How do you attempt to rationalise with the completely irrational?

[seer]

There are logical absolutes but various forms of logic are not of themselves absolute as has been commented on by other contributors.

So you believe the law of non-contradiction is absolute now?

[seer]

Well not in the sense of intention, by yeah, the natural purpose of birth, of life, is to live. And you're right, nature is not intentional so it doesn't deal in morality, but you're confusing natural causes with intentional causes and only the latter is defined as morality. So, why is it objective then? Because when it comes to intentional beings morals are those rules that we find to be in the best interests of life, of survival, of society.

I'm not confusing anything Jim, and again it all depends on our say, it is subjective. Why is our survival a "good?" Because we subjectively say so.

[seer]

Is it rational to insist that everyone accept the laws of logic as absolute when you can't prove it without begging the question?

Because if we don't accept it as absolute we descend into the irrational. Do you believe for a second that the sun could both exist and not exist at the same moment? And I would say that some truths are self-evident.

[Stoic]

So you believe the law of non-contradiction is absolute now?

Why should we believe the law of non-contradiction is absolute?

[seer]

Why should we believe the law of non-contradiction is absolute?

Do you believe for a second that the sun could both exist and not exist at the same moment?

[Stoic]

Because is we don't accept it as absolute we descend into the irrational.

The existence of paraconsistent logic suggests that we don't necessarily descend into the irrational if we don't consider the law of non-contradiction to be absolute.

Do you believe for a second that the sun could both exist and not exist at the same moment?

No, I don't believe that the sun could both exist and not exist at the same moment. But that doesn't mean the law of non-contradiction is absolute.

And I would say that some truths are self-evident.

Even if I were to accept the claim that the law of non-contradiction is self-evident, I could still reject the claim that the absoluteness of the law of non-contradiction is self-evident. Or are you using "absolute" and "self-evident" interchangeably?

[Stoic]

Do you believe for a second that the sun could both exist and not exist at the same moment?

No, as I said here.

[seer]

The existence of paraconsistent logic suggests that we don't necessarily descend into the irrational if we don't consider the law of non-contradiction to be absolute.

No, I don't believe that the sun could both exist and not exist at the same moment. But that doesn't mean the law of non-contradiction is absolute.

Why not? If you know that is a logical impossibility isn't that self-evident? How could it be anything but absolute?

Even if I were to accept the claim that the law of non-contradiction is self-evident, I could still reject the claim that the absoluteness of the law of non-contradiction is self-evident. Or are you using "absolute" and "self-evident" interchangeably?

Everything you just said could mean what you wrote and the opposite of what you wrote in principle if the LOC is not absolute.

[JimL]

So you believe the law of non-contradiction is absolute now?

White chocolate.

[JimL]

I'm not confusing anything Jim, and again it all depends on our say, it is subjective. Why is our survival a "good?" Because we subjectively say so.

Why do you define god as good then, because god says so?

[seer]

Why do you define god as good then, because god says so?

And what would be wrong with that? "Say so" works for you.

[seer]

White chocolate.

Not a contradiction.

[Stoic]

Why not? If you know that is a logical impossibility isn't that self-evident? How could it be anything but absolute?

It's a logical impossibility according to classical logic. The fact that I have to specify "according to classical logic" should give you an idea of how it could be something other than absolute.

Everything you just said could mean what you wrote and the opposite of what you wrote in principle if the LOC is not absolute.

Well, it doesn't.

Dialetheists, for example, hold that there can be a statement whose negation is also true. But they do not hold that the negation of every true statement is also true, as that would make reasoning impossible.

[seer]

It's a logical impossibility according to classical logic. The fact that I have to specify "according to classical logic" should give you an idea of how it could be something other than absolute.

So then it IS POSSIBLE for the sun to exist and not exist at the same moment if we use paraconsistent logic?

Well, it doesn't.

Dialetheists, for example, hold that there can be a statement whose negation is also true. But they do not hold that the negation of every true statement is also true, as that would make reasoning impossible.

How do you know which is which? How do you know the negation of the above statements are not true? Besides something like the liars paradox can you give a real world example where a claim and its negation are both true?

[Whateverman]

I keep waiting for the thread's author to support his implied claim that logic is absolute and universal.

Doesn't seem like that's ever going to happen, does it...