Is induction a theory? — Asif
Is there really a difference between verifying empirically and rationally? — Asif
But the intellect and intuition are different words for a psychological expression a feeling. — Asif
Human language is an expressed feeling. — Asif
You expressed your certainty that all bodies have extension in space. Certainty is a feeling. — Asif
So, you don't seem to be disagreeing with me that logic is a fundamental field of philosophy, rather you are disagreeing which form of logic is more fundamental?There are several conflicting systems of logic. For example, dialetheism denies the law of non-contradiction. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dialetheism/ Even the axioms of logic are disputed. So how do we know which system to use? — 83nt0n
This is like asking what were our ancient hunter-gatherer ancestors doing when they learned about the animals in their environment, how to grow plants, etc. before "science" was even put forth in Galileo. Humans have done science and thought logically since our arrival on this planet, but not always. — Harry Hindu
I think those who are voting "logic" are equating logic with thought. I don't see them as synonyms, however, any more than the rules of grammar is synonymous with language.
— Xtrix
No, we are equating logic with a particular type of thinking - correct thinking vs. incorrect thinking. — Harry Hindu
Science has gone on since the first hominid began using tools. Looking under a rock is just as scientific as looking through a telescope. Philosophy has been going on ever since humans created art and buried their dead. And logical and illogical thinking have occured since thinking began, just as tyrannosaurus rexes and triceratops existed before they were identified and given names as such. I never said logic equates to all thinking - just a certain type of thinking.Sure -- but it wasn't "science" or "logic" in the sense that was meant above. Hunter-gathers weren't conducting controlled experiments, nor were they doing syllogisms. Again, this is why I said the equating of "logic" to "thinking" is misleading. Thinking has gone on for millennia, just as language has. Logic and grammar are not that. — Xtrix
Telling you that your thinking is error-free when it comes to understanding the concepts of the other fields of philosophy doesn't tell you much? Are you kidding?To say thinking is "correct" because it conforms to the rules of logic just doesn't tell you much. — Xtrix
So, you don't seem to be disagreeing with me that logic is a fundamental field of philosophy, rather you are disagreeing which form of logic is more fundamental? — Harry Hindu
You then mention dialetheism that, you say, denies the law of non-contradiction, yet is it true or not that dialetheism denies the law of non-contradiction? :gasp: — Harry Hindu
Did you not identify what dialetheism is and what it is not? It seems that you can't escape using the laws of non-contradiction, identity and exluded middle, even when distinguishing different types of logic and fields of philosophy. — Harry Hindu
I suppose the same way one can make Logic or Aesthetics "first philosophy"? Or the same way one can start a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle with this piece or that one. Any map of the same terrritory will suffice for relating, or framing, other subsequent maps palimpsest-like to one another. One starts from one's own 'ultimate concern' as a thinker (not as a "believer" (pace Tillich)).May I ask how can one make Ethics first philosophy? — Marty
Why indeed. Ask the OP.Why a beginning/first principle in philosophy at all?
Ethics is embodied; except for aesthetics, other philosophical concerns are expressed so abstractly that the embodiment of cognition and reflection is obscured (i.e. bracketed-away), or discounted. One's bodily exigencies-ecological conditions constitute ethics -I never understood this view but I'm sympathetic to it.
I don't recognize any grounds for assuming the ethics needs "epistemological justification" because I approach philosophy as a noncognitive performative exercise for proposing rigorously coherent criteria for conjecturing and methods for conjecture-testing, and not a cognitive theoretical practice for explaining (with 'testable conjectures') how nature (or even culture) works.How do you argue against general objections to ethics needing epistemology to justify it, or a metaphysics in which is sympathetic to moral properties existing, or needing a logic to make proper ethical inferences?
I think "a value system" (such as this) is intended to function as a framework that enables - focuses - other philosophical concerns by constraining all of them (re: ontology, axiology [aesthetics, ethics & logic] & epistemology); that is, making explicit a direction, or horizon, of speculative/conceptual investigations but not a destination (i.e. ideology, dogma).I can see why all these things wouldn't matter unless one had a value system, or a motivation to do them, but this isn't what you'd argue for, is it?
So what useful assertions can be made in the fields of epistemology or ontology where the conclusion doesn't follow the premise, or that you don't need to provide reasons for your conclusion?Let's just say I don't necessarily agree that logic is first. It seems that if we want our logical system to be justified/true we will need to employ epistemology or ontology/metaphysics, otherwise we're in danger of arbitrarily picking axioms. — 83nt0n
Then dialetheism both denies and assumes the law of non-contradiction. How is that statement useful?This question is already assuming that the law of non-contradiction to be the case, so I'd imagine a dialetheist would answer by saying that the question is not well formed. — 83nt0n
You mean it habitually works and provides useful information via deduction and induction.Yes of course you can't escape the classical laws of logic if you assume the classical laws of logic. Just like if you wore red sunglasses you wouldn't be able to escape seeing everything as red until you take the glasses off. The reason why I personally find it hard to escape classical logic is probably because it is habitual. — 83nt0n
So what useful assertions can be made in the fields of epistemology or ontology where the conclusion doesn't follow the premise, or that you don't need to provide reasons for your conclusion? — Harry Hindu
Then dialetheism both denies and assumes the law of non-contradiction. How is that statement useful? — Harry Hindu
You mean it habitually works and provides useful information via deduction and induction. — Harry Hindu
Really? Which metaphysical and epistemological problems need to be solved prior to understanding, or being able to use, logic? Tell me how you answer that question without using logic.This is why I am not outright saying one of these fields should be first. It seems like metaphysics/epistemology depend on logic, but logic depends on metaphysics/epistemology. Analogous to the problem of the criterion. — 83nt0n
Useful, as in which problems could dialetheism be applied and then solve? We aren't using logic to establish logic. We use logic to establish truth - truth about metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, etc. statements. How would you know that any metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, etc. statements are true without logic? And if you can't distinguish between different statements, then what use is even making any statements at all?What do you mean by useful? If you mean how is it relevant to the discussion, well dialetheism goes to show that the foundations of logic are disputed, so how do we find a 'correct' logic? If we use logic to establish logic, this would be circular. — 83nt0n
If something is useful then that implies that there is some element of truth.Are you implying that because something habitually works that it is true/correct? — 83nt0n
Is this statement about logic true? If logic isn't used to "establish logic", how do we "establish truth" about logic without "using logic"?We aren't using logic to establish logic. We use logic to establish truth - — Harry Hindu
It seems obvious to me that we have errors in our thinking - where what we thought was true wasn't. And when we look closer at why it wasn't true, it was because we didn't apply all the rules of logic.Is this statement about logic true? If logic isn't used to "establish logic", how do we "establish truth" about logic without "using logic"? — 180 Proof
First Philosophy: Lectures 1923/24 and Related Texts from the Manuscripts (1920-1925). Translated by Sebastian Luft and Thane M. Naberhaus. Springer, 2019. Edmund Husserl.Thus far, the beginning philosopher has adopted the motivations of the scientist as such; these merely live on in him, since he was, after all, already a scientist previously. Fundamentally, he does not want to change anything whatsoever about this. As a philosopher, he wants to be nothing at all but a scientist, though of course a genuine, a radically genuine scientist. And like any other scientist, he is motivated by the love of wisdom, after which he is named and which at first is nothing but a scientific love of truth in the manner of a habitual devotion to the value-realm of truth, which is contained in the essence of the sphere of judgment. Through this love of truth, he too, therefore, allows himself to be defined by an abiding life decision aimed at what is greatest and best in this realm of truth, within the limits of what is practically possible.
And yet there is an essential difference here wherever we look. Undoubtedly, science and philosophy were originally one and the same, or rather, the special sciences were only living branches growing from the trunk of the whole, the one philosophy, as an indivisible living unity. But since then the two have become divided, and divided by nothing less than the ethos animating their entire working activity. The division has occurred because that spirit of radicalism has been lost which, under the title “philosophy,” wanted to go to the end in that which makes science science: that is, in the epistemological justification of cognition, and precisely thereby in the self-justification of the scientist in his entire cognitive accomplishing. — Husserl
Really? Which metaphysical and epistemological problems need to be solved prior to understanding, or being able to use, logic? Tell me how you answer that question without using logic. — Harry Hindu
If something is useful then that implies that there is some element of truth. — Harry Hindu
Why is a contradiction false? It's because actually picturing a square-circle in your mind is impossible. — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.