Introduction
1.1 Lyrics


Jump to: Overall Meaning ↴  Line by Line Meaning ↴

All is one, one is all
We are the spirit
Ascend
We have the power
We will manifest the change we want to see




Overall Meaning

These lyrics are a tribute to the idea of oneness and unity. They emphasize the fact that all things are connected and that every individual has the power to create change. By acknowledging the spiritual nature of existence, the lyrics suggest that the power to create change lies within our ability to transcend the physical world and tap into a higher consciousness.


The song encourages listeners to focus on manifesting the change they want to see in the world by recognizing their own power and potential. It suggests that by working together and realizing our interconnectedness, we can create a better future for ourselves and others. The words "We will manifest the change we want to see" convey a sense of positive energy and determination, encouraging listeners to take action and embrace their personal responsibility in making the world a better place.


Line by Line Meaning

All is one, one is all
We are all connected and part of a larger whole. Our actions and energies affect everything around us.


We are the spirit
We are not just physical beings, but also possess a spiritual essence that connects us to the universe.


Ascend
We must strive to grow, evolve, and improve ourselves, both personally and spiritually.


We have the power
We have the ability to create and shape our own reality through our thoughts, beliefs, and actions.


We will manifest the change we want to see
We are capable of creating positive change in the world by first embodying the qualities we wish to see in others and then taking action towards realizing our goals.




Lyrics © DistroKid
Written by: James Cooke

Lyrics Licensed & Provided by LyricFind
To comment on or correct specific content, highlight it

Genre not found
Artist not found
Album not found
Song not found
Most interesting comments from YouTube:

Michael Pisciarino

0:04 Data, Observation, Conclusion
0:54 What is an Argument?
Premises and Conclusion
1:50 Valid Argument
2:14 Invalid Argument
2:40 True Premises, Invalid Argument
3:04 False Premises, Valid Argument
3:30 Deductive and Inductive Arguments
4:32 “You can’t make any New mistakes”
Validity of a deductive argument is determined by form more than content of argument.
7:33 Inductive Argument (likely, plausible, but not guaranteed or certain)



William Springer

s n a c c•••
I wasn't clear enough.
Here's some information about the science of Logic that was suppressed in this lecture..•••

The science of logic was invented by Aristotle during the fourth century B.C., as a systematic method of evaluating arguments in order to determine if they are properly reasoned. In his book "The Underground History of American Education" historian John Gatto argues very persuasively that, though the science of Logic is taught in expensive private schools in the US today , it hasn't been taught in our State controlled public schools for more than a century. There are good reasons for this. It is hard to lie to people who know how to logically evaluate an argument. Due to our schools, even the vast majority of the elderly in our population have no effective understanding of the science of logic or the art of rhetoric. •••

"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831)
("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) ••••••••••

"Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. "
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••

"Infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ..."
-"Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary" ••••••••••

"For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic", (1935) ••••••••••

"We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is".
-Aristotle, "Posterior Analytics" ••••••••••

"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts."
-Aristotle, "Rhetoric" ••••••••••

"Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one"
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••

"Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently."
-Howard Kahane, "Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric", (1976), second edition ••••••••••

"The province of Logic must be restricted to that portion of our knowledge which consists of inferences from truths previously known; whether those antecedent data be general propositions, or particular observations and perceptions. Logic is not the science of Belief, but the science of Proof, or Evidence. In so far as belief professes to be founded on proof, the office of Logic is to supply a test for ascertaining whether or not the belief is well grounded."
-John Stuart Mill, "A System of Logic", (1843) •••••••••

"And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth."
-Anthony Collins, "A Discourse of Free Thinking", (1713), taken from the first page of "Thinking to Some Purpose", by L. Susan Stebbing, (1939) ••••••••••

"Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, "The Art of Controversy", (1831) ••••••••••

"The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains."
-Patrick Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic", (1985) ••••••••••

"A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based on the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind."
-L. Susan Stebbing, "Logic in Practice", (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••



VVhat if

You meant to say that "in a valid deductive argument" if the premises are both true, then the conclusion must be true. You could have an invalid deductive argument such as:

Premise 1:
All kings had power over their people.

Premise 2:
James was a king.


Conclusion:
James had power over all his people.

Both premises are true, but the conclusion could be false, or true. Yes James had power over his people, but we just dont know if he had power over ALL his people. This is an invalid deductive argument where both premises are true, but the conclusion can be false.



Philanthropy

"No medieval king had absolute power of his subjects"

"Victor Gijsbers was a medieval king"

- So, Victor Gijsbers did not have absolute power over his subjects.

We call this a valid argument, but wouldn't it be better to just call it a valid conclusion, and only call the argument valid, if the premises are true?

It just sounds better in my head. A distinction between a valid conclusion (based on the corresponding false premises), and a valid argument (based on the corresponding true premises).



William Springer

You wrote: "The only grounds for believing in X, is if X is true."
Here's my question. Who would believe in x if they thought x was false? So, he told you what everyone already knows. Here are a few things about logic that everyone does not already know: •••••••••

"Logic, therefore, as the science of thought, or the science of the process of pure reason, should be capable of being constructed a priori."
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy
("A priori" is defined as deduced from self-evident premises.) ••••••••••

'Logic: The science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.'
-Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary ••••••••••

'infer ... v. ,1. To derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence ...'
-Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary ••••••••••

'For logic is the science of those principles, laws, and methods which the mind of man in its thinking must follow for the accurate and secure attainment of truth." -Celestine N. Bittle, "The Science of Correct Thinking: Logic" ••••••••••

'Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.'
-Aristotle ••••••••••

'Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men.' -Plato ••••••••••

"We suppose ourselves to posses unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowing it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is".
-Aristotle, Posterior Analytics ••••••••••

"We ought in fairness to fight our case with no help beyond the bare facts: nothing, therefore, should matter except the proof of those facts."
-Aristotle, Rhetoric ••••••••••

"Without the presentation of solid evidence no argument can be a good one"
-Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 ••••••••••

'Fallacious reasoning is just the opposite of what can be called cogent reasoning. We reason cogently when we reason (1) validly; (2) from premises well supported by evidence; and (3) using all relevant evidence we know of. The purpose of avoiding fallacious reasoning is, of course, to increase our chances of reasoning cogently.'
-Howard Kahane, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric, 1976, second edition ••••••••••

"And if we have a right to know any Truth whatsoever, we have a right to think freely, or (according to my Definition) to use our Understandings, in endeavouring to find out the Meaning of any Proposition whatsoever, in considering the nature of the Evidence for or against it, and In judging of it according to the seeming Force or weakness of the evidence: because there is no other way to discover the Truth."
-Anthony Collins, 'A Discourse of Free Thinking', 1713, taken from the first page of 'Thinking to Some Purpose ' by L. Susan Stebbing ••••••••••

'Aristotle devides all conclusions into logical and dialectical, in the manner described, and then into eristical. (3) Eristic is the method by which the form of the conclusion is correct, but the premises, the material from which it is drawn, are not true, but only appear to be true. Finally (4) sophistic is the method in which the form of the conclusion is false, although it seems correct. These three last properly belong to the art of Controversial Dialectic, as they have no objective truth in view, but only the appearance of it, and pay no regard to truth itself; that is to say, they aim at victory.'
-Arthur Schopenhauer, The Art of Controversy ••••••••••

'The fallacy of suppressed evidence is committed when an arguer ignores evidence that would tend to undermine the premises of an otherwise good argument, causing it to be unsound or uncogent. Suppressed evidence is a fallacy of presumption and is closely related to begging the question. As such, it's occurrence does not affect the relationship between premises and conclusion but rather the alleged truth of premises. The fallacy consists in passing off what are at best half-truths as if they were whole truths, thus making what is actually a defective argument appear to be good. The fallacy is especially common among arguers who have a vested interest in the situation to which the argument pertains.'
-Patrick Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 1985 ••••••••••

'A high degree of probability is often called 'practical certainty.' A reasonable man should not refrain upon acting upon a practical certainty as though it were known to be true. In England, for instance, it is customary for a judge, at the trial of a person accused of murder, to instruct the jury that an adverse verdict need not be based upon the belief that the guilt of the prisoner has been ' proved ', but upon the belief that the guilt has been established ' beyond a reasonable doubt .' To be ' beyond reasonable doubt ' is to have sufficient evidence to make the proposition in question so much more likely to be true than to be false that we should be prepared to act upon the supposition of its truth. Many of our most important actions have to be performed in accordance with belief of such a kind.' -L. Susan Stebbing, 'Logic in Practice', (1934) pages 98 and 99 ••••••••••



All comments from YouTube:

Michael Pisciarino

0:04 Data, Observation, Conclusion
0:54 What is an Argument?
Premises and Conclusion
1:50 Valid Argument
2:14 Invalid Argument
2:40 True Premises, Invalid Argument
3:04 False Premises, Valid Argument
3:30 Deductive and Inductive Arguments
4:32 “You can’t make any New mistakes”
Validity of a deductive argument is determined by form more than content of argument.
7:33 Inductive Argument (likely, plausible, but not guaranteed or certain)

Dhruv Sood

Meet you in heaven

Forbia Eisa

Thanks

William Springer

Where does he mention that logical arguments just be well supported by reliable evidence?

Scuddle Bug

What a god

Capcoor

Why, thank you.

Weirdo Haru.

The best and most understandable and brief explanation of Logic I've heard and learnt from. I couldn't understand what my philosophy teacher was teaching us but thankfully i found this video and hopefully i can score marks in the philosophy exam scheduled next week TwT

Chase Fancy

Your insight is blessed with clarity in a concise, simplistic manner, thank you. In order to hone one's analytical perception a course on logic carries significant weight. I will recommend this course to my son who just started university.

Asif Ahmad

Great lecture!
So simple and easy to understand.

William Springer

9 out of 10 Americans believe that man walked on the Moon. What logical errors have Moon landing believers commuted ?

1 More Replies...
More Comments

More Versions