Originally posted by lee_merrill
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Origin of the Mind/Mental States
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWe can certainly confirm our reasoning objectively, but the point remains, you cannot prove the validity of reasoning with an argument,it has to be a first principle, and a principle outside of naturalism.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostCould you explain what you mean by the "validity of reasoning? Do you mean to say that a conclusion derived of by reason and logic can't be proven to be valid? If so, could you give an example of a conclusion derived of by reason and logic that isn't proven valid?
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThe very idea that "The only "first principle" you require is a true premise" requires correct reasoning to determine it is a valid statement. Try again.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostWe can certainly confirm our reasoning objectively, but the point remains, you cannot prove the validity of reasoning with an argument, it has to be a first principle, and a principle outside of naturalism.
Blessings,
Lee
Aristotle proposed first-principles, but even 'believing' in first-principles is no certainty, nor the foolish notion, that our reasoning is valid.Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-14-2018, 08:59 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo one tries to 'prove' validity of reasoning with an argument. That would mean the insanity you speak of Explain your first-principle.
Aristotle proposed first-principles, but even 'believing' in first-principles is no certainty, nor the foolish notion, that our reasoning is valid.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostTo add: Different philosophers and thinkers have used First-principles in useful practical was, but again nothing here proves the validity of our reasoning.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOkay, now could you give me an example, and then explain what you mean by the conclusion not being valid?
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo one tries to 'prove' validity of reasoning with an argument. That would mean the insanity you speak of.
Explain your first-principle.
Aristotle proposed first-principles, but even 'believing' in first-principles is no certainty, nor the foolish notion, that our reasoning is valid.
If you carry this to the quest for the ultimate first-principle it can take two roads. First, the objective verifiable evidence for our reasoning goes to Natural Laws and ultimately Natural foundation of our physical existence, and no Gods.
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
Ah, but here you must assume the validity of reasoning in order to make this argument for the validity of reasoning. And making an argument means it is not a first principle.
Blessings,
Lee
No one is assuming the validity of reasoning in order to make this argument for the validity of reasoning. This makes all assumptions in this case subjective and not remotely a first principle.
Where did I ever claim reasoning a first principle?
Where are you going with this other than another trip on the hamster wheel and insanity?
Still waiting for you to answer my question: What is your specific argument for what you consider is a sufficient first-principle?Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-15-2018, 05:22 PM.
Comment
-
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment