It is in the heading : Most Fundamental Branch of Philosophy — A Seagull
What is 'most important' and 'where to start' are two different questions. — A Seagull
Why?
The trunk cannot exist without the roots and leaves
The roots cannot exist without the trunk and leaves
The leaves cannot exist without the roots and trunk.
Philosophy has to be holistic or it is nothing. — A Seagull
To my knowledge, none of them contradict any other one, — Harry Hindu
So while we only have our experience to go by, the experience of billions using the same theories and getting the same results is something to be said about the method by which we've been able to achieve this - science and logic. — Harry Hindu
I think that you are confusing a galaxy with a picture of a galaxy. — Harry Hindu
It needs leaves too. — A Seagull
Does a tree have a 'most important' branch? — A Seagull
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
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
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
Is there an incorrect system of logic? How would you know that you are thinking meaningfully or making useful statements about any topic - especially epistemology - without the logical rules of non-contradiction, identity, excluded middle, etc.? — Harry Hindu
We won't know if we have the correct answers — BitconnectCarlos
We won't know if we have the correct answers — BitconnectCarlos
I believe the nature of truth itself depends on whether we adopt a theistic/pantheistic/atheistic framework. — BitconnectCarlos
Metaphysics. — BitconnectCarlos
Logic is the most fundamental branch of philosophy — Harry Hindu
No, you do not. Read the definition of "axiom" that you quoted again. — aletheist
It is not so much your individual inability as the fact that no one can be a complete skeptic--again, such a position is self-defeating--so it then becomes a matter of which beliefs you adopt, just like anyone else. — aletheist
Right back at you. — aletheist
how on earth is anyone supposed to have a meaningful conversation with you? — aletheist
Anyway, I suggest looking up the definition of "axiom." — aletheist
Now you are asserting that an assertion is not an assertion--self-defeating, just like I said. — aletheist
See, you just used modus ponens. "If I have nothing else to allow me to hold a conversation, then I have to utilize appearances. I have nothing else to allow me to hold a conversation. Therefore, I have to utilize appearances." — aletheist
We have exchanged several posts now, all utilizing the English language. Unless you wish to claim that we have been throwing gibberish at each other, clearly you and I both have knowledge of the English language. — aletheist
This is your third assertion in a row that something is true. — aletheist
Why should I believe you? — aletheist
The inference rules of deductive logic, including modus ponens, are intrinsically truth-preserving; if the premisses are true, then the conclusion is true. What deduction cannot guarantee is that the premisses are true. — aletheist
They are intrinsically true so long as the original presupposition rings true. I think that's the point he's trying to lay out. — ISeeIDoIAm
Another assertion that something is true. Do you not realize that thoroughgoing skepticism is self-defeating? In order to be consistent you would have to be just as skeptical about skepticism as you claim to be about everything else. — aletheist
How do you know that you do not know anything? How do you know that you want to have knowledge? — aletheist
We already have, but you claim not to accept it, even though you cannot avoid employing it. — aletheist
Ironically, you seem to apply modus ponens to this argument (If there is a requirement for linear propositional support, then we must embrace skepticism; there is such a requirement; therefore, we must embrace skepticism) — Nagase
I think Tim layed it out nicely: no matter what game we play the rules must be established first before any player can proceed — ISeeIDoIAm
If that is your definition of justified, then modus ponens is entirely justified, since it always takes us from true beliefs to true beliefs. — Nagase
How do you justify that definition? — aletheist
How do you justify that assertion? — aletheist
How do you justify that response? — aletheist
How do you justify that self-characterization? — aletheist
How do you justify that judgment? — aletheist