Theoretical Philosophy » Retorsion argument, first principles and non-classical logic » 4/04/2018 3:30 pm |
Well, I'm still a novice in philosophy. This is something I learn on my free-time, so I'm not afraid to say that I still need to learn a lot of things.
I know that non-classical logic was primary founded for semantic problems, but I don't think you really answered my question.
If I can rephrase it in more concise manner:
1) For doing metaphysics, your need to build from First Principles wich are certain.
2) For knowing what is a first principle, you need either intuition or retorsion.
3) Not intuition, because it's question begging for a skeptic.
4) Not retorsion, because even the most well-founded First-Principle, the Law of Non-Contradiction, is not certain in dialetheism.
5) Therefore, we can't do metaphysics.
What "premises" would you refute? And how?
I've vaguely read "The Aporetic Method and the Defense of Immodest Metaphysics" by Stephen Boutler, for example, but it seems to me that, ultimately, his method rests on intuition, because you'll need to fix something, and the skeptic could equally fix the opposite and adapt in consequence to keep what he already believe. No one could decide which one is right.
Theoretical Philosophy » Retorsion argument, first principles and non-classical logic » 4/04/2018 2:04 pm |
SapereAude wrote:
Ouros wrote:
The basis of metaphysics, first principles, can only be defended with retorsion argument, or it seems so.
Too bad for metaphysics then.
Well, I know what Kant and his successors had to say about that, but I don't think transcendantal idealism work, for three reasons:
1. Antinomies are solvable: If we apply first principle outside experience, ther's no contradiction.
2. Transcendental idealism presuppose, in fact, metaphysical principles as the PSR.
3. I think that we can probably, given 1. and 2., make a retorsion argument against the mere idea that first principles are only epistemically necessary.
Theoretical Philosophy » Retorsion argument, first principles and non-classical logic » 4/04/2018 8:44 am |
Well, that's not my speciality, so that's why I asked, but I know that intuitionistic logic doesn't use the law of excluded-middle, and the dialetheistic view accept that there's true contradictions. Graham Priest is one who accept dialetheism for example.
Theoretical Philosophy » Retorsion argument, first principles and non-classical logic » 4/04/2018 7:58 am |
The basis of metaphysics, first principles, can only be defended with retorsion argument, or it seems so.
Now, given the advance of non-classical logic, where the law of excluded-middle or the law of non-contradiction can, at least that's what their proponents claims, be rejected on a certain domain.
*Does it mean that retorsion argument doesn't work? In any case, what does it imply for general metaphysics?
If retorsion argument can't be used, then it seems we can't neither use first principles without begging the question.
*Or maybe I'm wrong, and that would just means that metaphysics principles are faillible; but then, again, we couldn't uses them without appealing to intuition, which is close to begging the question.
Religion » Is your belief in Christianity contingent on historical evidence? » 3/30/2018 2:23 pm |
Personally, there's practical reasons in it. When you feel a compulsive urge to believe that Christianity is true, because it should be, would't be immoral to not follow what your own nature dictate yourself?
I don't think that faith is a problem if it doesn't go against rationnality, but only beyond. It would be a virtue, rather than a vice in that case
Theoretical Philosophy » What are your favorite ways of showing the first cause is God? » 3/24/2018 2:30 pm |
Miguel wrote:
The thing is I find that the teleological argument gets stronger when combined with the cosmological one. So we don't need to present it as an individual argument; as a manner of bridging the "gap problem" it is very effective. Because what the cosmological argument tells us that there actually is a necessary/independent being responsible for the existence of contingent ones. It is no longer a point of contention, whereas in the teleological argument one might respond that perhaps it's all explainable by powers and that's it, etc; once we know that there is a cause for contingent beings, their teleology becomes even more striking. This necessary being didn't just create anything; it created orderly beings in a harmony which allowed for the existence and development of human civilization, for instance. So when we combine the cosmological argume with teleological considerations, I think it may get stronger than normal teleological arguments: now we know there is a necessary foundation for the universe, the fact that this universe exhibits so much order is certainly a strong indication that the foundation is rational.
Alternatively or additionally, the tleeological arg at the end of a cosmological one can also be much simpler. It needn't even refer to anyhing specific, but merely to how contingent things come to be in an orderly fashion, not according to chaos, as I said in my other post. I think that's very striking.
A mixture of the cosm arg with the teleological arg is my favorite way to bridge the gap problem.
I think an argument of natural theology is better the more it stand alone, with the less metaphysicals foundations.
Even a slighty use with teleology on the ground that "the universe is sustained, wich is better explained by a intelligent being" is too much for me.
Besides, I was thinking on another way to simply show that the First Cause is God.
1. The First cause is an imperso
Theoretical Philosophy » Does God depend on the non-existence of other similar necessary being? » 3/23/2018 5:49 pm |
We need to be careful, to not switch the explanans and the explanandum.
I would say that's because there can only be one nececessary being, in the most absolute sense, wich doesn't need any other thing than itself, that there isn't any other necessary being, and not the opposite.
Theoretical Philosophy » What are your favorite ways of showing the first cause is God? » 3/23/2018 7:31 am |
Well, after reading Samuel Clark, I think that there a basically two big ways to show that the first cause is God:
- Either by arguing that the universe show order, wich is a sign of a designer, so a personal first cause: but that is basically the teleological argument, wich doesn't need the cosmological argument in the first place.
- Or by arguing that because there is intellect in the universe, and that it's irreductible to non-intellectual things, then the first cause posseses intellect, and can inject it in the creation. That means that materialism is possibly, in the ontological sense, false.
Ironically, that would mean, contra Kant, that the cosmological could depends on the physico-theological argument, and not the opposite.
So, for me, if we want to have a cosmological argument who doesn't need another theological argument, then we need to show that materialism is possibly false.
Thoughts?
Religion » Christianity and reincarnation » 3/21/2018 1:49 pm |
Let's say that we got either one of these types of proof for reincarnation:
- A philosophical proof deriving from first principles
- A empirical proof wich is as good as an empirical proof can be, so that it would be beyond reasonable doubt.
What would it mean for christianity in general, and for it's major denominations in particular?
Theoretical Philosophy » A simple argument for the personhood of the first cause, by Lonergan » 3/16/2018 11:19 am |
So, it's the idea of a complex yet necessary thing?
Well, I'm probably with you, from what I've read of you.
I would say that a necessary being can, in some sense, parts. But, I think that in that case, the parts will be formally different, in a scotist way.
Still, it would not be a problem for the theist: if the First Cause is infinite and "simple enough", it would still be God.