First Post, Nature of Logic

First Post

I have discovered the blogosphere. It turns out to be a bit more interesting than Xanga and Livejournal led me to believe. It turns out you can post legitimately substantial things, spread your actual ideas, and participate in an intellectual dialogue. I want to get in on the action. I’m only a stupid undergrad, but I like to think I have a few things to say. I hope to keep this blog mainly focused on philosophy, but then again, I have a word or two to say about a few different topics. We’ll see what direction this goes. And, while I came here trying to escape the world of Livejournal, I have to exorcise those personal gossipy demons. But I’ll at least keep it brief.

Nature of Logic

Here’s a topic that’s been on my mind for a while now, and it was nice to see it come up in Brains. Eric Thompson examines the roots of logical principles, and whether they’re contingent or universal. He makes a fine argument for their contingency, which has some friction with my generally Kantian belief in the apriori existing somewhere, preferably within the structure of our thoughts. I have a couple issues with it, but I definitely encourage anyone to give it a read.

“. . . I will argue that it is possible that some of the more cherished logical truths, thought to be a priori knowable by anyone with a working brain, are false. I’m not saying they are false, but I only need to establish that it is possible to raise the plausiblity of my thesis. . .”

Two main issues I have. For one, the main example he gives of logic’s internal inconsistency is divine fiat. While I’m no atheist, the declaration of an absolute truth contrary to how our mind can process the truth is on its face absurd. As long as we deal with truth being based on we can process it, and as long as we live skeptical of divine fiat, there isn’t much basis for this inconsistency. And, indeed, if our logical axioms cannot be proven consistent or inconsistent, but they’re always experienced as consistent, we have no choice but to accept their consistency.

Although our form of logic may have arisen in time, we experience it in the present, and we cannot imagine experience outside of logic. Indeed, because it’s so deeply ingrained within us, we operate all our proving based on it. Godel is of course correct, axioms cannot prove or disprove themselves. But in order to have any knowledge at all, all our understanding and proofs must be reduced to unprovable axioms. It’s pointless to wish for proof of them, we simply need to accept them. We can call them apriori and true because they are the fundamentals of our thought, whether or not they arose historically.

Of course, it does lead to very interesting speculation about the future of our thought and fundamental logic…

LJBS

• Turned 20 on Saturday. Not a bad party. Wish I stuck around longer.
• Put down a security deposit on Saturday too. Chicago & California. Nice place, could have a better neighborhood.