Jims’ Three Laws of Logic Behind Looking
As it starts to be a tradition for a great Sci-Fi writer to have established their own three laws, (Asimov, Clark etc.) I have done the same.
As I am a philosophical fiction writer, my three laws are about the logic behind looking.
- What is true is that which you have seen yourself.
- In order to have seen yourself it is necessary to look.
- The action of looking is a communication with yourself to find out what it is that you see and may include elements such as observation, demonstration, evaluation and conclusion.
Only when you look for yourself you can see new things and by that establish more truth for yourself.
By observing a demonstration (as in a work of fiction), it is possible for the person himself to look and draw his own conclusions and by that see new things.
Data is for nothing if nobody looks at the data and the action of looking is more than just reading if the person wishes to see new things and establish more truth.
In order for a person to properly look at data, it is necessary to first understand all correct definitions of all words and symbols so that the same communication is received from the written materials as intended by the writer and so that the data are understood. Only thereafter, the action of looking can be done properly.
I have seen too many times students “studying” deep philosophy without themselves looking but accepting automatically as it is written by a great authority and then not having the data true for himself and not being able to apply it in life - simply not understanding what they know.
I hope with this essay that more actions of looking can take place.
If you found this page useful, consider linking to it.
Simply copy and paste the code below into your web site (Ctrl+C to copy)
It will look like this: Jims’ Three Laws of Logic Behind Looking
Post Navigation by Category
Next post in category: Theory on How to Become a Genius
-I find this law lacking, mainly because it implies that things which are not observed utilizing the sences do not exist, or are not true to any specific individual. But those things unknown by one may be known by a group of others and as such are true even without the uninformed individual having “seen” them - not to mention that things not “seen” still may effect a person without them even being aware of its source. This law of yours would also imply that nothing is true or exists before the individual observes them, even from a metaphysical point of view concerning time this law seems absurd (in this metaphysical philosophy, the cosmos is destroyed every moment and created anew every moment, but this does not mean that the cosmos creates itself but rather implies that the cosmos adheres to a specific law of change determined at its inception.) This law also implies that it is our sentience and observations that make things existent and true! If I am not born, then the cosmos will still exist, but not like it is today because I will never have had an effect on the cosmos.