The philosopher and philosophy reader think to themselves, ‘I’m not being fooled because I have philosophical insights.’ But what happens when the insights of philosophy are themselves errors, and the philosopher and philosophy reader cannot see this because this error has the form of philosophy?

A concrete example of this is Hegel’s imaginary concept of “pure being.” This is an abstract fairytale, but men believe it, not because it can be rationally or evidentially demonstrated, but because its form is that of philosophy, and because it was spoken by a celebrated philosopher.

I know it sounds harsh at first, but for example, a smoker might acknowledge that tobacco is carcinogenic but continue to use it out of addiction. I might be aware of the horrors of factory farming but eat meat because I live in a society where not doing so leads to constant marginalization. Seen in this light, is it really a valid criticism to call a philosopher a hypocrite simply because their actions contradict their theoretical ideas?

What philosophy really teaches a person to do is operate according to platitudes.

This is easy to prove. If a sound argument is laid down refuting a position a philosopher likes, the philosopher won’t refute the argument, won’t engage with the premises or the conclusion, but will merely assert orthodox platitudes as though they count as a refutation. The philosopher will retreat to his philosophical narrative.

A philosopher is taught not to think, but to ascribe to narratives and assert propositions, he is not taught to reason. He is taught to respond mindlessly through philosophical assertions, which is the same form that is utilized by theology.

He is also taught to retreat into jargon and abstraction as a kind of subterfuge. When in danger of being refuted by Reason, retreat into obscurity. This is the philosopher’s mode of operation. Always look for and scrutinize his arbitrary qualifications. In most cases, he is smuggling premises through them.

To engage with a philosopher is not to engage in reasoning, it is to engage with a dogmatist!

“The world is the totality of facts, not of things.” Tractatus

Here is an absolute idealism that denies the universe.

The world is all the things that it is, these things are facts waiting to be discovered.

“World” is too general. If Wittgenstein wants to tell us about reality he will have to speak of specific things. By not speaking specifically he smuggles in a kind of philosophical mysticism.

But if I want to know what an apple is, my generalities about the “the world” are not going to help me. I must examine the apple and identify its concrete being and structure.

“When we say: “Every word in language signifies something,” we have so far said nothing whatever, unless we have explained exactly what distinction we wish to make.” Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations

For starters, this is false. If Wittgenstein had “said nothing” then there would be nothing to analyze or point to. So Wittgenstein pretends that he is narrating us through the mystical deep of philosophy.

One usually has to correct Wittgenstein because he is usually thinking from the wrong place.

What we say, reasoning from the right place, is that “Every word in a language has a determinate meaning.”

The question is why do words possess this attribute, why is this determinate meaning possible in the first place? What is it that allows Wittgenstein to make his “distinctions?” That he isn’t critically conscious enough to ask this question tells us that we are likely to encounter this incompetence over and over again in his thought.

Language isn’t the thing that needs to be explained, the Logic that makes its meaning possible is what needs to be explained.

An apple has the meaning it does precisely because we can identify its attributes and state them in words. To do this we use Logic. And neither did we create these attributes. That they are identifiable is a factual property of the universe.

One has to think of this and reaffirm what is basic because society has collapsed into irrationalism.

We make progress in thought when we know that A is false because it’s contradicted by B, or because it contradicts itself.

This means, when we demonstrate contradiction in a position, we have demonstrated that the position is false.

This needs to be reaffirmed because, in general, those who worship philosophical idols don’t comprehend when those idols have been refuted. (Of course, psychologically speaking, they don’t care whether their idols are true or false. Their reasons for believing in them are emotional, even though they perceive this emotion as reason).

So let us be clear: to think through a philosophy and refute it is simply to demonstrate that its claims are contradicted by what is true, or contradictory in themselves.

Anyone who attempts to deny this merely affirms it, because they are saying that this A is false and their B is true; they are saying this A is false because it contradicts their true B.

The present argument explains where Logic comes from and why we have it.

P1. A=A. Identity is a fact insofar as everything that exists is itself.

P2. Because of the fact of identity A=A, A is determinate as itself and distinguishable from B, where A is not B. (An apple is itself, a star is itself, and thus an apple is not a star).

P3. This determination of what is identical to itself and distinct from what it is not is Logic, because it is the very function that is Logic and makes Logic what it is.

C. Therefore, Logic is grounded in the fact of identity: that what is, is itself, and is not what it is not.

——-

If formal logic tries to reject this argument, it must provide its own account of Logic; it must offer its own explanation for the ground of Logic (and if it arbitrarily rejects the burden of proof, then it cannot rightly demand it of others, or complain when others arbitrarily reject it).

Yet, any foundational justification formal logic offers will inevitably have to presuppose Logic, thus collapsing into circularity. (This claim can easily be falsified if the formal logician can provide a non-circular ground for Logic).

Crucially, the argument above does not ground Logic in Logic; it discovers it as being grounded in the existence of the universe, in the prior fact of determinacy (of identity) as the very condition that makes Logic possible (makes Logic what it is). (However, this knowledge is still only contained in and generated using Logic).

To use Logic to establish the ground of Logic is not the same as grounding Logic in Logic. We do not merely say, “Logic is what gave us Logic,” we recognize that Logic exists because of the determinate nature of the universe, which is a fact, not a concept of Logic. The Logical fact of the universe existed long before humans constructed any concepts of Logic, which is the only reason we can construct concepts in the first place. We can make and use determinate meaning only because the universe is mysteriously determinate, it has a Logical Nature not an illogical nature.

It doesn’t matter if one disagrees with the argument, the only thing that matters is whether one can actually refute it. And beyond that, what better explanation one can offer for their own position on the nature of Logic?

Copied:

For example: classical logic, epistemic logic, paraconsistent logic, intuitionistic logic...

Assuming that logical pluralism is true. (that there are multiple correct ways you can infer a conclusion based on some premises (= that there are different possible inference rules.))

A common thing I often hear is that every logic has its own application area. For example: classical logic seems to be useful in math and computing, but not for reasoning in our world because, for example, of its material implication. A sentence like "if I died yesterday, i would be alive today' is true in classical logic because any Implication A -> B is always true if A is false. (that is just how implication is defined) but it is not true in our world because if I would have died yesterday I would still be dead today.

My question specifically is how we know what "works" in what application area?

It seems like the choice isn't made logically if logic itself is multiple ways to infer conclusions from premises (although logic is often seen as the cornerstone of philosophical argumentation). So it's just intuitions then? Our emotions/values?

And what, then, is the role of formal logic in philosophical argumentation?

“The universe is irrational.” This delusion is the basis of all bad philosophy.

“The universe has a Logical Nature.” This is the basis of all good philosophy.

How one proceeds toward the knowledge of the Logical Nature of reality is where bad philosophy is created.

Logic is either the product of human imagination or it is what we discover, and if it is what we discover then human imagination is accountable to it.

It is precisely what happens between the recognition, “reality has a Logical Nature,” and the process of explaining that nature that makes for bad philosophy.

For example, Hegel would affirm that “reality has a Logical Nature,” but he then goes onto distort this nature with his imagination. He doesn’t know how to recognize nature and proceed from its fact to more fact. As it is written, “the wise live from fact to fact, from the determinate to the determinate.” So it is precisely Hegel’s philosophical mediation that is the problem, that is, it is the way he manufactures a philosophical narrative against the Logical Nature of reality. It is the same with all bad philosophy.

I’ve been thinking about what I see as a false dichotomy in some discussions about rationality: the assumption that something must be either rational or irrational.
Søren Kierkegaard is an interesting example. He was a highly sophisticated philosophical thinker, but also a fierce critic of Hegel’s philosophical system. One of his central concerns was that understanding human existence through a rational system is not the same as actually existing, choosing and living.
Kierkegaard also used literary methods — irony, pseudonyms, narratives and indirect communication — as philosophical tools. Not simply to illustrate arguments, but to communicate forms of understanding that are difficult to acquire through abstract reasoning alone.
This reminds me of Frank Jackson’s famous thought experiment about Mary, the colour scientist, and Daniel Dennett’s criticism of it.
Mary knows everything about the physics and neuroscience of colour vision, but has never experienced colour herself. When she finally sees a red tomato, does she learn something new?
I find Dennett’s objection convincing. We cannot really imagine what complete knowledge of colour vision would entail. Suppose Mary also had access to technologies we don’t possess, allowing her to manipulate her own neural processes and reproduce the experience of seeing red. Would she then learn anything new when she actually saw the tomato?
My point is not that experience is somehow beyond physical explanation. Rather, our actual methods of acquiring knowledge are limited. We cannot simply read our way to every kind of understanding. Some things we need to experience, practise or live through.
This seems to me primarily an epistemological and methodological issue, not an ontological one.
And this brings me back to Kierkegaard. His literary methods can be understood as ways of helping readers acquire forms of understanding that cannot easily be communicated through systematic argument alone.
Recognising the limitations of rational analysis does not mean rejecting rationality. Nor does it require believing in some non-physical realm of knowledge.
Perhaps rationality itself requires recognising that rational analysis is not the only way we acquire understanding.
What do you think? Are we sometimes confusing the limits of a particular method of acquiring knowledge with the limits of rationality itself?

If you want to know the truth why don’t you pursue it?

If you want to know the truth how do you pursue it?

How do you know that the way you’re pursuing truth is the right or most intelligent way to pursue it?

Nietzsche had important existential insights because they were emancipated from superstition. He’s absolutely an important and powerful thinker. But he was also a rhetorician (and that’s the problem). Many of his claims do not stand up to scrutiny (but here I am referring to his claims about truth and logic). Here he absolutely fails.

It’s unfortunate that Nietzsche was deluded by skepticism in terms of truth, because this doesn’t actually assist in his important cultural project. Nietzsche’s approach to culture is enhanced by truth, not hindered by it. In fact, it absolutely requires it.

At least Nietzsche was consistent with his perspectivalism, thus leaping to a will to power. But he was not consistent with his will to power.

The universe either has a Logical Nature, or it doesn’t.

If it does, then we must explain what this Logical Nature is. (And this nature is something that exists independently of us and can therefore be studied objectively).

If it does not, then how is anything determinate? How is anything what it is, rather than something else? And from where, then, does Logic arise?

Logic is not some metaphysical ideal to which reality must conform. Reality does not obey Logic as though Logic existed before it. Logic arises from reality itself, because reality is determinate.

Logic is possible because things are what they are; because there is something rather than nothing, something definite rather than an utter absence of determination.

Consider the act of denying that reality has a Logical Nature. To make such a denial is already to distinguish what is being asserted from what is being denied. It is to make a claim rather than its opposite, it is to presuppose determinacy in the very act of questioning it. It is to posit reality as determinate while trying to deny that it has this nature.

The modern philosopher would have us believe that Logic is merely a construct of human imagination, a contrived system imposed upon an otherwise indifferent universe. But what makes it possible for us to distinguish anything at all? What standards does the philosopher use to construct his logic?

The mind does not create the determinacy that makes thought possible. Nor does Logic stand outside reality and dictate its terms. Reality is the ground of Logic because determinacy is intrinsic to it. Man did not create the universe and its nature, he was simply born into it.

To deny reality's Logical Nature is therefore to confront a fundamental question: how can anything be denied, asserted, distinguished, or even thought without presupposing the very determinacy from which Logic arises? And why are we forced to operate this way within the universe?

Civilization was born at the point when man began to resist error with truth (A=A). This emancipated him from his own subjectivity and the subjectivity of others. He could now say, “that is false, that way is incorrect or unintelligent, here is a better way and this is why.” He could then begin to protect himself from his own delusions and the delusions of others.

Without (A=A) there can be no civilization, there can be no civility. (A=A) is the axiom of civilization.

Hi all,

I am new to philosophy so please forgive me if I make any errors here. My question is pretty much as above. My personal favorite reading on this is definitely Dr Rachel Fraser's "Epistemic FOMO" in The Cambridge Humanities Review, she starts with Descartes and then breaks down the argument of Cassim Quassam in "Conspiracy Theories" and Russell Muirhead and Nancy L. Rosenblum in "A Lot of People are Saying". Personally, I find myself agreeing more with Muirhead and Rosenblum, I feel their arguments are more applicable to the modern world (they were also just fun to read and listen to on Ideas Podcast "Conspiracy theories are more dangerous than ever" episode). I'm going to focus on Muirhead and Rosenblum's argument here. They argue that the new era of conspiracy theories aims basically to disorient and confuse the general public as well as to attack the basis of political parties (to question their beliefs and legitimacy). I find that news outlets often do this and that this is definitely the case in the US right now (my mind is going to midterms advertisements, especially in swing states, I'm from one of the more volatile counties PA). So are modern conspiracies leading to indifference? In a way does it behave like a political tool? To disorient us as American citizens so much that it leads to that apathy? Is this true across the world? This is where I think that thinking slightly (not too much because the point of the meditations is to completely break down the way you think and I personally found that a bit heavy-handed) like Descartes would be very useful, in breaking down each thing we are exposed to. Or even thinking like Spinoza, taking everything as true until you have reasonable evidence to believe otherwise (I do think there are good conspiracy theories).

I posted this on r/askphilosophy but wanted to ask here too! I hope that is ok.

The statement, “a man cannot nourish his body with stones,” is absolutely true. One has to play sophist games to try and make it false.

It is a fact, for example, absolutely true and certain, that you are reading these words as much as I am typing them.

Trying to attack truth only seems easy because one is using it to do the attacking, and one is ignorant of this fact. It’s like the man who breathes air so that he can argue that oxygen doesn’t exist.

But why does this truth exist? What makes truth true?

Search as you will, but you will always end at the same place (if you know how to search correctly): it is the Logical nature of the universe that makes truth true. It is true when we say ‘a mountain is not a river’ because, in reality, the identity of a mountain is not the same as a river, and this is a Logical fact of the universe.

As with our words, they are created from the truth of this identity, otherwise they couldn’t exist at all, and because of this, because they rise up from the determinate nature of reality, because they contain this determinate nature themselves, they have the power to identify what is determinate, because they are determinate.

Hi everyone!.
I’m interested in learning more about philosophy,where should i start? What online free resources would you recommend for a beginner?

I am an Atheist, so what, I am also a Logical Realist, so are you. I am not here to debate this. I am here to reduce modern philosophy to its consistent absurdity.

The whole world is full of men who deny that truth is real. The whole world is full of philosophers, and men poisoned by philosophers, who confess that all logic is a mere human construct. But it requires a Christian or a Rationalist (not a philosopher!) to trace this premise to its inevitable conclusion of subjective despair.

If all logic is constructed then there is no such thing as validity or soundness, because validity and soundness are then constructs of a constructed logic. Whose construct?! Why should a man prefer the construct he is condemned by over the one he creates to justify himself?

(This Logic is too high for the modern philosopher, he cannot comprehend it because the relativism of his modern philosophy has left him rationally incompetent).

As soon as the modern philosopher claims that truth is the invention of man’s imagination, he has locked himself within his own solipsistic matrix.

The defenders of Reason are failing in their reductio ad absurdum toward modern philosophy. All those who love Reason must do better.

As an Atheist, I argue for the right and supremacy of the Christian worldview, when it is contrasted with the epistemological relativism of modern philosophy. Indeed, how can the modern philosopher even object? For he cannot claim that Christianity is “false,” if he does not have the truth.

One cannot gain an advantage if one shares the same unconscious, normative delusions as others. It is necessary to transcend delusions, but not to reveal this fact to those who are still bound by delusions.

—-

For those reading this, thinking these are my positive thoughts towards knowledge. That assumption would be false. In general, I do not endorse that which might be considered “unholy” in terms of virtue. I only endorse it in terms of that which kicks against the tyranny of moralism. Unholy passages are passages I would consider to be written by malevolent demons, if they existed.

The lies that are the truths of the world command human conscience, therefore one should learn to be a master of lies.

—-

For those reading this, thinking these are my positive thoughts towards knowledge. That assumption would be false. In general, I do not endorse that which might be considered “unholy” in terms of virtue. I only endorse it in terms of that which kicks against the tyranny of moralism. Unholy passages are passages I would consider to be written by malevolent demons, if they existed.

Nietzsche is confusing classification (grouping different things together based on similarities) with identity (the fact that all things are their determinate selves).

Classifying a million different oak leaves under the concept "leaf” in no way refutes the fact of identity. In fact, Nietzsche can’t even make his point without logic, because in order to even be able to say that “these two leaves are not identical,” requires identity (A=A).

We cannot even speak of 'differences' unless the things being compared possess determinate identities. Difference requires two distinct things, each of which must be itself (A and B) to differ from one another. To deny identity is to make difference itself unthinkable.

Logic does not require that "there are identical cases" in the sense of two separate events or objects being clones of one another. Logic simply states that every thing is what it is, and not another thing.

To say A=A is not to say "there are two identical things called A." It is to say that whatever is, is itself. A thing cannot simultaneously possess a property and lack that exact same property in the same way and at the same time. (Fire is not ice).

When Nietzsche writes that "Logic is bound to the condition: assume there are identical cases," he is using a distinction to make a truth claim. He is implying that his statement is true, and the alternative is false. The moment he distinguishes his insight from "false" logic, he is relying on the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Logic isn't a human fiction imposed on a chaotic world; it's the determinate nature of the reality we were born into.