Any philosophical system is an axiomatic system

  • Thread starter ShayanJ
  • Start date
  • Tags
    System
In summary: So, if you have any philosophical questions or concerns, you'll need to go to a different forum.In summary, this person argues that any philosophical system should be an axiomatic system because logic is only able to tell us how to move from one point to another, but it can't tell us where to start.
  • #1
ShayanJ
Insights Author
Gold Member
2,810
604
Some time ago I reached to this conclusion that any philosophical system (a self-consistent set of propositions) should be an axiomatic system. The reasoning is that logic which is the way of reasoning and the tool for building such systems, is only able to tell us how should we reason from a number of statements to reach another statement. Its only telling us how to move from one point to another, but it can't tell us where to start.
There is this proof by contradiction too. Imagine there is a philosophical system that is completely built using logic and reasoning. Consider an statement on the top of it and call it A. From the assumption, A is derived by logic from a number of statements. Take one of those and call it B. From the assumption, B is derived by logic from a number of statements. Take one of those and call it C. From the assumption, C is derived by logic from a number of statements. Take one of those and call it D. From the assumption, D is derived by logic from a number of statements. Take one of those and call it E and it goes forever and ever! And so we reach to the conclusion that we never started the reasoning, or we were reasoning from the beginning of time! which is of course wrong and so it impossible to have a philosophical system built by pure logic. Because we have to assume some axioms and start from them. There is no other way. Logic can't tell us where to start and so we should assume an starting point ( a number of axioms ) and using logic, build our system starting from them.
Any ideas or objections?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi Shyan, sorry, but we no longer moderate discussions on philosophy here.
 

1. What is an axiomatic system?

An axiomatic system is a set of statements or principles that serve as the foundation for a specific philosophical or mathematical system. These axioms are assumed to be true without needing to be proven, and all other statements or theorems within the system are derived from these axioms using logical reasoning.

2. How is an axiomatic system different from other philosophical systems?

An axiomatic system is unique in that it is based on a set of self-evident principles or axioms, whereas other philosophical systems may rely on empirical evidence or subjective beliefs. Axiomatic systems are also highly structured and follow strict rules of logic, while other philosophical systems may be more open-ended or subjective.

3. Can an axiomatic system be proven?

No, an axiomatic system cannot be proven. The axioms are assumed to be true without needing to be proven, and all other statements or theorems are derived from these axioms using logical reasoning. However, the consistency of an axiomatic system can be tested by checking if the logical deductions from the axioms lead to any contradictions.

4. What are the strengths of using an axiomatic system?

One of the main strengths of using an axiomatic system is its reliance on self-evident principles. This allows for a highly structured and logical approach to understanding and analyzing a specific philosophical or mathematical system. Additionally, axiomatic systems can provide a foundation for further research and development, as new theorems can be derived from the original axioms.

5. Are there any limitations to using an axiomatic system?

One limitation of using an axiomatic system is that it is dependent on the chosen axioms. If the axioms are incorrect or incomplete, then the entire system may be flawed. Additionally, axiomatic systems may not be able to account for all aspects of a complex philosophical or mathematical concept and may oversimplify or ignore certain nuances.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
23
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
3
Views
170
Replies
1
Views
741
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
5
Replies
153
Views
5K
Back
Top