Circular Arguments?

[seer]

I read a philosopher from back in the day, it was like a Russell or a Hume, I forget. He said something like this - Descartes took it all apart, and no one has been able to put it back together since. Descartes' point was that you can not deductively justify sense experience. So logic is lost. We must argue in a circle to conclude that what goes on in our mind corresponds to external reality. So when some suggest that arguing in a circle is not valid I think we need to be more humble and realize that to even begin to understand the external world we have to beg the question.

[Leonhard]

I believe in large part one can solve all those problems, if one goes back to the kind of philosophy that Descartes tried to reject, namely final causality. Once you include that again, then a whole host of problems in philosophy that would ordinarily be classified as unsolvable, can be solved. It requires a slightly richer metaphysics than what austere monistic materialism usually provided, but there's several philosophers who are already making this move like Jerry Fodor and Oderberg.

Circular logic is always fallacious.

[seer]

I believe in large part one can solve all those problems, if one goes back to the kind of philosophy that Descartes tried to reject, namely final causality. Once you include that again, then a whole host of problems in philosophy that would ordinarily be classified as unsolvable, can be solved. It requires a slightly richer metaphysics than what austere monistic materialism usually provided, but there's several philosophers who are already making this move like Jerry Fodor and Oderberg.

Circular logic is always fallacious.

Yes, I know from past discussions Leonhard you don't care for Descartes. And of course he solved the problem by appealing to God. But not with deductive logic per se. And I don't see how one can escape the circularity.

[Leonhard]

Yes, I know from past discussions Leonhard you don't care for Descartes. And of course he solved the problem by appealing to God. But not with deductive logic per se. And I don't see how one can escape the circularity.

I'm not sure you even have to engage in circular logic. Descartes certainly didn't. He would say that us knowing that we have the ability to reason towards truth is an innate idea. What is true is that using his skeptical enterprise, and denying sense experience, one couldn't justify this belief. Ergo it had to be innate. Its just something you're born with, not something you can learn.

The idea that circular logic is justified I think you only really get from the weird rhetorics of the presuppositional apologists who are into Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius Van Till style apologetics, It makes no more sense to talk about circular logic when they do it. In fact one of the critiques of them, from other branches of the same kind of Reformed Epistemology, of which they are only one branch, is that they could cut out all talks about 'golden circles' and their attack would work just as well.

I'm not sure I'm up for a thomistic expose on this. Its not that hard but I've had a long week, and I'm sure Shunya will show up soon and fill this thread with garbage. We'll see.

[seer]

I'm not sure you even have to engage in circular logic. Descartes certainly didn't. He would say that us knowing that we have the ability to reason towards truth is an innate idea. What is true is that using his skeptical enterprise, and denying sense experience, one couldn't justify this belief. Ergo it had to be innate. Its just something you're born with, not something you can learn.

The idea that circular logic is justified I think you only really get from the weird rhetorics of the presuppositional apologists who are into Greg Bahnsen and Cornelius Van Till style apologetics, It makes no more sense to talk about circular logic when they do it. In fact one of the critiques of them, from other branches of the same kind of Reformed Epistemology, of which they are only one branch, is that they could cut out all talks about 'golden circles' and their attack would work just as well.

I'm not sure I'm up for a thomistic expose on this. Its not that hard but I've had a long week, and I'm sure Shunya will show up soon and fill this thread with garbage. We'll see.

Yes, but Descartes did not get there by logic. But by assumption, based on invoking God (i.e. God is truthful and would not create a deceptive world, and created us to apprehend truth). The point is you can't get there by deductive argument. So deductive logic, does not work.

[Leonhard]

Yes, but Descartes did not get there by logic. But by assumption, based on invoking God (i.e. God is truthful and would not create a deceptive world, and created us to apprehend truth).

I think its more correct to say that Descartes already recognised that we're capable of reasoning. Its this ability that he wanted to understand, how we could know we possess. He did not dispute that we possessed it. His skeptical arguments were advanced by him as a methodology, to get to the bottom of things, that's basically what he said. Using that methodology, everyone agrees that he did not succeed in figuring out a cohesive way we could say that we have rational justification for trusting our senses.

I'm not an expert on Descartes. I think he makes a mistake in the beginning by completely decoupling experience from reality, which is what happens when you do away with final causality. Which was one of his aims.

The point is you can't get there by deductive argument. So deductive logic, does not work.

Do you mean 'deductive logic, does not work' as in we can't argue deductively. Or do you merely mean 'with deductive logic we can't find reasons to trust our senses'?

At any rate I disagree with either assertion.

[seer]

Do you mean 'deductive logic, does not work' as in we can't argue deductively. Or do you merely mean 'with deductive logic we can't find reasons to trust our senses'?

At any rate I disagree with either assertion.

I mean you can't make a deductive argument showing that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality.

[Leonhard]

I mean you can't make a deductive argument showing that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality.

You wouldn't get around experience in order to establish this. That's part of Descartes mistake, he just dismisses the senses entirely, and thinks he's justified in doing that, and then moves on to see how far he can get on pure reason alone, which isn't far. As St. Thomas Aquinas would say 'There's nothing in the mind that wasn't first in the senses'.

[seer]

You wouldn't get around experience in order to establish this. That's part of Descartes mistake, he just dismisses the senses entirely, and thinks he's justified in doing that, and then moves on to see how far he can get on pure reason alone, which isn't far. As St. Thomas Aquinas would say 'There's nothing in the mind that wasn't first in the senses'.

Well that is fine, but you still can't get there deductively. Since as Descartes made clear it is always possible that we are being deceived. This precludes getting there rationally.

[Leonhard]

Well that is fine, but you still can't get there deductively.

Still not sure about that. However that's not what I'm responding to. I'm simple responding to the claim you made that circular logic isn't fallacious. It most definitely is. No valid argument can be made with circular logic. Give just one example if you dare.

Since as Descartes made clear it is always possible that we are being deceived.

Right now, ironically, you're engaging in circular logic, by assuming the principle that I'm disagreeing with. Though of course I haven't provided much argumentation yet. I don't have to grant your premise though. Circular logic is not just a convention, its a mistake people often make in arguments.

I hold that there are at least some experiences, that can't be deceptive. For instance we experience motion, a change from one state to another. Here's an exercise for you: blink. I know you're probably thinking this doesn't prove anything, but do it. There... quick flash of murky darkness and then vision again. You've had an experience of some change, at least in your vision. That you've had this experience can't be denied, anymore than Descartes could deny that he existed. "But, maybe that was just an illusion." No it wasn't, but at this point its irrelevant. Whether it was the matrix fooling you, or real eyes blinking, you've had an experience of a change.

In your everyday life you also experience that somethings are, and some things aren't. If there's an object on your table, put it under the table... there... now the object is not on the table anymore. So objects, can be or not be. And from this experience you learn the difference between being and nothingness. Though I think we'd be moving ahead of ourselves if we're talking about how the intellect abstracts. Before that we would have to talk about formal causes.

"But, maybe you're mistaken in those experiences. After all reasoning could possible be deceptive"

Blink again. Blink until you feel confident that such a change is real. Its really that simple. If you want to dismiss this case, then you'll have to do some more legwork. The experiences are undeniable, and even if they're implanted into my head by a demiurge, even the experience of the illusion changing is real.

[seer]

Blink again. Blink until you feel confident that such a change is real. Its really that simple. If you want to dismiss this case, then you'll have to do some more legwork. The experiences are undeniable, and even if they're implanted into my head by a demiurge, even the experience of the illusion changing is real.

Yes Leonhard, I agree that we had those experiences, and Descartes would agree, he is not arguing against that, he is questioning the source. And he is questioning our perception of the external world. I made that clear in the OP: We must argue in a circle to conclude that what goes on in our mind corresponds to external reality.That is where we must beg the question. There is no deductive way to demonstrate that. And here we ALL accept circular justification.

[Leonhard]

Yes Leonhard, I agree that we had those experiences, and Descartes would agree, he is not arguing against that, he is questioning the source. And he is questioning our perception of the external world.

You said 'it is always possible we are deceived'. All I need to dismiss this rather radical statement, that even Descartes didn't believe in, is to provide one clear example of something where you can't be deceived. As he himself already said that you couldn't doubt that you think, I provided something else, mundane experiences.

I made that clear in the OP: We must argue in a circle to conclude that what goes on in our mind corresponds to external reality.That is where we must beg the question. There is no deductive way to demonstrate that. And here we ALL accept circular justification

So far I haven't seen any arguing in a circle at all with this presentation. What you're saying is that we'd have to take our confidence in our ability to reason as something we just know innately. It would only be circular, given your presentation, if the Descartian would argue deductively for that belief.

And seer... frankly I don't feel like debating you. There's very little point to it as you tend to repeat the same few objections in a circle without end. I'm exhausted from a week of work and I need to recuperate. You don't seem to run out of energy, but I don't have that much.

I'll let you have the last word. I still say that what Descartes demonstrates is simple what happens when you dismiss final causality. There's nothing here that the scholastics haven't dealt with and anyone interested can read some of that. Check here for some a refutation of Descarte type mind games based on more solid philosophy. http://www.catholicapologetics.info/...y/askeptic.htm

As for Bertrand Russell, he dismissed the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, and as far as anyone can tell he never read them, or the works of any of the neo-scholastics.

[seer]

You said 'it is always possible we are deceived'. All I need to dismiss this rather radical statement, that even Descartes didn't believe in, is to provide one clear example of something where you can't be deceived. As he himself already said that you couldn't doubt that you think, I provided something else, mundane experiences.

Leonhard when I said it was always possible that we could be deceived I was speaking in the context of sense experience as it relates to the outside world.

So far I haven't seen any arguing in a circle at all with this presentation. What you're saying is that we'd have to take our confidence in our ability to reason as something we just know innately. It would only be circular, given your presentation, if the Descartian would argue deductively for that belief.

That is the point, try and make a deductive argument that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality. If you try, you will see that you have to argue in a circle or beg the question.

[Leonhard]

when I said it was always possible that we could be deceived I was speaking in the context of sense experience as it relates to the outside world.

That wasn't clear from reading you.

try and make a deductive argument that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality.

I've already said I wouldn't, but I can see a rough sketch of how you'd do it thomistically, arguing from sense experience (though not using inductive knowledge). I'm sorry I'm just not up for putting up a whole article's worth of material in byte-size format, in a fragmentated discussion. ^^;

you have to argue in a circle or beg the question.

Argue in a circle... or... beg the question?

Those are essentially the same thing, they're two different terms for the same fallacy. I think you're confusing taking a premise for granted with begging the question. I have a feeling people have told you that you beg the question quite often, when you've merely assumed a premise. People tend to confuse the two. It is a fallacy when arguing for a proposition to make an argument with implicit premises that depend on the proposition. This is the fallacy of begging the question. Sometimes it can be very slippery, however it is the same thing as 'arguing in a circle'. It was called petitio in principii in latin.

So assuming a premise for the sake of argument is not wrong. What is wrong is, implicitly or explicitly, using conclusion as a premise.

That's the fallacy. That's always, without exception, wrong. Its not merely a convention that can be done away with.

[seer]

I've already said I wouldn't, but I can see a rough sketch of how you'd do it thomistically, arguing from sense experience (though not using inductive knowledge). I'm sorry I'm just not up for putting up a whole article's worth of material in byte-size format, in a fragmentated discussion. ^^;



Argue in a circle... or... beg the question?

Those are essentially the same thing, they're two different terms for the same fallacy. I think you're confusing taking a premise for granted with begging the question. I have a feeling people have told you that you beg the question quite often, when you've merely assumed a premise. People tend to confuse the two. It is a fallacy when arguing for a proposition to make an argument with implicit premises that depend on the proposition. This is the fallacy of begging the question. Sometimes it can be very slippery, however it is the same thing as 'arguing in a circle'. It was called petitio in principii in latin.

So assuming a premise for the sake of argument is not wrong. What is wrong is, implicitly or explicitly, using conclusion as a premise.

That's the fallacy. That's always, without exception, wrong. Its not merely a convention that can be done away with.

To solve this it would be pretty simple. Just present a deductive syllogism that demonstrates that what goes on in our mind actually corresponds to reality. That is what Descartes claimed could not be done. And if we can't make such a deductive argument we are left with circular reasoning - what else is there?