Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

On circuclar reasoning

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 12:52:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Reasoning is circular when the conclusion is given by the premises and the premises given by the conclusion. I.e., when X is true because of Y, and when Y is true because of X. Many people assume that this kind of reasoning is inherently flawed. However, problems only arise when the validity of one or both premises is not necessarily given, in which case the argument achieves certainty only within a non-general context that may or may not establish (unqualified) truth. The possibility that a given circular argument is false entirely depends on the possibility that one or both of its premises are actually false. In the case of logic itself, this is clearly out of the question. We can be sure that logic is not false, since it's defined as the rules of inference under which truth is heritable, and therefore defines "falsehood" in opposition to itself. Truth is the identity of logic; if something were capable of excluding truth, or incorporating non-true premises, it would not be logical. Therefore, we can use logic to verify logic without fear that we are engaging in false reasoning, since the only way we could be wrong would be for the terms to "not be what they are", which is ruled out by the terms themselves. Indeed, the distinction between "truth" and "truth" is meaningless.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 1:02:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Agreed. I think all of Theory is a Logical Fallacy. Otherwise, it is pointless no pun intended.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 1:59:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 1:02:39 PM, fazz wrote:
Agreed. I think all of Theory is a Logical Fallacy. Otherwise, it is pointless no pun intended.

I don't know what this means.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 2:09:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 1:59:48 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/23/2014 1:02:39 PM, fazz wrote:
Agreed. I think all of Theory is a Logical Fallacy. Otherwise, it is pointless no pun intended.

I don't know what this means.

I was just thinking aloud.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 2:39:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 12:52:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Reasoning is circular when the conclusion is given by the premises and the premises given by the conclusion. I.e., when X is true because of Y, and when Y is true because of X. Many people assume that this kind of reasoning is inherently flawed. However, problems only arise when the validity of one or both premises is not necessarily given, in which case the argument achieves certainty only within a non-general context that may or may not establish (unqualified) truth. The possibility that a given circular argument is false entirely depends on the possibility that one or both of its premises are actually false. In the case of logic itself, this is clearly out of the question. We can be sure that logic is not false, since it's defined as the rules of inference under which truth is heritable, and therefore defines "falsehood" in opposition to itself. Truth is the identity of logic; if something were capable of excluding truth, or incorporating non-true premises, it would not be logical. Therefore, we can use logic to verify logic without fear that we are engaging in false reasoning, since the only way we could be wrong would be for the terms to "not be what they are", which is ruled out by the terms themselves. Indeed, the distinction between "truth" and "truth" is meaningless.

It is an epistemological problem.

How do we know X is true? Because Y is true.
Then how do we know Y is true? Because X is true.

If that is your only basis for believing either X or Y to be true, then the reasoning process is invalid, since you are not justifying why either of them are valid. To state an argument is invalid is not to state that the conclusion is false, but that we are no closer to accepting the conclusion is true than before.

The moment you make additional arguments, such as 'X is true because Y is true, and Y is true because it logically cannot be false' you are now breaking out of the circle.

You tried to apply this it logic itself but do so horribly. Logic is neither true or false, it just is. We have an axiomatic system, and the axioms are neither true of false,they just form the framework if how we speak the language of things. It just so happens in two value logic systems (with the three axioms or LNC, LI and LNEM) that true and false are the diametrically opposed portions.

To state that a 'logical system is true' however is meaningless, since there is no qualifier for one to be 'true', similarly anything subjective cannot be 'true', since there is in qualifier for something subjective to be 'true'.

Furthermore, meaningless and incoherent concepts are neither true of false, for exactly the same reasons. So your argument that something is true because it's 'not false' is insufficient.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 3:51:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 2:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/23/2014 12:52:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Reasoning is circular when the conclusion is given by the premises and the premises given by the conclusion. I.e., when X is true because of Y, and when Y is true because of X. Many people assume that this kind of reasoning is inherently flawed. However, problems only arise when the validity of one or both premises is not necessarily given, in which case the argument achieves certainty only within a non-general context that may or may not establish (unqualified) truth. The possibility that a given circular argument is false entirely depends on the possibility that one or both of its premises are actually false. In the case of logic itself, this is clearly out of the question. We can be sure that logic is not false, since it's defined as the rules of inference under which truth is heritable, and therefore defines "falsehood" in opposition to itself. Truth is the identity of logic; if something were capable of excluding truth, or incorporating non-true premises, it would not be logical. Therefore, we can use logic to verify logic without fear that we are engaging in false reasoning, since the only way we could be wrong would be for the terms to "not be what they are", which is ruled out by the terms themselves. Indeed, the distinction between "truth" and "truth" is meaningless.


The moment you make additional arguments, such as 'X is true because Y is true, and Y is true because it logically cannot be false' you are now breaking out of the circle.

You tried to apply this it logic itself but do so horribly. Logic is neither true or false, it just is. We have an axiomatic system, and the axioms are neither true of false,they just form the framework if how we speak the language of things. It just so happens in two value logic systems (with the three axioms or LNC, LI and LNEM) that true and false are the diametrically opposed portions.

But logic is not just an axiomatic system. What distinguishes logic from other axiomatic systems is that logic always preserves the true-false distinction. As I pointed out, truth is the identity of logic. In other words, logic is defined such that you can apply all the logical operations you want, and at the end of the day "truth" = "truth". It's the rules by which we avoid contradiction, which is necessary in any attempt to arrive at truth since truth is by definition truth and not non-truth.


To state that a 'logical system is true' however is meaningless, since there is no qualifier for one to be 'true', similarly anything subjective cannot be 'true', since there is in qualifier for something subjective to be 'true'.

Assuming I'm understanding you correctly (which is a bit of a stretch), this is contradictory. If truth is not meaningful, then your statement that "it is true that "truth" is not meaningful" is itself meaningless or contradictory. Without 2VL, you cannot even identify anything.


Furthermore, meaningless and incoherent concepts are neither true of false, for exactly the same reasons. So your argument that something is true because it's 'not false' is insufficient.

Meaningless concepts are just that: meaningless. They do not establish that anything avoids the T/F distinction, since there isn't even anything to speak of. So I fail to see how this applies to "truth", considering that all of your arguments rely on it and thus require it to have meaning.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 4:07:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 3:51:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/23/2014 12:52:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Reasoning is circular when the conclusion is given by the premises and the premises given by the conclusion. I.e., when X is true because of Y, and when Y is true because of X. Many people assume that this kind of reasoning is inherently flawed. However, problems only arise when the validity of one or both premises is not necessarily given, in which case the argument achieves certainty only within a non-general context that may or may not establish (unqualified) truth. The possibility that a given circular argument is false entirely depends on the possibility that one or both of its premises are actually false. In the case of logic itself, this is clearly out of the question. We can be sure that logic is not false, since it's defined as the rules of inference under which truth is heritable, and therefore defines "falsehood" in opposition to itself. Truth is the identity of logic; if something were capable of excluding truth, or incorporating non-true premises, it would not be logical. Therefore, we can use logic to verify logic without fear that we are engaging in false reasoning, since the only way we could be wrong would be for the terms to "not be what they are", which is ruled out by the terms themselves. Indeed, the distinction between "truth" and "truth" is meaningless.




The moment you make additional arguments, such as 'X is true because Y is true, and Y is true because it logically cannot be false' you are now breaking out of the circle.

You tried to apply this it logic itself but do so horribly. Logic is neither true or false, it just is. We have an axiomatic system, and the axioms are neither true of false,they just form the framework if how we speak the language of things. It just so happens in two value logic systems (with the three axioms or LNC, LI and LNEM) that true and false are the diametrically opposed portions.

But logic is not just an axiomatic system. What distinguishes logic from other axiomatic systems is that logic always preserves the true-false distinction.

...No.

As I pointed out, truth is the identity of logic. In other words, logic is defined such that you can apply all the logical operations you want, and at the end of the day "truth" = "truth". It's the rules by which we avoid contradiction, which is necessary in any attempt to arrive at truth since truth is by definition truth and not non-truth.

Truth is defined according the logical system you are using. So any claim to state a 'logical system is true' is just a tautology. There is nothing right or wrong about it.:

To state that a 'logical system is true' however is meaningless, since there is no qualifier for one to be 'true', similarly anything subjective cannot be 'true', since there is in qualifier for something subjective to be 'true'.

Assuming I'm understanding you correctly (which is a bit of a stretch), this is contradictory. If truth is not meaningful, then your statement that "it is true that "truth" is not meaningful" is itself meaningless or contradictory. Without 2VL, you cannot even identify anything.

You are only running into problems because you are talking about multi valued logic with two-valued logic presuppositions, which is patently absurd. Apples and oranges.

Furthermore, meaningless and incoherent concepts are neither true of false, for exactly the same reasons. So your argument that something is true because it's 'not false' is insufficient.

Meaningless concepts are just that: meaningless. They do not establish that anything avoids the T/F distinction, since there isn't even anything to speak of. So I fail to see how this applies to "truth", considering that all of your arguments rely on it and thus require it to have meaning.

This isn't really related to the OP. I was only contending your off-hand comment about claim x being 'not false' means claim x is true. I was only pointing out how that's not necessarily true.

Something can only be 'true' if there are truth conditions to be fulfilled. If the truth conditions don't exist, then it cannot be true or false.

This is exactly the case we have when we say 'two-valued logic is correct', 'multi valued logic is correct' or 'the LNC is correct'.

The same applies to some God claims, of which a demonstration could be:

"An omnipotent Fod exists"

This sentence is neither true or false, since there is no truth condition to a 'Fod existing' since 'Fod' is a meaningless concept.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 4:19:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 4:07:29 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/23/2014 3:51:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/23/2014 2:39:39 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 11/23/2014 12:52:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Reasoning is circular when the conclusion is given by the premises and the premises given by the conclusion. I.e., when X is true because of Y, and when Y is true because of X. Many people assume that this kind of reasoning is inherently flawed. However, problems only arise when the validity of one or both premises is not necessarily given, in which case the argument achieves certainty only within a non-general context that may or may not establish (unqualified) truth. The possibility that a given circular argument is false entirely depends on the possibility that one or both of its premises are actually false. In the case of logic itself, this is clearly out of the question. We can be sure that logic is not false, since it's defined as the rules of inference under which truth is heritable, and therefore defines "falsehood" in opposition to itself. Truth is the identity of logic; if something were capable of excluding truth, or incorporating non-true premises, it would not be logical. Therefore, we can use logic to verify logic without fear that we are engaging in false reasoning, since the only way we could be wrong would be for the terms to "not be what they are", which is ruled out by the terms themselves. Indeed, the distinction between "truth" and "truth" is meaningless.




The moment you make additional arguments, such as 'X is true because Y is true, and Y is true because it logically cannot be false' you are now breaking out of the circle.

You tried to apply this it logic itself but do so horribly. Logic is neither true or false, it just is. We have an axiomatic system, and the axioms are neither true of false,they just form the framework if how we speak the language of things. It just so happens in two value logic systems (with the three axioms or LNC, LI and LNEM) that true and false are the diametrically opposed portions.

But logic is not just an axiomatic system. What distinguishes logic from other axiomatic systems is that logic always preserves the true-false distinction.

...No.

As I pointed out, truth is the identity of logic. In other words, logic is defined such that you can apply all the logical operations you want, and at the end of the day "truth" = "truth". It's the rules by which we avoid contradiction, which is necessary in any attempt to arrive at truth since truth is by definition truth and not non-truth.

Truth is defined according the logical system you are using. So any claim to state a 'logical system is true' is just a tautology. There is nothing right or wrong about it.:

This is another contradiction. It amounts to the assertion that truth is necessarily relative, which is itself a non-relative statement that universally applies to all logical systems. Obviously, the truth I'm talking about is "true within the context of reality".


To state that a 'logical system is true' however is meaningless, since there is no qualifier for one to be 'true', similarly anything subjective cannot be 'true', since there is in qualifier for something subjective to be 'true'.

Assuming I'm understanding you correctly (which is a bit of a stretch), this is contradictory. If truth is not meaningful, then your statement that "it is true that "truth" is not meaningful" is itself meaningless or contradictory. Without 2VL, you cannot even identify anything.

You are only running into problems because you are talking about multi valued logic with two-valued logic presuppositions, which is patently absurd. Apples and oranges.

How am I talking about multi-valued logic?


Furthermore, meaningless and incoherent concepts are neither true of false, for exactly the same reasons. So your argument that something is true because it's 'not false' is insufficient.

Meaningless concepts are just that: meaningless. They do not establish that anything avoids the T/F distinction, since there isn't even anything to speak of. So I fail to see how this applies to "truth", considering that all of your arguments rely on it and thus require it to have meaning.

This isn't really related to the OP. I was only contending your off-hand comment about claim x being 'not false' means claim x is true. I was only pointing out how that's not necessarily true.

Something can only be 'true' if there are truth conditions to be fulfilled. If the truth conditions don't exist, then it cannot be true or false.

This is exactly the case we have when we say 'two-valued logic is correct', 'multi valued logic is correct' or 'the LNC is correct'.

The same applies to some God claims, of which a demonstration could be:

"An omnipotent Fod exists"

This sentence is neither true or false, since there is no truth condition to a 'Fod existing' since 'Fod' is a meaningless concept.

"True" and "false" can only be meaningfully applied to meaningful predicates. That doesn't change the fact that they can always be applied to meaningful predicates.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 5:25:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 12:52:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Reasoning is circular when the conclusion is given by the premises and the premises given by the conclusion. I.e., when X is true because of Y, and when Y is true because of X. Many people assume that this kind of reasoning is inherently flawed. However, problems only arise when the validity of one or both premises is not necessarily given, in which case the argument achieves certainty only within a non-general context that may or may not establish (unqualified) truth. The possibility that a given circular argument is false entirely depends on the possibility that one or both of its premises are actually false. In the case of logic itself, this is clearly out of the question. We can be sure that logic is not false, since it's defined as the rules of inference under which truth is heritable, and therefore defines "falsehood" in opposition to itself. Truth is the identity of logic; if something were capable of excluding truth, or incorporating non-true premises, it would not be logical. Therefore, we can use logic to verify logic without fear that we are engaging in false reasoning, since the only way we could be wrong would be for the terms to "not be what they are", which is ruled out by the terms themselves. Indeed, the distinction between "truth" and "truth" is meaningless.

I disagree, circular reasoning is indeed a logical fallacy, and I can prove it.

P1 - Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy
P2 - Fallacies are logically flawed
C - It's a logical flaw to use circular reasoning.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 6:49:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 5:25:53 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/23/2014 12:52:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Reasoning is circular when the conclusion is given by the premises and the premises given by the conclusion. I.e., when X is true because of Y, and when Y is true because of X. Many people assume that this kind of reasoning is inherently flawed. However, problems only arise when the validity of one or both premises is not necessarily given, in which case the argument achieves certainty only within a non-general context that may or may not establish (unqualified) truth. The possibility that a given circular argument is false entirely depends on the possibility that one or both of its premises are actually false. In the case of logic itself, this is clearly out of the question. We can be sure that logic is not false, since it's defined as the rules of inference under which truth is heritable, and therefore defines "falsehood" in opposition to itself. Truth is the identity of logic; if something were capable of excluding truth, or incorporating non-true premises, it would not be logical. Therefore, we can use logic to verify logic without fear that we are engaging in false reasoning, since the only way we could be wrong would be for the terms to "not be what they are", which is ruled out by the terms themselves. Indeed, the distinction between "truth" and "truth" is meaningless.

I disagree, circular reasoning is indeed a logical fallacy, and I can prove it.

P1 - Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy
P2 - Fallacies are logically flawed
C - It's a logical flaw to use circular reasoning.

You aren't nearly as funny as you think you are :P
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 1:57:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 12:52:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Reasoning is circular when the conclusion is given by the premises and the premises given by the conclusion. I.e., when X is true because of Y, and when Y is true because of X. Many people assume that this kind of reasoning is inherently flawed. However, problems only arise when the validity of one or both premises is not necessarily given, in which case the argument achieves certainty only within a non-general context that may or may not establish (unqualified) truth. The possibility that a given circular argument is false entirely depends on the possibility that one or both of its premises are actually false. In the case of logic itself, this is clearly out of the question. We can be sure that logic is not false, since it's defined as the rules of inference under which truth is heritable, and therefore defines "falsehood" in opposition to itself. Truth is the identity of logic; if something were capable of excluding truth, or incorporating non-true premises, it would not be logical. Therefore, we can use logic to verify logic without fear that we are engaging in false reasoning, since the only way we could be wrong would be for the terms to "not be what they are", which is ruled out by the terms themselves. Indeed, the distinction between "truth" and "truth" is meaningless.

Is Philosophy subjective or objective?
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 3:28:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 6:49:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/23/2014 5:25:53 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/23/2014 12:52:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Reasoning is circular when the conclusion is given by the premises and the premises given by the conclusion. I.e., when X is true because of Y, and when Y is true because of X. Many people assume that this kind of reasoning is inherently flawed. However, problems only arise when the validity of one or both premises is not necessarily given, in which case the argument achieves certainty only within a non-general context that may or may not establish (unqualified) truth. The possibility that a given circular argument is false entirely depends on the possibility that one or both of its premises are actually false. In the case of logic itself, this is clearly out of the question. We can be sure that logic is not false, since it's defined as the rules of inference under which truth is heritable, and therefore defines "falsehood" in opposition to itself. Truth is the identity of logic; if something were capable of excluding truth, or incorporating non-true premises, it would not be logical. Therefore, we can use logic to verify logic without fear that we are engaging in false reasoning, since the only way we could be wrong would be for the terms to "not be what they are", which is ruled out by the terms themselves. Indeed, the distinction between "truth" and "truth" is meaningless.

I disagree, circular reasoning is indeed a logical fallacy, and I can prove it.

P1 - Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy
P2 - Fallacies are logically flawed
C - It's a logical flaw to use circular reasoning.

You aren't nearly as funny as you think you are :P

Yeah, well I crack myself up, and that's all that matters to me.

The point BTW, is that circular reasoning is indeed a logical fallacy.

Sure, people like you and Langan find it a convenient rhetorical device that suits your agenda, but it is logically flawed because you can produce an argument for anything you want with it, it's a meaningless activity rather than a valid argument. Langan uses it as a logical distraction, in his hands it's nothing but a charlatan's tool used to obfuscate an illogical argument.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 3:47:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 3:28:35 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/23/2014 6:49:28 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/23/2014 5:25:53 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 11/23/2014 12:52:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Reasoning is circular when the conclusion is given by the premises and the premises given by the conclusion. I.e., when X is true because of Y, and when Y is true because of X. Many people assume that this kind of reasoning is inherently flawed. However, problems only arise when the validity of one or both premises is not necessarily given, in which case the argument achieves certainty only within a non-general context that may or may not establish (unqualified) truth. The possibility that a given circular argument is false entirely depends on the possibility that one or both of its premises are actually false. In the case of logic itself, this is clearly out of the question. We can be sure that logic is not false, since it's defined as the rules of inference under which truth is heritable, and therefore defines "falsehood" in opposition to itself. Truth is the identity of logic; if something were capable of excluding truth, or incorporating non-true premises, it would not be logical. Therefore, we can use logic to verify logic without fear that we are engaging in false reasoning, since the only way we could be wrong would be for the terms to "not be what they are", which is ruled out by the terms themselves. Indeed, the distinction between "truth" and "truth" is meaningless.

I disagree, circular reasoning is indeed a logical fallacy, and I can prove it.

P1 - Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy
P2 - Fallacies are logically flawed
C - It's a logical flaw to use circular reasoning.

You aren't nearly as funny as you think you are :P

Yeah, well I crack myself up, and that's all that matters to me.

The point BTW, is that circular reasoning is indeed a logical fallacy.

Sure, people like you and Langan find it a convenient rhetorical device that suits your agenda, but it is logically flawed because you can produce an argument for anything you want with it, it's a meaningless activity rather than a valid argument. Langan uses it as a logical distraction, in his hands it's nothing but a charlatan's tool used to obfuscate an illogical argument.

I never suggested that all circular reasoning is valid. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite. Circular reasoning is only valid in the case of logic itself - to claim otherwise is to imply that logic could be non-logical, which is a contradiction.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 3:48:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 1:57:52 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/23/2014 12:52:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Reasoning is circular when the conclusion is given by the premises and the premises given by the conclusion. I.e., when X is true because of Y, and when Y is true because of X. Many people assume that this kind of reasoning is inherently flawed. However, problems only arise when the validity of one or both premises is not necessarily given, in which case the argument achieves certainty only within a non-general context that may or may not establish (unqualified) truth. The possibility that a given circular argument is false entirely depends on the possibility that one or both of its premises are actually false. In the case of logic itself, this is clearly out of the question. We can be sure that logic is not false, since it's defined as the rules of inference under which truth is heritable, and therefore defines "falsehood" in opposition to itself. Truth is the identity of logic; if something were capable of excluding truth, or incorporating non-true premises, it would not be logical. Therefore, we can use logic to verify logic without fear that we are engaging in false reasoning, since the only way we could be wrong would be for the terms to "not be what they are", which is ruled out by the terms themselves. Indeed, the distinction between "truth" and "truth" is meaningless.

Is Philosophy subjective or objective?

Properly, objective; historically, subjective.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 12:27:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 1:57:52 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 11/23/2014 12:52:51 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Reasoning is circular when the conclusion is given by the premises and the premises given by the conclusion. I.e., when X is true because of Y, and when Y is true because of X. Many people assume that this kind of reasoning is inherently flawed. However, problems only arise when the validity of one or both premises is not necessarily given, in which case the argument achieves certainty only within a non-general context that may or may not establish (unqualified) truth. The possibility that a given circular argument is false entirely depends on the possibility that one or both of its premises are actually false. In the case of logic itself, this is clearly out of the question. We can be sure that logic is not false, since it's defined as the rules of inference under which truth is heritable, and therefore defines "falsehood" in opposition to itself. Truth is the identity of logic; if something were capable of excluding truth, or incorporating non-true premises, it would not be logical. Therefore, we can use logic to verify logic without fear that we are engaging in false reasoning, since the only way we could be wrong would be for the terms to "not be what they are", which is ruled out by the terms themselves. Indeed, the distinction between "truth" and "truth" is meaningless.

Is Philosophy subjective or objective?

Both.