Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Logic

Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 3:52:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is adopting logical reasoning a pressumption? Is it an a priori assertation? Is it an axiom itself, though by its very nature it defines 'axiom'?

One objection I've always considered reagarding Rene Descartes' Meditations, was that he pressuposed the existence of logic and its application. In determining 'existence' or 'truth' do we not first presume the existence of logic? Is questioning such existence an oxymoron?

I believe we cannot be sure of anything, but if we were to disregard even the existence of logic, is not 'disregarding' an actual logical step? Is it ingrained in humanity to be 'logical?' Or are we decieved into accepting 'logic' as an acceptable methodology for ascertaining truth?

I think, therefore I am begs the question. The use of the word "I," is already assuming the answer. We are limited by our means of communication.

Are we assuming the existence of logic based on faith or simple pressuposition? Is faith in logic unfounded?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 3:54:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Seeing as to disregard logic, we need to apply some thought process, the question is its replacement. I think intuition leads to logic and the two are the same, though. Emotivism would work, possibly, but it's quite difficult tbh.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 3:59:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 3:54:17 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Seeing as to disregard logic, we need to apply some thought process, the question is its replacement. I think intuition leads to logic and the two are the same, though. Emotivism would work, possibly, but it's quite difficult tbh.

Logically, that would make sense. That once we follow what we percieve as a logical train of thought, we must provide a reasonable basis for anything that follows. But, if like Descartes, we were to simply assume we knew nothing. Nothing at all. I don't see how we can possibly take the step to assume that 'logic' is a viable form of discovery.
But even in making that assumption I am using logic to refute logic.

It seems like it adds value to my favorite philosophical theory: the Munchhausen Trilemma. We simply cannot be sure of anything. We cannot prove anything. And we cannot know anything. (Unless we first adopt an axiom of some sort.)

The existence of logic itself does not convince me of its merits.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 4:01:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 3:52:46 PM, Axiom wrote:
Is adopting logical reasoning a pressumption? Is it an a priori assertation? Is it an axiom itself, though by its very nature it defines 'axiom'?

One objection I've always considered reagarding Rene Descartes' Meditations, was that he pressuposed the existence of logic and its application. In determining 'existence' or 'truth' do we not first presume the existence of logic? Is questioning such existence an oxymoron?

I believe we cannot be sure of anything, but if we were to disregard even the existence of logic, is not 'disregarding' an actual logical step? Is it ingrained in humanity to be 'logical?' Or are we decieved into accepting 'logic' as an acceptable methodology for ascertaining truth?

I think, therefore I am begs the question. The use of the word "I," is already assuming the answer. We are limited by our means of communication.

Are we assuming the existence of logic based on faith or simple pressuposition? Is faith in logic unfounded?

Logic is a framework. It's not necessarily a concept, but rather, a process through which one validates concepts.

That can be construed as a concept in itself, but it isn't, really. It's rooted in observations about reality that make conclusions derived through logic functional.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 4:18:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 3:52:46 PM, Axiom wrote:
Is adopting logical reasoning a pressumption? Is it an a priori assertation? Is it an axiom itself, though by its very nature it defines 'axiom'?
Logic requires the acceptance of certain axioms which are self-evident.

One objection I've always considered reagarding Rene Descartes' Meditations, was that he pressuposed the existence of logic and its application.
Not necessarily; he did presuppose certain axioms.

In determining 'existence' or 'truth' do we not first presume the existence of logic?
No. We start off with certain axioms that self evident like Identity, Negation, Contradiction, and Existence.

Is questioning such existence an oxymoron?
Depends on how you go about it, I suppose.

I believe we cannot be sure of anything, but if we were to disregard even the existence of logic, is not 'disregarding' an actual logical step?
First of all, the statement "I believe we cannot be sure of anything" is a logical absurdity: it is a contradiction. As such, it relates no knowledge. Secondly, the act of "disregarding" isn't in and of itself a logical step.

Is it ingrained in humanity to be 'logical?' Or are we decieved into accepting 'logic' as an acceptable methodology for ascertaining truth?
Logic is mathematical and as such is a human abstraction of physical reality. That is to say, reality is the physical manifestation of logic. However, what we refer to as "logic" is actually an abstraction (perception) of physical reality and as such it is incomplete. Nonetheless, it is VERY useful because it is EXTREMELY accurate for the every-day applications that we apply it to.

I think, therefore I am begs the question. The use of the word "I," is already assuming the answer. We are limited by our means of communication.
No. The reasoning behind it is not that simple. Cogito ergo sum is so because what Descartes realized was that existence is only contingent upon itself. It boils down to "existence exists", which is a tautology and not circular reasoning.

Are we assuming the existence of logic based on faith or simple pressuposition? Is faith in logic unfounded?
Everything begins with "faith" in so far as faith = the acceptance of self-evident axioms. However, there is always a base, a background because one can have 0 (zero) of something but one can NEVER have 0 of everything.

What "cogito" boils down to is that existence exists because there are no other alternatives: nonexistence does not exist!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 4:28:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
'Self-evident' itself is a pressuposition, assuming the process by which you arrive at a conclusion. Nothing is self-evident without first assuming some thought process or application of understanding. It itself is subjec to the same scrutiny that I apply to 'logic.'
And statements of belief are not factual claims. One can believe something without having proof for its belief. I can very easily claim, "I believe we cannot be sure of anyhting," as I am allowing for the possibility that it is an untruth.
'Every-day applications,' have no bearing on the question at hand. We assume that we are concious, we assume we are not constantly being decieved about reality. Once again, all of this is a matter of axiomatic reasoning. We have faith in that which we believe to be true.
It is indeed circular reasoning. He states "I think, therefore I exist." The problem is his use of the word "I" in the premise, "I think." What is he attributing the 'thought process' to? I. What is I? He is assuming his conclusion. Nietzsche raised this same rebuttal.
Faith being 'self evident' is a contradiction of terms. And once again, calling something 'self-evident' in itself is based on a set of pressupositional axioms.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 5:07:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 4:28:53 PM, Axiom wrote:
'Self-evident' itself is a pressuposition, assuming the process by which you arrive at a conclusion.
No it is not. Please show how the concept of "self-evident" has premises and conclusion.

Nothing is self-evident without first assuming some thought process or application of understanding.
That's a logical absurdity because in order for your argument to make sense there has to be a SELF! If there isn't then your argument is meaningless!

It itself is subjec to the same scrutiny that I apply to 'logic.'
Don't know what you mean by this.

And statements of belief are not factual claims.
This is incorrect: statements of belief CAN be factual, they're just not REQUIRED to be factual.

One can believe something without having proof for its belief.
Just like one can have knowledge of something only to discover later that they were in deed wrong.

I can very easily claim, "I believe we cannot be sure of anyhting," as I am allowing for the possibility that it is an untruth.
That is correct; however, at worst this is a logical absurdity and at best it relays NO information whatsoever.

'Every-day applications,' have no bearing on the question at hand.
Actually, you are quite wrong: every-day applications have EVERYTHING to do with the question at hand. Unless you are referring to some domain in which there is no everyday.

We assume that we are concious,
Not all the time, but yes.

we assume we are not constantly being decieved about reality.
You assume that there's a difference!

Once again, all of this is a matter of axiomatic reasoning.
Axioms are not reasons. A=A is not a reason.

We have faith in that which we believe to be true.
As opposed to what, not having faith?

It is indeed circular reasoning.
It is not; there are tautological axioms that lead to cogito ergo sum. Axioms are NOT arguments and thus NOT reasoning.

He states "I think, therefore I exist." The problem is his use of the word "I" in the premise, "I think." What is he attributing the 'thought process' to?
It doesn't matter, the point is that it exists WHATEVER it is. To deny is to accept that something can come from nothing!

I. What is I? He is assuming his conclusion.
No. He is saying that existence is not contingent upon anything but itself.

Nietzsche raised this same rebuttal.
Faith being 'self evident' is a contradiction of terms.
Please SHOW how this is so.

And once again, calling something 'self-evident' in itself is based on a set of pressupositional axioms.
Yes, self-evident axioms.

It seems to me that you are attempting to find some kind of "universal understanding" on which all things are based on and you want to do that by starting with nothing. As you well know: ex nihilo nihil fit. It is a waste of time to do this because you are only fooling yourself. One cannot have "nothingness" because there is nothing there to have! Nothingness does not exist because it is a contradiction. So at the very LEAST one must have something and that something is the axiom/tautology that tells us that existence is contingent upon itself and that it cannot be negated because it's negation IS non-existence and therefore does not exist!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 6:17:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 5:07:40 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 8/17/2012 4:28:53 PM, Axiom wrote:
'Self-evident' itself is a pressuposition, assuming the process by which you arrive at a conclusion.
No it is not. Please show how the concept of "self-evident" has premises and conclusion.

Nothing is self-evident without first assuming some thought process or application of understanding.
That's a logical absurdity because in order for your argument to make sense there has to be a SELF! If there isn't then your argument is meaningless!

It itself is subjec to the same scrutiny that I apply to 'logic.'
Don't know what you mean by this.

And statements of belief are not factual claims.
This is incorrect: statements of belief CAN be factual, they're just not REQUIRED to be factual.

One can believe something without having proof for its belief.
Just like one can have knowledge of something only to discover later that they were in deed wrong.

I can very easily claim, "I believe we cannot be sure of anyhting," as I am allowing for the possibility that it is an untruth.
That is correct; however, at worst this is a logical absurdity and at best it relays NO information whatsoever.

'Every-day applications,' have no bearing on the question at hand.
Actually, you are quite wrong: every-day applications have EVERYTHING to do with the question at hand. Unless you are referring to some domain in which there is no everyday.

We assume that we are concious,
Not all the time, but yes.

we assume we are not constantly being decieved about reality.
You assume that there's a difference!

Once again, all of this is a matter of axiomatic reasoning.
Axioms are not reasons. A=A is not a reason.

We have faith in that which we believe to be true.
As opposed to what, not having faith?

It is indeed circular reasoning.
It is not; there are tautological axioms that lead to cogito ergo sum. Axioms are NOT arguments and thus NOT reasoning.

He states "I think, therefore I exist." The problem is his use of the word "I" in the premise, "I think." What is he attributing the 'thought process' to?
It doesn't matter, the point is that it exists WHATEVER it is. To deny is to accept that something can come from nothing!

I. What is I? He is assuming his conclusion.
No. He is saying that existence is not contingent upon anything but itself.

Nietzsche raised this same rebuttal.
Faith being 'self evident' is a contradiction of terms.
Please SHOW how this is so.

And once again, calling something 'self-evident' in itself is based on a set of pressupositional axioms.
Yes, self-evident axioms.

It seems to me that you are attempting to find some kind of "universal understanding" on which all things are based on and you want to do that by starting with nothing. As you well know: ex nihilo nihil fit. It is a waste of time to do this because you are only fooling yourself. One cannot have "nothingness" because there is nothing there to have! Nothingness does not exist because it is a contradiction. So at the very LEAST one must have something and that something is the axiom/tautology that tells us that existence is contingent upon itself and that it cannot be negated because it's negation IS non-existence and therefore does not exist!

My point exactly. Rene Descartes is misinterpreted by the fact that he claimed to try and dismiss everything he first 'believed.' My point is that in the end, you can't possibly dismiss everything. You have to assume something. There has to be some axiom.
(Self evident is an assumption when refering to the building blocks of a world view because you have yet to establish any form of proof methodology that can present 'evidence' or any definition of 'self.') It is assuming two very critical building blocks. Once again, it goes to my point that you can't believe in 'nothing.' There is always something. Therefore Descartes first medititation becomes pointless in my opinion. He is still arguing from an axiom, not from nothing.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 8:37:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yes, you can't establish logic without fallaciously presupposing it. http://www.debate.org...

Then again you can't disprove absolute logic without presupposing logic, so we might as well just assume logic more for a sake of practicality and such.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 8:56:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 8:37:43 PM, phantom wrote:
Yes, you can't establish logic without fallaciously presupposing it. http://www.debate.org...

Then again you can't disprove absolute logic without presupposing logic, so we might as well just assume logic more for a sake of practicality and such.

This. :P
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 8:58:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 3:52:46 PM, Axiom wrote:
Is adopting logical reasoning a pressumption? Is it an a priori assertation? Is it an axiom itself, though by its very nature it defines 'axiom'?

One objection I've always considered reagarding Rene Descartes' Meditations, was that he pressuposed the existence of logic and its application. In determining 'existence' or 'truth' do we not first presume the existence of logic? Is questioning such existence an oxymoron?

I believe we cannot be sure of anything, but if we were to disregard even the existence of logic, is not 'disregarding' an actual logical step? Is it ingrained in humanity to be 'logical?' Or are we decieved into accepting 'logic' as an acceptable methodology for ascertaining truth?

I think, therefore I am begs the question. The use of the word "I," is already assuming the answer. We are limited by our means of communication.

Are we assuming the existence of logic based on faith or simple pressuposition? Is faith in logic unfounded?

Well, there are two ways to look at "logic."

First off, the human mind is limited by certain conditions specified by Kant. For instance, we don't need to "assume" that everything we see is represented in space; cognition as we know it would not be possible otherwise.

On the other hand, if we want to establish some definition of "truth" (such as "x" is true if and only if x), we do this by consciously presupposing certain relational systems (like first order logic) and their components (truth, validity, soundness, etc).

Language is similar. It is only a priori true that all bachelors are not married if we have previously designated the definition of bachelors to be as such. It's not a priori true that "all blargs are not married."

However, if you and I both agree that a "bachelor" is an unmarried man, neither of us need "proof" or "faith" to know that it is a priori true that all bachelors are not married.

So that which is needed for cognition to occur does not take faith, proof, or presupposition. However, in order to communicate some notion of the workings of cognition (like relating concepts with inductive inference) a definition of truth and set of axioms must be presupposed.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:59:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 8:37:43 PM, phantom wrote:
Yes, you can't establish logic without fallaciously presupposing it. http://www.debate.org...

Then again you can't disprove absolute logic without presupposing logic, so we might as well just assume logic more for a sake of practicality and such.

The Fool: Its not something that must be assumpt, it is necessary true wether you assume it or not. Here is test. Go try and run in opposite directions at the same time/speed and get somewhere. It doesn't matter is you assume it or accept it. Its not happening either way by necessity, because its a contradiction.
"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
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:44:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:59:48 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
At 8/17/2012 8:37:43 PM, phantom wrote:
Yes, you can't establish logic without fallaciously presupposing it. http://www.debate.org...

Then again you can't disprove absolute logic without presupposing logic, so we might as well just assume logic more for a sake of practicality and such.

The Fool: Its not something that must be assumpt, it is necessary true wether you assume it or not. Here is test. Go try and run in opposite directions at the same time/speed and get somewhere. It doesn't matter is you assume it or accept it. Its not happening either way by necessity, because its a contradiction.

You're assuming that it's logically implausible to run in both directions at once, therefore still presupposing logic in your proving it.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 10:32:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 3:59:07 PM, Axiom wrote:
At 8/17/2012 3:54:17 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Seeing as to disregard logic, we need to apply some thought process, the question is its replacement. I think intuition leads to logic and the two are the same, though. Emotivism would work, possibly, but it's quite difficult tbh.

Logically, that would make sense. That once we follow what we percieve as a logical train of thought, we must provide a reasonable basis for anything that follows. But, if like Descartes, we were to simply assume we knew nothing. Nothing at all. I don't see how we can possibly take the step to assume that 'logic' is a viable form of discovery.
But even in making that assumption I am using logic to refute logic.

It seems like it adds value to my favorite philosophical theory: the Munchhausen Trilemma. We simply cannot be sure of anything. We cannot prove anything. And we cannot know anything. (Unless we first adopt an axiom of some sort.)

The existence of logic itself does not convince me of its merits.

I would claim assuming that we know nothing is a false assumption in itself, as such an assumption already creates a myriad of things, such as language, and further disregards intuition which must exist in a rational mind already.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...