Philosophy Now Forum

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:01 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 04, 2017 3:42 pm

marsh8472 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:07 am 1) The Law of Identity - An apple is an apple
2) The Law of Non-Contradiction - an apple is not a non-apple
3) The Law of Excluded Middle - it is either true or false that I just ate an apple

Can any of these be shown to be correct without referring back to them to do it?

They are correct.

They can be viewed as synonymous to:

1) The Law of Identity - An apple is an apple
a) Positive Value
b) stability in logical structure
c) 1 = 1



2) The Law of Non-Contradiction - an apple is not a non-apple
a) Negative value
b) absence of stability in logical structure
c) 1 ≠ -1


3) The Law of Excluded Middle - it is either true or false that I just ate an apple
a) Neutral value
b) synthesis of stability and non-stability
c) 0 = 1-1 or 0 is 1 and -1 or -1,0,1

That is one of the flaws of logic, it does not account for temporalities.
For instance, is Peter happy or sad?
Maybe he's happy 1 minute, sad the next.
Or happy and sad at the same time.

Ahh but it does...temporality (instability) is simply a gradation of stability itself. Take for existence the above example of -1. -1 is not a thing in and of itself but merely a gradation of 1 considering (-) is simply an observation of (+) and not a thing in itself.

Deficiency in structure is simply gradation, which is synonymous to temporarility.

marsh8472 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:07 am 1) The Law of Identity - An apple is an apple
2) The Law of Non-Contradiction - an apple is not a non-apple
3) The Law of Excluded Middle - it is either true or false that I just ate an apple

Can any of these be shown to be correct without referring back to them to do it?

Theories are correct or incorrect in reference to particular objects. To talk of the "laws of logic" is assuming there's something which is logic itself. Clearly, you won't be able to observe logic like you can observe the Moon. So, what is the logic you're talking about exactly?

Do we all have the same logic?

If I assume we do, but this would need to be evidenced somehow, I can judge whether these three laws are correct of logic as I see it and then expect everybody to agree with me. May or may not happen...

So, yes, given these assumptions, I can say that these three laws are correct relatively to logic as I see it. There's not even an iota of a doubt about that.

Now, given that I didn't invent these laws, that they have in fact been formulated a very long time ago, and that really many, many people have absolutely not problem with them, I think I can at least assume that we all have the same logic, save perhaps from a minority of people.

I would also expect many people to bring up all sorts of unfounded criticisms of these laws just because they're having a bad day. As a matter of fact, I don't remember any cogent criticism of these laws I found effective. But maybe it's just me.
EB

Just some thoughts about the rules of logic - and sorry if this rehashes what others have said.

Logic, and particularly the three classical rules, deal with language, not reality. For example, the identity rule - an apple is an apple - tells us nothing about what an apple is, or why an apple is different from all the not-apples. Other discourses deal with those things - but the rules of logic apply to all uses of language, because we can't use language without them.

To say features of reality conform to the rules of logic is to confuse what we say about things with the way things are. It's like saying that things with dimensions conform to our ways of measuring them. I think the myth of propositions - an ancient muddle - is the problem: that what we know is propositions rather than features of reality.

If we see the rules of language simply as rules, the question of their correctness - or, even more confusing, their truth - is redundant. Are the rules of chess correct? A rule has no truth value.

Owen wrote: ↑Fri Mar 13, 2015 4:33 pm The three so-called laws of thought are theorems of classical logic, not axioms of classical logic.

So what are the axioms for which these so called laws are theorems? Be specific, for we are dealing with logic here.

marsh8472 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:07 am 1) The Law of Identity - An apple is an apple
2) The Law of Non-Contradiction - an apple is not a non-apple
3) The Law of Excluded Middle - it is either true or false that I just ate an apple

Can any of these be shown to be correct without referring back to them to do it?

This isn't a law for anything other than pocket philosophy that leads to nothing.

HexHammer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:00 am This isn't a law for anything other than pocket philosophy that leads to nothing.

It is, and it isn't.

HexHammer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:00 am

marsh8472 wrote: ↑Sun Feb 08, 2015 12:07 am 1) The Law of Identity - An apple is an apple
2) The Law of Non-Contradiction - an apple is not a non-apple
3) The Law of Excluded Middle - it is either true or false that I just ate an apple

Can any of these be shown to be correct without referring back to them to do it?

This isn't a law for anything other than pocket philosophy that leads to nothing.

You on the money there, Hex!

Londoner wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:03 pm

HexHammer wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 7:00 am This isn't a law for anything other than pocket philosophy that leads to nothing.

It is, and it isn't.

One can't know an apple is an appel online when seeing a picture of an apple, thus they can buy a picture of an apple and not the real thing.

That's how many people gets scammed because they buy fake things, so you can't always know an apple is an apple.
Therefore your base analogy is inherently flawed.