Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

The Fools series On logic part 1 Q1

The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 12:30:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I notice the understand and views of logic vary widely. But lets get down to the nitty gretty.

Logic is it objective or subjective?

why?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 12:44:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/18/2012 12:33:14 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Neither and both.
Cause why not?

Exactly, I for one think its all subjective, I mean it depends on your beliefs right?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 12:52:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's objective in the sense of being able to claim mind-independence, but there are qualifications, dawg:

1. If Godel taught us anything, it's that non-trivial axiomatic systems, like logic, can't be internally demonstrated to be consistent (and that, if such can be proven from within, the system is inconsistent), and that systems which are consistent, therefore, can never be complete (since all consistent systems have propositions that cannot be proven from within, and a complete system cannot avoid inconsistency).

2. You gotta accept dem axioms required for logic to mean much of anything (e.g., identity, non-contradiction). We're existentially consigned to those assumptions, since our minds can't really operate on the basis of a thing being itself and not-itself simultaneously, but we can't prove logically a proposition which violates the axioms on which our deductive capacities rest.

tl;dr dat unconquerable epistemic imperfection
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 1:23:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/18/2012 12:52:40 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It's objective in the sense of being able to claim mind-independence, but there are qualifications, dawg:

1. If Godel taught us anything, it's that non-trivial axiomatic systems, like logic, can't be internally demonstrated to be consistent (and that, if such can be proven from within, the system is inconsistent), and that systems which are consistent, therefore, can never be complete (since all consistent systems have propositions that cannot be proven from within, and a complete system cannot avoid inconsistency).

2. You gotta accept dem axioms required for logic to mean much of anything (e.g., identity, non-contradiction). We're existentially consigned to those assumptions, since our minds can't really operate on the basis of a thing being itself and not-itself simultaneously, but we can't prove logically a proposition which violates the axioms on which our deductive capacities rest.

tl;dr dat unconquerable epistemic imperfection

So what happens if we don't accept them?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2012 9:53:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/18/2012 1:23:24 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 4/18/2012 12:52:40 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
It's objective in the sense of being able to claim mind-independence, but there are qualifications, dawg:

1. If Godel taught us anything, it's that non-trivial axiomatic systems, like logic, can't be internally demonstrated to be consistent (and that, if such can be proven from within, the system is inconsistent), and that systems which are consistent, therefore, can never be complete (since all consistent systems have propositions that cannot be proven from within, and a complete system cannot avoid inconsistency).

2. You gotta accept dem axioms required for logic to mean much of anything (e.g., identity, non-contradiction). We're existentially consigned to those assumptions, since our minds can't really operate on the basis of a thing being itself and not-itself simultaneously, but we can't prove logically a proposition which violates the axioms on which our deductive capacities rest.

tl;dr dat unconquerable epistemic imperfection

So what happens if we don't accept them?

I don't think one can do that. For anything we do, logic is somehow involved. That we are using language, that we recognize anything (computer, toilet paper, comb, table, glass, body) as what it is, that we have any thoughts--all are contingent, in our minds. Maybe it's possible that one could legitimately "not accept them", but I doubt that would be the kind of individual with whom one could have a meaningful chat.