Is logic actually a path of spiritual initiation? Is there more to logic than most think...

Is logic actually a path of spiritual initiation? Is there more to logic than most think? When having a debate many people tend to take any disagreement as an attack on their self-worth. Learning logic helps you detach from the ego and see what's faulty about the other person's statement and not taking the differing argument as an insult. I only learned a little bit of logic but I still noticed this myself. This has made me wonder if logic is actually a path of spiritual initiation, because detachment from "the self" seems to be an important part of spiritual initiation. And as a matter of fact Freemasonry focuses on learning grammar, logic and rhetoric in the first three degrees. The book Freemason Philosophy For The 21st Century by Jack Buta talks about that. There are many pictures similar to pic related on google, I'll post some.

Attached: 1245.jpg (352x1200, 355.37K)

Attached: e1c9829cf9622c2cc73962f939d5f1c5.jpg (572x427, 61.92K)

Attached: DcmSH2GW0AAhj8I.jpg (564x846, 108.77K)

Attached: 0ffd33f931ff671df2892c25216ca6a7.jpg (736x981, 126.58K)

Attached: 39c7c6a3bc1e21ec9975b76b155d4429.jpg (1240x1418, 396.08K)

nice shizoposting, but this is not /x/

Attached: 1656699947965.gif (360x270, 1.82M)

Attached: grammar-step-e1496271534447.jpg (351x351, 144.2K)

Not Logic, But Truth

>Is logic actually a path of spiritual initiation?
Yes.

Attached: Sechseckmodaldeontisch_engl-500x433.jpg (500x433, 24.93K)

Attached: masonic-emblem-3.jpg (1200x800, 104.67K)

truth is the objective, the goal, not the tool

the words logic and dialectics are used interchangeably

Attached: Hortus_Deliciarum_Die_Philosophie_mit_den_sieben_freien_K%C3%BCnsten.jpg (823x1023, 258.63K)

Attached: winding-stairs.jpg (421x551, 44.32K)

Yes.
/thread

Attached: b125aff76c0e456955d728d818c32c3e.jpg (495x750, 77.72K)

Attached: WRCAM48830.jpg (700x458, 142.61K)

its logical to execute every freemason

Attached: fc_chart_1.jpg (938x1332, 768.92K)

Logic is by definition illogical. At some point you have to admit you're basing everything on axioms that you simply accept as true.
Read Gödel.

Attached: fc_chart_2.jpg (1006x1446, 1M)

>Corinthian smelling
I would hate to smell a Corinthian

>that you simply accept as true.
Because they're repeatable, yes.

What did he use to prove that? Illogic? Anti-logic?

Really based.

But ultimately he misses that meaning is inherent to form, and the consequences of quantity.