The conflict or disharmony between heart and mind (Xin), how well/badly these two work (together), will decide, in my humble opinion, humanity's fate! — Agent Smith
Which Tarot card features my portrait today ? Is it grizzly Scientism or spooky Mysticism ? — Pie
The ermit. This is the card which features your portrait today. Why? Because he carries his Lamp of Truth, used to guide the unknowing, — javi2541997
That's OK. No offense taken. I was just riffing on one implication of your post : that humanity might be devolving due to unfitness : not having the "right stuff" for survival. Au contraire mon fre're, the Enformationism worldview implies that humanity is now a major driver of evolution -- for better or for worse. Humans have added Cultural Selection to Nature's weeding-out mechanisms. And one aspect of Cultural Selection is the Moral Dimension. It's an unnatural (artificial) way of guiding the selfish masses toward the common good. Animals don't have a formal Moral Code, because they are driven mainly by emotional instinct, instead of rational planning.Well, I'm not sure how to judge your post. It rings true but, absit iniuria, that can be for so many reasons other than it being true if you catch my drift. Verisimilitude is rather complex it seems! I digress though. — Agent Smith
I don't think that Aristotle referred to specific first principles. I think that his first principles apply to any subject: scientific, philosophical, religious ... pertaining to language, art, ... to everyday life ... anything. One starts by asking "What is that, the truth of which we know for certain and we don't have to prove?" It has millions of applications.A) Which are the “first principles” Aristotle is referring to? — javi2541997
If they are not need to be proven... their premises are universal affirmative? (According to Aristotle's syllogisms) — javi2541997
I guess so. But the problem is, how many cases must be satisfied, i.e. the principle be applied to, to be considered as "first principle". Also, do we arrive to such a principle simply because we can't think of any other that precedes it?B) If they are not need to be proven... their premises are universal affirmative? (According to Aristotle's syllogisms) — javi2541997
Questions to explore and feed our minds with ... — Alkis Piskas
I think that for Godel, the matter of valid forms of demonstration was paramount. Aristotle certainly was concerned with the matter but also saw first principles as being a proper fit for what was to be inquired into — Paine
Does anyone see a resemblance between Aristotle's 'unproven first principles' and Godel's incompleteness theorem?
'The theorem states that in any reasonable mathematical system there will always be true statements that cannot be proved.' — Wayfarer
Is it okay to resurrect older threads? — Leontiskos
A) Which are the “first principles” Aristotle is referring to?
B) If they are not need to be proven... their premises are universal affirmative? (According to Aristotle's syllogisms) — javi2541997
Non-contradiction is simply a necessary condition for coherent and consistent thought; we cannot be coherent and consistent if we contradict ourselves. — Janus
What is the difference between "conclusions are generally based on presuppositions" and the attempt to establish first principles in the fashion of Aristotle?
I agree with your judgement regarding non-contradiction. Should that sort of thing be counted as self-evident? — Paine
But the further corollary is that anyone who believes themselves to be coherent and consistent is presupposing the principle of non-contradiction. That is, they are presupposing that the principle of non-contradiction is true.
One can attempt to bracket the question of coherence and consistency, but when one is already writing arguments in a natural language on a philosophy forum the bracketing is merely academic. They have already accepted the onus of coherence and consistency. — Leontiskos
As I said before I don't think it is so much a matter of the principle of non-contradiction being true as it is a matter of it being necessary for sensible discussion to be achieved. And i would see it more as a recognition than a presupposition. — Janus
There is nothing to say those presuppositions cannot change over time; we find new ways of thinking based on new presuppositions, which may even contradict those held previously. — Janus
Is it self-evident that sensible discussion would be impossible if people routinely contradicted themselves? It seems obvious that would be the case, but I'm not sure if that is exactly the same thing as it being self-evident. — Janus
The principle of non-contradiction is more than a linguistic tool or even meta-tool. It is an indispensable presupposition which is in play whether you recognize it or not. — Leontiskos
Paine was right to point to the principle of non-contradiction in response to this claim. Are you of the opinion that the principle of non-contradiction might change over time? — Leontiskos
I am not sure either. Both Plato and Aristotle argued against the 'relativity' of Protagoras. From that point of view, the matter is something that needs to be hammered out rather than treated as an uncontestable condition.
But as an appeal to a condition, the argument is about evidence. — Paine
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.