Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!


Logic as a Necessary Assumption




I trust that the "laws of logic" are accurate descriptions of reality, and, for example, we will never see a situation where X & ~X at the same time and in the same relationship.

But this is not a "blind faith"; rather, it's based on practicality. Logical principles have "worked," and, moreover, if the principles and laws of logic ever "went away," We would not/could not know anything. There would be chaos. In fact, we couldn't even call it "chaos," because we have a *logical* understanding of even such words as "chaos." But, for lack of a better word to describe such an absurd place, we would have chaos. Everything would exist, and nothing would exist. Every claim would be true, and every claim would be false. Everyone would be alive, and everyone would be not alive.

Absurd, but that's what we're left with if logic is removed.

This is my usual response to the "Begging the question" dilemma of logic. This dilemma says that, for something to be deemed "logical," it must be shown so using logic. But when we ask, "Is logic logical?" we run into a circular argument (and a vicious circularity at that), because any argument used in defense of logic must assume the principles of logic are true - which clearly begs the question. It appears that logic is self-defeating, and cannot satisfy its own standards (But, what I find interesting is, the charge of "begging the question" is *also* based on the assumption that the laws of logic are true - so it appears here that Logic can be neither defended nor refuted).

As I see it, the presupposition of the "trustworthiness" of logic and reason is a necessary assumption, lest we turn to the alternative - the world of chaos and absurdity described above.

One must assume logical principles in order to communicate.



What is logic? Is it some entity hovering over us, imposing its will upon us? No. You're talking about the "laws" of logic as though they are some cosmic force that "binds" us, but what we call "laws" of logic are actually descriptions or explanations of how reality operates. Having said this, let's turn to this question: Can these "laws" be violated or "broken"? Well, since these "laws" are not some "force" which rules over us, but rather descriptions, I would say that there is nothing to violate. Logic is not some entity or being with power that could be "denied." Let me state this another way: If something (anything) exists in reality (or if any proposition corresponds with reality), then it must exist in a certain way. This "certain way" is described by humans through the said "laws" of logic. For example, take the law of non-contradiction. A contradiction CANNOT be true - not because some "law" is lurking overhead imposing its will on us, but because if something exists in reality, it must behave a "certain way" (i.e., "logically"). I cannot be alive and not alive at the same time and in the same relationship - such a notion is a contradiction, and is thus absurd. I am either alive or not alive. I can't be both at the same time. Notice that the statement, "I am both alive and not alive at the same time and in the same relationship" isn't really saying anything at all! What idea is it communicating? It's communicating NOTHING. (like I said, the statement is absurd). Can God make a "square circle" or a "four-sided triangle"? No, because a "square circle" is not a thing (a "square circle" simply is not). Reality, whether we speak of God or man, is what it is, and logic describes how reality is. That which is contradictory is not possible, even for God.

One cannot not use logic. One has to use logic in any attempt to refute logic. To deny logic or say that it is false or not true or applicable to a certain topic entails the use of logic in the very assertion itself (thus, it is true or applicable). The very distinction between true or false exists or has meaning if and only if logic is applicable. Without logic (e.g., the law of non-contradiction) there would be no such beasts as "true" or "false." To make the claim that "there is a realm where logic does not apply" is to rely on logic as being universally binding - otherwise the claim makes no sense at all, in that it can be neither "true" nor "false." To deny that logic is universal is to affirm that a contradictory statement can be true - are you willing to say that? Consequently, if a contradictory proposition is true ANYWHERE in reality (whether in "our world" or "beyond" - if I can use such idioms), then the use of logic ANYWHERE is useless (whether in "our world or "beyond"). If you understand the basic laws of validity in logic, you'll know that any argument is valid if it contains one premise that is contradictory. If ANY proposition in reality is contradictory and also "true," then ANY conclusion can be proved true, since all one needs to do is insert that true contradictory premise in an argument (if you don't understand basic "logic 101" stuff, this won't make sense to you). So we must hold logic as universal to make any sense. And existence hinges on logic, although it is more accurate to say that TRUTH hinges on logic, and truth is that which describes existence (reality) correctly.

(intelligible) language is dependent on logic. As I said, "true" and "false" exist only where logic applies. To expand on this idea, when I make a claim (like "The sky is blue"), logic is necessarily assumed, and the antithesis of the claim is implicitly denied (i.e., the antithesis of "The sky is blue" is "The sky is not blue." Making the first claim is to deny the second claim necessarily, thus implicitly relying on the law of non-contradiction). Even in the cases of these mysterious abstract descriptions (like "God is infinite"), while we can't understand the concept fully, we're still necessarily assuming the axioms of logic by making the claim (because, again, the antithesis, "God is finite," is necessarily denied, thus implicitly relying on the law of non-contradiction). Here is another reason why I make the distinction between logic and epistemology: To deny our knowledge of something (like God's infinity) is not to deny the applicability of logic to that something.

logic applies to sentences or statements (language), not to reality itself. The conclusion I've come to is that since the laws of logic apply to language, they apply to any description of reality we attempt to give. There is neither a logical nor non-logical situation, and there is neither a logical nor non-logical entity. How we describe reality is that which is determined logical or not. And, I might add, the fact that a being may be beyond comprehension does not imply "beyond logic." In fact, even making a claim like "God is beyond comprehension" relies on the laws of logic to be intelligible (like the examples given above).







180: Philosophy
One-Eighty Main Page