From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sun Nov 16 2003 - 05:34:38 GMT
Platt,
> I'll admit to having presuppositions because everyone does. I'll also
> admit to having a presupposition that philosophy and discussions about
> philosophy should be based on reason and logic, following Pirsig's
> definition of logic as "... a set of rules (i.e. an intellectual
> pattern) that helps produce high quality in other intellectual
> patterns." You on the other hand see logical rules, at least the
> Principle of Identity, as something that gets in the way of
> understanding, evidenced by your repeated appeal to the "logic of
> contradictory identity." Likewise, Matt is predisposed to ignore logic
> when it suits him because to argue on a strictly logical basis would
> admit to foundationalism.
No. I see Aristotelian logic as a good logic to use when the subject under
discussion isn't deformed by it, but when it is, then some other logic is
required. Science (except quantum physics, for which there is something
called quantum logic) works well with Aristotelian logic, but metaphysical
questions in general do not. For example, when the issue under discussion is
"identity" or the "self", then the Principle of Identity fails.
Nor is the use of logic, of any kind, tantamount to foundationalism. We find
certain patterns of thought to be reasonable (how? no further reason, just
recognition of high quality intellectual value), and call the abstract forms
of those patterns logic, in those cases where we can abstract the forms.
- Scott
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 16 2003 - 05:42:34 GMT