I am a huge lover of philosophy, especially in Epistemology, or studying how we know things. I wanted to start a topic all about philosophical debates, because I didn't see one here. The first thing I want to talk about is how we know things, and the view that I most agree with is pragmatism. Before modern philosophy, Pluto's philosophy of the theory of forms, where everything on Earth was an example of a universal concept of that idea. For example, every chair on Earth is an example of a pure "chairness" that was in a second universe of universals. Plato also argued that knowledge is justified true belief, which take a long time to explain, so I will save that one for later. But then comes Richard Rorty. In an essay, he writes about seventeen. Seventeen, in Plato's theory must have some kind of seventeenness, but what is seventeenness? he writes. The truth is that you can't have seventeen without sixteen and eighteen. Just like everything on Earth. We know things because of their relationships with other things, and it's all interconnected in this web of knowledge. This is pragmatism. For example, we know what water is because it's clear, liquid, made of Oxygen and Hydrogen, and we drink it. There was not a description in there that didn't involve something other than water. What does AG think?
Definitely not! Logic exists independent of the mind that thinks it. It exists whether or not it is thought. There is no "my" or "your" logic. (well, that's my logic here :P) There is only one "correct" logic, and that is THE logic, and the only logic. There are different viewpoints, but this is quite distinct from logic itself.
That is definitely impossible. Logic is not a universal, because one person's logic is going to be different from another's. Take a serial killer versus a pastor of a church. The serial killer's logic is that he feels a need to kill and therefore it's like an addiction. The pastor would never dream of taking someone else's life. In other words, there is no universal logic, just like nothing else is universal.
I don't think you guys are understanding, the debate is not whether or not something exists, but how we know that it exists.. how we perceive it. If something is in a vacuum, then there's your relationship. That thing, and the vacuum. If you're talking about just a vacuum, there are still relationships. Describe a vacuum.
That is definitely impossible. Logic is not a universal, because one person's logic is going to be different from another's. Take a serial killer versus a pastor of a church. The serial killer's logic is that he feels a need to kill and therefore it's like an addiction. The pastor would never dream of taking someone else's life. In other words, there is no universal logic, just like nothing else is universal.
I think you severely misunderstand the meaning of "logic."
Logic, by definition, is absolute. It is not a person's own individualized "reasoning" at all; instead, it is this: Deductive reasoning
I gave a simple example earlier. It is this form of reasoning.
if P, then Q P Therefore, Q
An example of which is: If I touch a hot stove, I get burned I touch a hot stove Therefore, I get burned.
This logic is not debatable - it is not relative - it is not individualized. It is absolute and universal and not comparable to other things.
@ Einfach You're still comparing apples to oranges. Logic is what we use to think. Logic therefore fits into pragmatism because of the relationship between us and logic. In you're example, the relationship between stove, burns, and ourselves is that pragmatistic relationship. We know things by their relationship to other things, not whether they exist or not. Apples to oranges.
There's no proof that it exists outside of the human mind.
Similarly, there's no proof anything exists outside of the human mind.
As far as deductive reasoning, all I have to get for you to admit it really is the idea that some thing p has to be either true or false. For instance, the idea that I am typing right now is either true or false. From here, we can call this p.
There are tautologies that are necessarily true assuming that p is in fact either true or false. These are our axioms. From there, we can come up with deductive reasoning itself.
Not all things are necessarily true or false (many things are neither true nor false) - however, deductive reasoning only requires that at least one hypothetical thing CAN be only true or false.
Similarly, there's no proof anything exists outside of the human mind.
I've done some meditation to get to the bottom of this, and I do believe that that's what pragmatism is basing itself off of, that this laptop that I'm typing on, outside of the human mind, is not a laptop, but still we have relationships... like the molecules and atoms and elements that makes it, etc.. Deductive reasoning is based solely on the state of something being true or false. It and the state of being (true of false )are your relationship.
Not all things are necessarily true or false (many things are neither true nor false) - however, deductive reasoning only requires that at least one hypothetical thing CAN be only true or false.
Neither true nor false? Or not necessarily true or false? Qualitative statements may qualify; for example, this air is dry. The fire is hot (depends how you define "hot". But again, once you define "dry" or "hot" then it becomes true or false... How about - Gemcraft is a fun game. Gemcraft is the best game on Armor Games.
All these are individualized to a person's own perspective.
