u/Affectionate-Hair-23

السلام عليكم، اليوم كنت عند صاحبي واهله، وهو ما شاء الله عنده اخوان بالمعنى الحرفي علّامات، واحد ما شاء الله بشتغل بشركة ناسا وعنده مشاريع، والثاني درس طب بس اتوقع عاد سنة، وصاحبي من جيلي توجيهي ومعدله بالاول ثانوي ٢٩.٢، بس الاشي اللي صدمني اني لما سالت (للحيرة) مين اذكى واحد فيهم، قال اللي ابوه انه اللي بدرس طب هو الاذكى بس ضيع حاله، فقلت ليش، قال اللي لانه جاب بالتوجيهي ٩٩ اما اللي بناسا جاب ٩٥،

والله انه رفع ضغطي بهاي الكلمة، يعني بالنسبة للناس معدل ٩٩ توجيهي بخليك احسن من علماء وباحثين بشركات عالمية، حتى اغلب العائلات لما تسالهم مين الاشطر وليش؟دائما رح يقولوا عن اللي جاب اعلى معدل توجيهي، يا ناس والله التوجيهي ما بخليك نبي ولا ملاك، هي مجرد مرحلة، وهينا شايفين اللي يرسبوا ما بموتوا على ال١٨ وال١٩ والاوائل عالمملكة ما يغيروا العالم ولا منسمع عنهم اشي بعد هيك.

I can't withstand a lot of people in this subreddit and other subreddits claiming they are "rational thinkers", but when it is about whether the laws of logic are certain or not, they say:

“just believing logic is 99.9999% true doesn’t mean I am irrational”

Well, it does, if you think statements that are pure form of identity like (A triangle has 3 sides, 1+1=2, A=A) have a non-zero chance of being possibly false, you are a certified, Irrational sophist, you believe contradictions and absurdity as (mostly false and maybe true).

in other words, you literally believe in a possibility of an impossibility (no matter how absurdly small it is), this is pure form irrationality.

• the term "absolute certainty" itself is grounded in logic, and asking me to "provide evidence" for the absolute certainty of logic is of course going to be circular, you want me to show that logic fits inside a logical category that relies on logic, a circular question will get a circular answer.
• That is why logic isn't proven in a classical sense (i.e. logic is true because X and Y and Z), rather it is proven transcendentally (Logic is what makes your argument, doubt, paradox, true vs false hold).
• Trying to even give a possibility of a different logic is also self-defeating, because the moment you refer to it you give it and Identity, you differentiate it, and you distinguish it from what it is not.
• And trying to say that the other logic or structure is (incomprehensible) also self-defeats, because you still did the same thing as before, and even if I let it slide there, then a logic that can't be referred to, interact with, give a metaphysical value, is indistinguishable from absolute nothing, it is fundamentally useless like a zero to the left of a decimal, written with no use.
• absolute certainty here can be seen from just asking yourself "what if I am wrong?' that proves that wrong vs right are assumed in your doubt against the certainty undermining any form of doubt.

and if you want to challenge any of my claims, feel free to "deny" rather than "approve" and show that I am "wrong" rather than "right", and proving my point instantly.