A place of philosophy among other disciplines.

[Hurkyl]

You believe that faith is not acceptable justification for anything, do you not?

Then the logical conclusion is that you should not accept logic on faith, correct?

I hope that's enough hinting to show you where your burden of proof lies.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Philosophy doesn't bother to think about it, or be logically.

Philosophy has nothing to do with logic, they're 100% different.

And yet philosophy allows for the possibility of logic. And how you can you possibly define anything without the preponderance to question what it is in the first place?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
You believe that faith is not acceptable justification for anything, do you not?

Then the logical conclusion is that you should not accept logic on faith, correct?

I hope that's enough hinting to show you where your burden of proof lies.

Logic should be accepted on faith?

Logic should be accepted because it's logical.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Logic should be accepted on faith?

Logic should be accepted because it's logical.

And because it is meaningful.

 

[Hurkyl]

Logic should be accepted because it's logical.

And being logical is a reason to accept it because...

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And being logical is a reason to accept it because...

1. Because of its self-scrutinizing nature.

2. Because not only is it self-scrutinizing, but it's a universally acceptable form to communicate in. Thus a scrutinization can be translated so all can adjust.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
1. Because of its self-scrutinizing nature.

2. Because not only is it self-scrutinizing, but it's a universally acceptable form to communicate in. Thus a scrutinization can be translated so all can adjust.

NO! I refuse to adjust! Life is more than just logic, or a great deal of strife would not exist. Without context, logic is meaningless.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Hurkyl
From the context of a scientific approach to knowledge, the reason philosophy still exists is because it challenges premises. Premises should be challenged at every tier of knowledge. There is no reason to believe there is a magic cutoff below which the current state of knowledge should be taken as perfect, complete, and infallible, and only knowledge above the cutoff is subject to inquiry.

Very well put. But, to no awail apparently, just
like my numerous posts expressing the same ideas.

Originally posted by Alexander
It is not a philosophy which questions premises and conclusions, it is a science. Scientists are constantly testing Newton, Einstein, Maxwell, Shroedinger, fundamental constants, fundamental symmetries, etc - in wider and wider areas and with finer and finer measurements.

Sure they question them, using mostly the SAME tools...

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
2. Because not only is it self-scrutinizing, but
it's a universally acceptable form to communicate
in. Thus a scrutinization can be translated so all
can adjust.

Please, fomalize and write down the rules
of this Universal logic. (So that I could study them
and see weather they match my Universal logic. )
Thanks.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Mentat]

Hurkyl, I applaud you unceasingly, on making the point I would have made, but doing so in a superlative manner. Kudos.