The only problem I see with that is the fact that people follow different logic than others. A point may seem logical to my brother but will follow no rational logic to me, and so his logic dictates that his point is reasonable while my logic dictates it wouldn't work at all, or is irrelevant to the topic.
This was my response:
Well, we just got down to the very foundation of political differences. The reason that there are different political parties is because different peoples' logic has pointed them toward different ideas of the truth, whether they be true or not. When it comes to political debate and building political opinions, it is easy to be persuaded by ideology that is only valid, but not altogether sound.
I'm not sure exactly how people could follow different types of logic. Perhaps you were misusing the word as a replacement for the word "opinion"?
More can be added to that. Our opinions are based off of our logic, but if we look just a little bit deeper, we see that our logic is based off of facts. For example, let's say that I, figuratively, believed in global warming. Where did I get my logic for that from? Various statistics showing that the Earth has gradually been increasing its average temperature over the last decade and several record highs. My logic was based off of facts, or at least, what I believe are facts. However, if I concluded some more facts, my sense of reasoning points somewhere else. Right now, there is in the U.S. an economic crisis, which could effect us sooner on the short run than on the long run, like global warming would, so it would make sense to make the economy a higher priority, since in order to survive on the long run one must survive the first one hundred meters. Then again, I might be under-estimating the effects of global warming, so I must look harder at the statistics. As you can see, there are many facts which will effect how my logic will work, as well as desire, the desire to have a certain opinion, which will merely poison your logic and cause on to devalue certain facts causing objection. If I had only based my opinion off of only one side of the situation, than, no matter if I would have been right or wrong, my logic would have been poorly used.
Logic is based off of facts, and when in debate, two different people might be basing their knowledge off of different facts, which is unorganized, and leads to not being able to understand each other. Thus, it would make sense that the best way to go about logic is to base it off of as many sound and proven facts as possible, and that in debate, the opposing opinions should lay down all of the facts that they are based on to be as organized as possible, and thus their logic more on the same level.
Now, there is another words which is often used interchangeably with logic. That word is wisdom. Let's look at the definition for the two words.
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.
1. the quality or state of being wise; knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action; sagacity, discernment, or insight.
2. scholarly knowledge or learning: the wisdom of the schools.
3. wise sayings or teachings; precepts.
4. a wise act or saying.
As you can see, there is little difference between the two, although wisdom is often associated with doing. It says that wisdom is knowing what is true or right, coupled with just judgment as to action. However, many people are wise, and yet will do what they know is wrong, so this might be questionable. One of the key words I read in the first definition was knowledge, meaning that wisdom is not effected by our knowledge of facts, but might, depending on how you look at it, represents facts itself. Now, this can't be true, according to EmperorWhenua's once-personal-statement, that wisdom is more important than knowledge. So what is wisdom and what is it's relationship with knowledge? Let's look at the definition again. It says that the knowledge is of what is true or right. What is true or right? Farther into the definition, it says, "coupled with just judgment as to action." To act (the root word of action) is to make a decision. In other words, wisdom is the knowledge empowering us to make right decisions.
To rephrase that in more Bonesiii-like terms, Wisdom is a perfectly sound opinion.
Here is the relationship between opinions and logic: logic is how we form opinions, but logic is not an opinion itself. If you are in high school, or have ever been in high school, than you know that there is a difference between showing your work and giving the answer, and it is similar with logic and wisdom. Through logic, we build wisdom.
So, while they are not the same thing, they are very much related, and very similar in certain aspects. Each can be associated with understanding the truth, although in different ways. They are interchangeable as adjectives, so I could say that the exercise of only wisdom instead of logic is both illogical and unwise (and contradictory), but I cannot say that logic is the same as wisdom when used as nouns, because they aren't by definition.
Since the subject of this entry was to define each word, here is what I have concluded:
-Wisdom is the knowledge empowering us to make right decisions.
-Wisdom is a perfectly sound opinion.
- [Logic is] the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. (Dictionary.com, definition 1)
-Logic is based off of facts.