John Page

Hi Keith!

Well, it doesn't actually state that, this is your conclusion as to its import.

Second, if the word "dog" is not allowed to refer to all dogs, what is the basis for saying that the letter "A" should be taken to refer to all A's.

Third, you say that "A is A refers to the same object (an object is equal to itself)". My issues with this statement are a) the mind posits the object A from the sense data it receives, b) how can you test for an object being equal to itself? IMO the closest you can get is that the mind recognizes certain patterns of sense data and types them - i.e. compares them to learned archetypes. Equivalence (having the same properties for the purpose of comparison) is very different than A is A.

I'm not saying that logic is not extremely useful and powerful in formalizing the accuracy and consistency of statements but it seems to be built upon a fallacy that one can compare A with B to see if A is A.

Cheers, John

mhc

Kim o' says:
But I don't think this is relativism. This is pluralism or ecclecticism.
Relativism does propose that all truth is shifting and relative to the knower, and that there is nothing that is a priori, true in itself.

You can't rightly say that it is true that there are different philosophical models of varying usefullness

AND

That it is false that there are different philosophical models of varying usefulness,

And as a relativist, you must be able to say that. As a relativist, you must be able to say that all things true are also false, and vice-versa, otherwise you are stuck with an absolute. And just as you say one contrary example destroys the coherence of the idea, so does one unshakable example prove it.
To say that relativism admits of absolutes is meaningless.
If you are stuck with the commitment that everything is both true and false, then why bother with argument? What position could you legitimately hold that would exclude any other position?
We degrade into Derridian "play" and the exaultation of meaninglessness.
I have read and re-read your reply, and I still can't see that you have discredited the notion that relativism is itself an absolute.

John Page

mhc:

Wish I could make my posts so succinct!

One minor point, I think relativism does admit of absolutes but only as unattainable hypotheticals. Objectivism shows that the prerequisites for complete objectivity are unattainable, thus it sinks back into a mild form of relativism.

Cheers, John

Frotiw

Hi John Page

-A may or may not refer to more than one object. This an interesting debate but it is a practical debate it is not a logical debate. The validity of logic is not with the mentioned problem. It is simple a problem that comes "after logic". If you find it it problematic may count the A for referering to just one individual object.


-logic is not dependant on the sense data. That the morning star and the even star is one and same object(Venus) is logically ensured this is the case no matter if you can actually verifiy this or not. As you may see your objections are epsitemological objections but this does not effect logic. There is one thing I think we may agree on though. A=A like in much math. a really odd judgement. A=A or 2=2 that is so fundamentally simple and trivial that it is almost hard to grasp.

-I don't this is the case for reasons mentioned above.

Cheers Frotiw

mhc

Objectivists! Sound the alarm!
Disinfect all surfaces!
Strip down and burn your clothing immediately!

hehe


I agree that a completely objective view is impossible. But what is so magical about the objective view? It doesn't ensure that we can know the thing-in-itself.
We can never know the thing-in-itself, but we must procede as if we can and do know, in some cases, just that.
The alternative is to deny all intellectual involvement with the world.
If I sit on a tack it will hurt.
That's *perfect* enough knowledge for me.

John Page

Logic does not take place in a vaccuum, it takes place in the mind!
They are ontological objections, not epistemological. I have no problem with people knowing things, its how they know them thats the issue.

Cheers, John

John Page

The miracle ingredient X that ensures the "primacy of human reason and logic". (Actually, this is a contradiction, they can't both be prime!)
How about "The only thing that we can know in-itself is knowledge."?

Cheers, John

long winded fool

Therefore the God of the bible exists in reality, correct?
Paradoxes are as real as the supernatural.

Does unproven always necessarily equate to false? You are somewhat correct in your thinking, though. "All men are mortal," can never be falsified. How does the million-year-old man know he will not die tomorrow? In other words, how can one prove immortality? "All men are mortal," can eventually be proven in a practical sense however. (Not by men of course!) All dinosaurs were mortal. Therefore, "All men are mortal," or better yet, "All living things will die," can and should be considered an absolute truth since every living thing, up to the oldest living thing currently on the earth, has died, and a situation that will contradict this can never present itself. Even if the oldest living thing lives far longer than usual and is still alive, it can never be proven immortal and therefore, invoking Ockham's razor, should be presumed absolutely mortal;

All living things are mortal.
A man is a living thing.
Therefore, all men are mortal.

No relativism needed!

John Page

...in the reality of some men's minds. Mental reality is not necessarily an accurate reflection of material reality outside the mind...
No, but according to some logics a proposition must be either true or false. Are you acceding that there is some mechanism that makes such truth/falsity contingent?
Thanks - I try to keep and open mind...
This is not a truth - all you're doing is defining something living as something that will die!! Accrding to your own (logical) arguments you cannot disprove that life springs eternal.

IMO all one is doing with truth is measuring how well the facts accord with reality (ain't that a fact!)

Cheers, John

mhc

A correspondence theory of truth doesn't seem concurrent with relativism.


Also, induction can be a logically correct move. Not all logic requires deduction.

just my 2 cents......