if you disagree with my universal logic as being self evident, ie self preservation is first, regarding natural law and instinct, then you've proven my point. if you agree with it, then you've left room for it-- would you elaborate further please?
Sorry [MENTION=2259]Kmal[/MENTION], I think I'm a little confused here. I don't want to misword my response to mislead you, so I'm not going to respond directly in the context you provided by saying I agree or disagree. Instead, I'll just offer my reasons for believing that there is a sense of universal logic among mankind.
First of all, I want to clarify that I do not equate logic with knowledge, meaning that I don't believe man is supposed to automatically understand their immediate environment. If that were the case, the earth's shape wouldn't have been brought into question. I think that logic is an underlying tool that everyone is capable of honing and possesses to some degree from birth. Like all tools man is born with, some can completely ignore it and pursue other things, but that doesn't mean it will disappear. It will be a weaker tool to those that don't hone it, but society to a certain degree almost forces everyone to hone it in it's most commonly interpreted form: mathematics.
Before I continue, I'd like to say that I'm glad you brought up self-preservation. As an instinct, this is very universal. I also think this is where logical reasoning began, with a general 2 premise argument (I need to survive, doing X will aid my survival, therefore I must do X). I can think of no one that has not used this argument to justify something. Whether or not X was the right thing to do is another matter entirely, and going into that would be an issue for an argument of ethics, so I'll digress. In short, I believe logical reasoning didn't start off as elegantly as it would later become, but was almost like a fast reflexive thought process. I actually like how this is going; let's continue chronologically from here until we make a round trip to that last paragraph.
As humans evolved, they discovered new tools to aid their survival, but logic still helped determine what tools made the cut (think about the caveman who 'discovered' the wheel and the other guy with a square block). The weeding out process of these tools is another form of logic. Depending on what theories you ascribe to regarding the technological advancement (ie tools, fire, etc.) of humans, I think you'll see that the logic used here is universal. Allow me to elaborate:
If tribe A and tribe B (assuming both tribes flourished and succeeded as opposed to dying out) have no contact with each other at all, then why did tribe A and tribe B determine that fire was a useful tool to keep within their tribe? I think the answer to that is, again, logic (I'm going to go ahead and nip this in the bud before red flags with other members arise: even if you wish to attribute to maintaining of fire to spiritual beliefs, today we now have logical proofs that defend [and attack] religion, so by derivation, logic would still be behind the choice to repeatedly use fire).
Here's another point (the last point being the general 2 premise argument) for universal logic. You can also look at many other tools that were 'discovered,' such as simple machines or archaic weaponry and find that their continued use is attributed to a form of a logical proof.
Let's fast forward this to the time when logic was formally recognized by people and became something much more than an unknown instinct that would be later applied to things that don't use the premise "I need to survive" to justify the final claim. Of course, by this time, people had already began questioning very large things that we still don't fully understand today. However, no one could explicitly provide a strong sound argument for the answers they provided to these questions. If we look at the dialogues involving Socrates, we can see how he proves that the people who answered these questions really didn't answer them soundly (albeit he was a bit of a dick about the whole thing). It was really from this point that logic became more complicated with proofs, fallacies, and what have you... Anyway, enough with the history. Sorry that I got off track; this turned into a ramble more than anything here.
Today, we understand things far better than tribes A or B did. We can comprehend math, appropriately predict where an object will fall based on measurements taken from tools that are fairly new in the history of humankind, and even tackle proving or disproving the existence of an almighty creator. You can say that in the times of tribes A and B, doing these things wouldn't have been possible. I'll even agree with you. Times have changed, the knowledge we have access to has changed (quantum displacement anyone?), and the tools we have to live our lives and help create more awesomeness has changed. However, even with all the time in the world, the tools (most of which wouldn't exist without math and forms of basic logic), and the knowledge (most of which we would not have without basic to advanced logic), we still would not be where we are today or where we're going to be tomorrow without the basic foundations of logic behind us.
So, do I believe that there is one form of logic that is universal? Yes. Do I believe that everyone is capable of using it to its full potential? In this current society, I'd say no. There are a lot more variables now that muddle in with the processes of logic, such as odd hormone balances, mental illnesses, and little self control, that prevent people from using it.
I think there is a difference between a rational argument and a logical one.
The more logic your arguments are based on, the stronger they will be because logic is a universally accepted language for communicating new ideas.
Actually, they're not; rational arguments fall into the realm of logic and are commonly used interchangeably. If you google rational argument, you'll get this definition:
In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion
Also, the only logic textbook I still own has this to say about
rationalizing:
Using a false pretext in order to satisfy our desires or interests.
So depending on what definition you choose to look at, you can find a different answer. If you choose the first definition, you'll find that rational and logical arguments are the same. If you choose the second definition, you'll find that "rational" arguments are logically unsound and don't satisfy much other than personal desires or interests.
