happens within a wide range, so it can be compared to the cause-and-effect process from one point to another.
Unity of Causality
I'm not sure if Wolfgang Smith has also realized the "unity of causality" or not, but at the very least, I express it as additional information.
✅ Namely, if you want to highlight where the location of this concurrency of causality is, then you must realize another concept which is actually from a different perspective, namely the "unity of causality," where its "concurrency of causality" occurs in one area.
AFTER ALL THIS SUFFICES I REVEALED, PLEASE LEARN FROM METAPHILOSOPHY or search from other literature.
ERA OF ABSOLUTENESS - Quantum Physics & Artificial Intelligence Era
HOW IMPORTANT IS IT TO UNDERSTAND THE STRUCTURE OF REASONING beyond what you generally learn in the philosophy realm? Simple. It's a demand of the times.
In the era of quantum physics and artificial intelligence, a philosopher who refuses to adopt the highest dimension of reasoning (vertical causality), then they can only discuss generally, even though their mission is "to explore the nature of truth."
And the longer it goes, they will find it increasingly difficult or may not be trusted by the public because they only discuss polemical themes that cannot be overcome, doubts upon doubts arise. Worries pile up or even move away from religion (although not all philosophers are like that).
Not to mention being maneuvered tactically by artificial intelligence + once again, not being cared about by mathematicians & scientists who are considered to be rational & objective
SO START SEEKING YOUR OBJECTIVITY IN PHILOSOPHY THROUGH ADOPTING THE PEAK DIMENSION OF REASONING THAT MAKES PHILOSOPHERS MORE OBJECTIVE
MAIN POINTS OF REASONING
🔰 So that when you discuss, you won't be trapped by their debate tricks, it's better to pay attention to some main points in reasoning...
In conclusion, always beware...
- 1⃣ Differentiate between expanding the perspective vs. going out of context
- 2⃣ Differentiate between going out of context with all seemingly different contexts (shifting) still under the parent context (so it cannot be considered going out of context)
- 3⃣ Differentiate between perspective & context. The perspective is different but still within the same working area vs. the perspective has already gone out of the main area (out of context)
- 4⃣ Differentiate between temporary cause-and-effect relationships & consistent cause-and-effect relationships
- 5⃣ What is rational (mathematics) can be subjective if not connected to reality. And what is objective will not be able to capture universal truth if it ignores subjectivity.
