Question

Why do logic and reason fail to explain that which is true?

​

Answer 1

ʜɪɪ ғʀɪᴇɴᴅ

ɢᴏᴏᴅ ᴍᴏʀɴɪɴɢ

ʜᴏᴡ ʀ ᴜ

ɴɪᴄᴇ ᴛᴏ ᴍᴇᴇᴛ ᴜ ᴀɢᴀɪɴ

Explanation:

ᴛʀᴜᴇ ɪs ᴡʜᴀᴛ ɪs ᴇxᴘᴇʀɪᴇɴᴄᴇᴅ. ʟᴏɢɪᴄ ᴀɴᴅ ʀᴇᴀsᴏɴ ᴀʀᴇ ᴡʀᴏɴɢ. ᴀʙsᴛʀᴀᴄᴛʟʏ, ʟᴏɢɪᴄ ᴀɴᴅ ʀᴇᴀsᴏɴ ᴀʀᴇ ᴄᴏʀʀᴇᴄᴛ, ʙᴇᴄᴀᴜsᴇ ᴡɪᴛʜɪɴ ᴛʜᴇ ʀᴇᴀʟᴍ ᴏғ ᴏᴜʀ ᴍɪɴᴅs ᴡᴇ ᴄᴀɴɴᴏᴛ ᴇxᴘᴇʀɪᴇɴᴄᴇ ᴇᴠᴇʀʏᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀɴᴅ ᴛʜᴇʀᴇғᴏʀᴇ ᴛʜᴇʏ ᴀʀᴇ ᴛʜᴇ ʙᴇsᴛ ᴀʙsᴛʀᴀᴄᴛɪᴏɴ ᴏғ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴇᴠᴇʀʏᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴡᴇ ᴀʀᴇ ᴄᴀᴘᴀʙʟᴇ ᴏғ ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠɪɴɢ.

Answer 2

Answer:

Thnks miss

Explanation:

To answer your question, which is a key question of humanity, let us talk about the meanings of the terms you use in your question.

It is composed of the terms logic and reason, fail, explain and to be true, which require a mutual agreement regarding the concepts they represent between the inquirer and respondent.

Let us start from logic. What is logic and reasoning?

A 96 year old scientist died this week with the name Lotfi A. Zadeh, from CalTech, formerly from Baku, Azerbaijan. He introduced a new logical system called Fuzzy Logic, which deals with not absolute truths, required by every philosopher since Aristotle, but with likelihoods and probabilities, as we humans naturally do.

This logic works perfectly in control systems but the philosophical establishment did not exactly take to it en masse because it renders their professional background obsolete.

Short of that we have predicate calculus and several logical methods developed by several philosophers, interwar Viennese, Russell and Whitehead. They are good but require absolute truths. So we lack a universally agreed logical mechanisms on which everybody agree as in mathematics.

This is even more so in reasoning, which cannot be isolated from logic but is a different area boundaries of which are a subject of a higher debate. There has been another continual debate, on if reasoning has been overrated and experience under, for two and a half thousand years. Then there are independent debates on what is experience.

It is hard to say, even with what we have at hand, that we can rule out completely that all logic and reasoning fails to explain which is true. So I can argue with Aristotelian logic that you are wrong, while you are asking generally. But the logic we have at hand is an excellent tool that your question is false, based on false premises, or worse, meaningless.

Logic and reasoning at hand provides philosophers tools to humiliate you or anybody who questions their failure, which exists not. If you think there is something rotten, and it may ever be an academic conspiracy, think again, they are everywhere.

Which brings us to fail, explain, and to be true.

These terms take several volumes of books and even if they do provide a meaning, they matter nothing to other languages where philosophy is discussed. Failure is subjective, explaining is based on the recipient and there are no universal truths, especially when they involve high level criteria such as ‘good’ or ‘just’.