Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Origin of the Mind/Mental States
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostWhere did I ever claim reasoning a first principle?
Still waiting for you to answer my question: What is your specific argument for what you consider is a sufficient first-principle?
The validity of reasoning cannot be determined by 'reasoning correctly from premise to a conclusion.'
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe "reasoning" is just the process of arguing correctly from premises to a conclusion. How do you obtain the premise from which you begin the process?
Best wishes,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostAh, but here you must assume the validity of reasoning in order to make this argument for the validity of reasoning. And making an argument means it is not a first principle.
Blessings,
Lee
I gave you the reasonable sources that explain First-Principles, and they are NOT reasoning in and of itself. Yes reasoning cannot justify, prove nor make an argument fro easoning, because that is circular reasoning that results in insanity, or on the other hand stubborn intransigent apologetics.
Still waiting . . .Last edited by shunyadragon; 12-16-2018, 03:19 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostActually that is exactly what philosophy is, Tassman.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostThat's up to the one making the argument, it could be a conditional premise, one that might be true or false, or a first principle.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI gave you the reasonable sources that explain First-Principles, and they are NOT reasoning in and of itself.
Agreed again.
Still waiting . . .
Blessings,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostA premise that "might be true or false" will result in a conclusion that "might be" true or false...
Best wishes,
Lee"What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostA
But I'm not sure what your question is, I've tried to respond to all your points.
Blessings,
Lee
Comment
-
Originally posted by lee_merrill View PostAgreed... I'm apparently being very agreeable.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYes, that's is exactly what philosophy is. And for all its value in logical reasoning, a philosophical argument cannot arrive at a true conclusion unless it can be shown that its premise is true.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThe very concept that you need to show a premise is true is an act of reasoning, Tassman.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostYes, so what. Put another way, reasoning can not arrive at a true conclusion, unless it can first arrive at a true premise.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostI'm not saying it isn't. But this was in the context of lee_merrill's "validity of reasoning" claims, wherein he seems to be erroneously conflating "valid argument" with "true argument.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment