If a logical case is made that appears to prove that the First Principles are not valid, then the necessary consequence of that apparent proof is that logic, itself, is also not valid. If logic is not valid, then case (built on logic) against the First Principles is also not valid.
However conclusive this case against the use of logic for negating its own underlying axioms might be for rationalists, it is no barrier for anti-rationalists who are not attached to rationalism as much as they are attached to agendas. For promoting an agenda, logic is frequently sacrificed.
As a rationalist, I like to ask some questions in those circumstances:
If you don’t value truth, what DO you value?And,
Are there absolutely no absolutes?Let’s take the idea of refutation. First of all, refutation is just that, an idea. Refutation is an abstraction. It is the idea that another idea can be proven false. This presumes two things. First, that there is a firm category called “false”; and that an idea can be logically placed into that category, absolutely.
So refutation is based on the two things that the refuter of First Principles hopes to eliminate: absolutes and truth/falseness as absolutes.
There are more in-depth articles on the First Principles as the basis for logic and rational thought in the side-bar under "First Principles".
2 comments:
Stan wrote the following: If a logical case is made that appears to prove that the First Principles are not valid, then the necessary consequence of that apparent proof is that logic, itself, is also not valid
That conclusion is hasty. At best, it would show that Logic has not yet been validated, rather than it being invalid.
It's child's play to see that logic works; if your hand is open, that hand can't also be NOT open. However, addressing issues of axiomatic validity are obviously much thornier. Pure rational analysis can't resolve such things.
IRT absolutes, I'm agnostic about them; I can never know if an absolute exists, and as such, I refuse to answer yes/no questions about their existence.
Ergo, there need not be firm categories of falseness or truthfulness in order to correctly identify something as true or false. The existence of probability does not invalidate the search for truth.
Whateverman, welcome back, I haven't seen you here for awhile.
You said,
"if your hand is open, that hand can't also be NOT open.
That is the axiom, not the logic built from it. [Principle of Non-Contradiction.] And you are correct: it is intuitively obvious (child's play) that the axiom is correct, incorrigibly, intuitively.
You said,
" I can never know if an absolute exists, and as such, I refuse to answer yes/no questions about their existence."
Rejection is your right; the consequence remains. If the axioms are not fixed, the logic is not fixed nor is it a reliable indicator of validity / non-validity. But the purpose of logic is to organize thought toward the end of determining the valid (true) from the non-valid (false). Logic without fixed axioms is without any force, and is useless.
"Ergo, there need not be firm categories of falseness or truthfulness in order to correctly identify something as true or false. The existence of probability does not invalidate the search for truth."
No firm categories? No firm measures, no firm basis for comparison? Then there is nothing in any thought to be respected as valid, and therefore, if you are correct, you are also incorrect as well, because your statement cannot be categorized as firmly valid under your concept of thought.
Thus you have slipped into anti-rationality, without any firm basis for determining the valid from the non-valid.
The final sentence seems to contradict your other sentences, unless you perhpas mean that truth is only a probability. Probabilities cannot be calculated for such ideas as the Principle of Tautology, the Pinciple of Cause and Effect, or the other Axioms. Because probability cannot be calculated for these cases (child's play, remember?) such statements of probable or non-probable existence are merely opinion. As opinion, they do not have the intuitive (child's play) incorrigible integrity that the First Principles have.
And finally, logic does not work using either subjective probabilities or opinions; it requires valid premises, and it promises valid answers if it is used properly. Premises are valid if they are objectively empirically replicated and non-falsified, or if they are subjectively intuited and are incorrigibly valid by inspection and examination of consequences.
Post a Comment