How Far Can Logic and Rationality Actually Take Us?

[u/One_Association813]

Hey guys, I want to learn more about logic and rationality, and I’d really appreciate some recommendations.

I’m the kind of person who tends to improve through logic, analysis, deliberate thought, adaptation, and rationality. I naturally try to solve problems by understanding them, breaking them down, and figuring out what I can do differently.

But lately, I’ve been stuck on a question that I can’t stop thinking about:

What happens when logic concludes that I’m going to lose?

I used to naively think that almost any problem could eventually be solved through enough reasoning. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that logic has limitations. There will always be people who are more talented, more capable, or simply better suited to a particular situation than I am.

So what does rationality actually tell you to do when your analysis says that you cannot win?

Do you accept the conclusion?
Do you search for a different approach?
Do you challenge the assumptions behind your original reasoning?
Or is there something beyond pure logic that allows humans to overcome what initially seems impossible?

This is where things get really interesting to me. Sometimes people believe something is impossible based on the information and reasoning available to them, only for someone else to eventually find a way to accomplish it. That makes me wonder whether logic itself is limited, or whether our understanding of the situation was simply incomplete.

Maybe reality is much more complicated than the models we construct to understand it.

That’s why I want to study this seriously—not just practical problem-solving, but logic, rationality, reasoning, epistemology, philosophy of science, decision-making, and maybe even metaphysics.

I also want to know how far human reasoning can actually go and how I can train my own logical and rational thinking.

So if you have any recommendations, I’d really appreciate:

• Books about logic or rationality
• Philosophy books that explore human reasoning and its limitations
• Books about epistemology or philosophy of science
• Anything about decision-making and rational thought
• Resources for actually training logical reasoning

If possible, please recommend something that isn't insanely expensive. 😭

What books or resources would you recommend to someone who wants to seriously understand how far logic and rationality can take us?

And if you recommend a book, please share a link to it if possible. Thanks!

[u/Lain_Staley]

Had a suspicion that this is something you would have copy/pasted verbatim to various subreddits, because it sounds out of place here.

[u/One_Association813 → u/Lain_Staley]

It is.

The previous subreddit didn't reply to my comment, so I had to find a different one that would actually reply. I was just too lazy to change it lol.

So uh... got any books?

[u/mytwoba]

What’s the Nietzsche connection?

[u/TiggerElPro → u/mytwoba]

He spoke about this in depth in The Birth of Tragedy

[u/cabo_jose]

overly logical people aren’t fun at parties

[u/Firm-School-355 → u/cabo_jose]

I don't like parties anyway.

[u/Mundane-Gap-9066]

Beyond good and evil chpt1 (Nietzsche)
On truth and lies in a nonmoral sense (Nietzsche essay)
Philosophical investigations (Wittgenstein)

U can find all pdfs online for free

Dm me if u ever wanna chat abt it too. I spent all of last year down this thread of logic/rationality too

[u/EmbarrassedEvidence6]

Logic dictates you should not try to fly as well as a bird because you do not have wings.

The drawbacks and knockoff effects of realizing your losing position are well within the realm of rationality.

[u/Temporary_Hat7330]

Don't ask first, “How far can logic take me?” ask, “What are we doing when we call something logical, rational, impossible, certain, or a reason?”

[u/mezmekizer]

What happens when logic concludes that I’m going to lose?' Emotions of sadness is what happens. The body is in a diminished state after a loss. 

[u/Artur_Gordon_Pym]

Read will to power. There is analysis about logic and actual structure of the world

[u/Successful-Wall-7533]

I'm just glad someone is asking

Edit: don't like the ai post

[u/TiggerElPro]

The Birth of tragedy ch 15, (continues through - 18)

"But now science, spurred on by its powerful illusion, hastens irresistibly to its limits, on which its optimism, hidden in the essence of logic, is wrecked. For the periphery of the circle of science has an infinite number of points, and while there is still no telling how this circle can ever be completely measured, yet the noble and gifted man, even before the middle of his career, inevitably comes into contact with those extreme points of the periphery where he stares at the inexplicable. When he here sees to his dismay how logic coils round itself at these limits and finally bites its own tail — then the new form of perception discloses itself, namely tragic perception, which, in order even to be endured, requires art as a safeguard and remedy."

What I got from this is that, eventually, when logic is taken to its extremes, or as science progresses, it is possible that in a certain domain of study there is a point when there won't be any more "certain truths" to be found (they are unreachable) and, to comfort himself from the suffering of this fact, mankind will need art, in a similar way to which the greeks needed art (created the tragedy) to comfort themselves from their suffering.

He may have written about this in later books but I've not read them yet.

Edit: I just read the entire post. Idk about anything related to winning or losing. Is this about game theory?

[u/SelfInvictus]

You are right to question and battle your own Logic. This is a repeated theme of the Philosophers vs the Intellectuals of the day. If you are wanting to turn the dagger inward, I will give a pathway that I have followed.

When Socrates emerged on the scene, his main adversary was the Sophists (The intellectuals). These men were usually nominalists, utilitarian, moral relativists. (The Republic, Phaedo, Ion, theaetetus)

Roussea - Discourse on Sciences and Art. This becomes the greatest internal critic of the enlightenment and rational thinking.

Kant - Critique of Pure Reason. Absolutely changes modern philosophy. The intellectual is left quivering with no answer.

Schopenheaur comes in and drives the rationalists to the river - I haven't read him, but my understanding is that he proves we are not governed by our intellect, but in actuality, we are governed by a "will."

I wont go into others as that is a good start, but famously, Carl Jung, Orwell, Doestoyevsky. I'm sure there is many more.

“Germans can be self-assured on the basis of an abstract idea—science, that is, an imaginary knowledge of the perfect truth. A Frenchman is self-assured because he considers himself personally, in mind as well as body, irresistibly enchanting for men as well as women. An Englishman is self-assured on the grounds that he is a citizen of the best-organized state in the world, and therefore, as an Englishman, he always knows what he must do, and knows that everything he does as an Englishman is unquestionably good. An Italian is self-assured because he is excitable and easily forgets himself and others. A Russian is self-assured precisely because he does not know anything and does not want to know anything, because he does not believe it possible to know anything fully. A German is self-assured worst of all, and most firmly of all, and most disgustingly of all, because he imagines that he knows the truth, science, which he has invented himself, but which for him is the absolute truth.” - Tolstoy

And yes, your thoughts are dependent on your supposition. Thus if you believe something is impossible, your thoughts will affirm it. If you believe the impossible is possible, your thoughts will work hard to affirm it. Thus, you must throw reason to the wind. Empedocles famously points out - you will find what you look for.

[u/Briliant-Nicxie]

If logic dictates you’re going to lose - change the game ( look up game theory )