Well, sure, in a way. If a philosophical argument were indisputable fact it would have already crossed over into the threshold of science already, graduating from a theory or proposal to that of a fact or law. Wouldn't it?

I think that each of us has a black hole within our consciousness, to work with and climb out of, and perhaps we need to find our own inner philosopher to guide the way through this darkness. But, it is like an alchemical quest of healing, of finding the treasure within the depths of the blackness and, of transmuting the dark energies into radiant wisdom.

Well, sure, in a way. If a philosophical argument were indisputable fact it would have already crossed over into the threshold of science already, graduating from a theory or proposal to that of a fact or law. Wouldn't it? — Outlander

What bothers me the fact that all philosophical and, if you really look at it, all human affairs seem to be stuck in the debate stage and resolution of issues seem a rather distant proposition. It's a sign that we haven't yet figured things out and it's here things get interesting: is the continual state of controversy on philosophical issues due to paradoxes that lurk at the heart of them all? I mean if we begin with a paradoxical proposition, what we'll have in our hands at the end of the day is controversy.

I think that each of us has a black hole within our consciousness, to work with and climb out of, and perhaps we need to find our own inner philosopher to guide the way through this darkness. But, it is like an alchemical quest of healing, of finding the treasure within the depths of the blackness and, of transmuting the dark energies into radiant wisdom. — Jack Cummins

:up:

Take logic for instance. It makes a big fuss about proof and avoiding cicrcular reasoning but it turns out it itself can't be proven without resorting to a circulus probando for to justify it is to assume it proven. — TheMadFool

Does that seem equivalent to a black hole?

Take logic for instance. — TheMadFool

To my way of thinking, 'circular reasoning', where needed, is not problematic IFF 'the circle' is virtuous (i.e. a positive feedback loop) and not vicious (i.e. a negative feedback loop). 'Formal & informal fallacies' tend to exemplify the latter and -axiomatic systems of valid inferences' exemplify the former. Maybe you can cite some examples of (philosophical) circumstances, Fool, in which virtuous circles are problematic (or self-defeating/refuting) as well.

Does that seem equivalent to a black hole? — Tom Storm

There's a certain unresolved tension in a paradox; to quote Daniel Dennett, "...we're tugged in [many] two different directions..."' with the net effect like that of an aircraft that experiences a mid-air stall; the aircraft at least knows the default direction it should be on viz. straight down but we, on the other hand, go through something akin to being frozen at the same spot, no particular option, assuming they aren't illusory, seems satisfactory.

The resemblance of a paradox to a blackhole is only to the extent that no familar frame of reference can aid us in our attempt at a clear understanding of what an issue is all about. It's just a thought...that's all there i to it...can anything claim to be more though?

To my way of thinking, 'circular reasoning', where needed, is not problematic IFF 'the circle' is virtuous (i.e. a positive feedback loop) and not vicious (i.e. a negative feedback loop). 'Formal & informal fallacies' tend to exemplify the latter and -axiomatic systems of valid inferences' exemplify the former. Maybe you can cite some examples of (philosophical) circumstances, Fool, in which virtuous circles are problematic (or self-defeating/refuting) as well — 180 Proof

The distinction vicious/virtuous circle seems to me a desperate attempt to save the phenomena. As far as I can tell, the instant a critical premise's justification is the conclusion in an argument, the argument collapses into a flat assertion and therein lies the rub some would say.

So you're denying that the distinction between (e.g.) reflective equilibrium & begging the question makes a difference or that the latter is a negative feedback loop and the former a positive feedback loop?

So you're denying that the distinction between (e.g.) reflective equilibrium & begging the question makes a difference or that the latter is a negative feedback loop and the former a positive feedback loop? — 180 Proof

Reflective equilibrium is about adjustments made to general principles and particular judgments to achieve coherence in a set of beliefs.

Begging the question is ultimately about commiting the logical error of assuming the conclusion in the premises.

There definitely is a difference between the two.

In the context of feedback loops, sure, reflective equilibrium is a positive feedback loop in the sense the overall coherence is improved upon and true that begging the question is a negative feedback loop in that commiting the fallacy renders the argument null and void.

It appears that reflective equilibrium can itself lead to logical circularities as the desire for coherence might force one to tweak certain beliefs to such an extent that it begs the question i.e. the presmises assume the very thing that they're supposed to prove. As a crude example, if the general principle is "don't kill people" and someone does kill but in self-defense, the "don't kill" principle needs to be revised to "don't kill unless one's life is at risk."

Continuing along this trajectory, incorporating more and more exceptions to the principle "don't kill" has an expected, not too surprising, endpoint viz. the principle "don't kill" becomes meaningless and we might as well do away with it for it serves only as a source of confusion. The net effect is that particular judgments slowly replace the general principle and, in what can be likened to a twist of fate, what's to be judged becomes the judge [circularity].

Blackholes are a cosmic version of biological death

There definitely is a difference between the two — TheMadFool

Just checking, because you suggested previously there wasn't.

Just checking, because suggested previously there wasn't. — 180 Proof

By the way, what's a virtuous circle. I'm not familiar with that concept. I've always thought of ALL instances of circular logic to be vicious in character, disastrous for any argument.

Reflective equilibrium, to my knowledge, doesn't seem to justify the proposition "some instances of circular logic are virtuous." As I mentioned in my previous post, reflective equilibrium is itself susceptible to and probably may be an examplar of circular logic for it, in one sense, continually, as part of a feedback loop, chips away at the very meaning of general principles in order to accomodate particular judgments which don't quite fit in so to speak and in the aftermath of these alterations, general principles are supplanted by what is literally a list of particular judgments which is just another way of saying that there are no general principles - the defendant now sits on the judge's seat and this is exactly what circularity means.