Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Correction: the why of the potential of logic?

OK, but first, would you clarify the "potential of logic", and then we can more easily consider the "why" of it?

At first it is to be considered that the 'why' question of the cosmos is evidently applicable. On the basis of that argument, any concept will involve a question into its potential for being.

Sorry, I'm still not clear on this. What is "the 'why' question of the cosmos"?

[Pattern-chaser]

If not an aspect that can be referenced as God (or for example TAO in China)...

Your mentions of Daoism are refreshing, and welcome (to me, at least). But you presumably know that the Tao is not really synonymous with God, yes?

Do you have a special interest in Daoism, Tao or Eastern philosophy?

Yes. I'm no expert, but yes, I have a strong interest. If I am asked for my 'religion', I say that I'm a Gaian Daoist, which is as close as I can get to a good description of my spiritual beliefs.

I could imagine that for some people the idea of God would be similar to the idea of Tao, especially for people who address the concept from a philosophical or logical perspective.

I find it difficult to imagine that. But maybe my understanding is at fault...

[3017Metaphysician]

A common argument some theists use (particularly presuppositionalists) is that God is transcendentally required for logic (or "the laws of logic"), and that therefore non-theistic positions are doomed from the start since they must rely on logic to be argued.

Cornelius Van Til famously writes in A Survey of Christian Epistemology (p.205):

We must therefore give our opponents better treatment than they give us. We must point out to them that univocal reasoning itself leads to self-contradiction, not only from a theistic point of view, but from a non-theistic point of view as well. It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we must meet our enemy on their own ground. It is this that we ought to mean when we say that we reason from the impossibility of the contrary. The contrary is impossible only if it is self-contradictory when operating on the basis of its own assumptions.

A typical formulation of such a transcendental argument for God (or TAG) might go like this, lifted straight from Wikipedia's article on the same:

1. God is a necessary precondition for logic and morality (because these are immaterial, yet real universals).

2. People depend upon logic and morality, showing that they depend upon the universal, immaterial, and abstract realities which could not exist in a materialist universe but presupposes (presumes) the existence of an immaterial and absolute God.

3. Therefore, God exists. If He didn't, we could not rely upon logic, reason, morality, and other absolute universals (which are required and assumed to live in this universe, let alone to debate), and could not exist in a materialist universe where there are no absolute standards or an absolute Lawgiver.

The solution is to attack the first premise: that God is a necessary precondition for logic. This is the argument that presuppositionalists make in all kinds of different forms, and I submit that they are all putting the cart before the horse.

First, it is necessary for me to lay out what I mean when I say "the laws of logic." When I say this, I'm referring to the Aristotelian sort:
Identity (A = A, or something that exists, exists as what it is)
Excluded Middle (A v ¬A, or something is either itself or it is something else)
Non-Contradiction (¬(A ^ ¬A), or something can't be both itself and something else at the same time and in the same respect)

The presuppositionalist will say that these are actually laws of thought, and that in order for these things to be true, there must be a mind in which they obtain: God's. That by virtue of God's existence these things universally obtain.

I say that this is problematic, as mentioned before, because it puts the cart firmly before the horse. How could God be the foundation for anything at all without being God? In other words, doesn't it seem a necessary condition for God = God to be true before God can somehow make A = A to be true? But that is Identity: it seems as though identity is a necessary precondition for God to be God rather than the other way around!

The presuppositionalist might turn around and say that this is nonsense: God is a se, exists unto Himself, is not dependent on anything to exist by virtue of His aseity. But herein lies another riposte: I submit that God cannot exist a se because God is dependent on at least one thing transcendental to Himself: that which makes God, God (or limits God to being God and not from being not-God, however we want to phrase this).

Alvin Plantinga poses a little problem in his book, Does God Have a Nature?: we hold these two intuitions about God, that God has aseity and that God has absolute sovereignty. But these intuitions make a paradox when all that we do is we ask: could God have decided to have different properties?

The answer can't be "yes" (which would be the route where we agree with absolute sovereignty) as that also puts the cart before the horse: in order for God to have decided to have different properties "in the beginning" (and I don't mean temporally "the beginning," I just mean whatever "initial" properties God may have had) then God would have had to already have properties, such as the property of knowing what properties are possible to have, and the property of power to make it so. Put shortly, God couldn't have chosen His initial properties because the very act of choosing properties to have requires properties to already exist.

So God can't have absolute sovereignty: God's properties, at least initially, were beyond God's control, He couldn't help but to have those properties. But that means that God is relevantly dependent on something else, something transcendental to God: the thing that makes God God, and not anything else. That thing can't be God Himself (by way of the argument just above). So the presuppositionalist can no longer say that nothing is transcendental to God, because something has to be in order for God to be God in the first place.

Logic, or the "laws of logic," is one of those things that has to be transcendental to God. God is relevantly dependent on logic in order to be God and not the other way around. Thus God can't be the "foundation" or "source" of logic, and thus the Transcendental Argument for God fails before it ever gets off the ground.

AC!

Nice OP, but I don't think the premises are sound (used for the conclusion). Lot's of directions to go with this one. Don't you just love politics and religion! Anyway, just a few bullet points...

1. In the logic of language/dialectics, presuppositions are required for an a-theist (or theist) to arrive at his/her judgement/belief system.
2. A priori logic (mathematics) described the initial conditions of Singularity, therefore, they infer a 'transcendence' of our temporal existence.
3. A priori logic (the cosmological argument) posits causation as logical necessity in order to stop infinite regress (turtle power), unless of course, one can prove eternity is a requirement for existence ( the concept of infinite regress). (Think: 'Singularity' might have always existed in 'eternity'.)
4. If the BB theory is correct (it's only a theory), then something transcendent of time actually caused time (also think relativity).
5. A priori logic (the ontological argument) dialectically posits the concept of God.
6. Excluding emotion, an a-theist belief system is dependent on dialectic reasoning and antinomies-contradictions-since every actual 'thing' involves a coexistence of opposed elements.

In a priori logic (or even common sense to a large degree) presuppositions themselves, can be argued as logically necessary for any dialectic reasoning to even take place at all. The opposite, or antecedent, of a-theism is theism.

To your point in your OP 'conclusion', whether or not the actual nature of a God is dependent on the limitations of logic, is an informal fallacy that doesn't address the concept of a transcendent God. For the above reasons, your conclusion fails only because it's a non sequitur.

However, I think your initial idea about the nature of logic itself, from your OP, is a good one to parse. For instance, one philosophical question could be: What is the "Foundation of Logic"? Any thoughts?

[snt]

If not an aspect that can be referenced as God (or for example TAO in China)...

Your mentions of Daoism are refreshing, and welcome (to me, at least). But you presumably know that the Tao is not really synonymous with God, yes?

Do you have a special interest in Daoism, Tao or Eastern philosophy?

Yes. I'm no expert, but yes, I have a strong interest. If I am asked for my 'religion', I say that I'm a Gaian Daoist, which is as close as I can get to a good description of my spiritual beliefs.

Some questions:

1. Is it an official religion or belief?
2. What does Gaian Daoism involve? (what are its purpose, principles or values?)
3. How did you came to such a belief?

[snt]

At first it is to be considered that the 'why' question of the cosmos is evidently applicable. On the basis of that argument, any concept will involve a question into its potential for being.

Sorry, I'm still not clear on this. What is "the 'why' question of the cosmos"?

It involves the question into Being.

German philosopher Martin Heidegger mentioned the following in an interview with a Buddhist monk in 1964 (ARD TV).

"die entscheiden der erfahrung meines denkens und das heist zugleich für die Abundlandischen Philosophie die besinnung auf die Geschichte des Abundlandischen Denkens hat mir gezeigt dass im geschehen denken eine frage niemals gestelt wurde nämlich die Frage nach dem Zein."

Translation: "the decisive experience of my thinking and that means for Western philosophy as a whole and at the same time a reflection on the history of Western thinking has shown me that in thinking about reality one question was never asked, namely the question of Being."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFSWDnD24Mc

Heidegger was a profound philosopher and a philosophy professor. His expert perspective is therefore meaningful for the indication that the concept 'Being' is taken for granted even by icons of philosophy in the history since Heidegger.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/

[snt]

If existence "cannot apply" to God, then I'm not entirely sure what's even being said. Either a god exists or one does not. My post was directed at arguments with a god proposed to exist.

When one looks philosophically at the concept existing or Being, it involves a question into its potential or a 'why' question.

It seems simple logic that anything that an observer can 'see' in a retro perspective cannot provide a fundamental explanation. Therefore, most logical is that one is required to venture beyond the limits of logic.

If properties "cannot apply" to God, then we aren't talking about anything cognizable. We might as well be talking about slithey toves gyring and gimbling in wabes.

I know this response is short, but I wasn't quite sure what else to do with it.

If we say that God is something that doesn't exist or have properties but we're still trying to say something, we're not communicating anything. We're saying "an unknowable thing is doing an unknowable thing in an unknowable way." That imparts as much communication as TV static. I dispute this notion that we can meaningfully talk about things to which existence or properties "cannot apply." That's just not talking about anything at all.

What did you think of my quote from the book Tao Te Ching?

... The potential for reason and logic itself would be at question and that question is equal to the question into the origin of the cosmos.

Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu) has attempted it in book Tao Te Ching. The book starts with the following:

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

What is the meaning of an insight that logic would attempt to unlock (an insight into the origin of reason itself) when the insight that it unlocks cannot be said?

One would enter the field of poetry that attempts to use language to transfer insight into experience that would then need to function as an addition to supplement logical reasoning to provide it with a ground to venture beyond the limit of its own origin.

The book Tao Te Ching is written as a poem for that purpose.

More in topic Logical Limitation of the Logic.

[snt]

If existence "cannot apply" to God, then I'm not entirely sure what's even being said. Either a god exists or one does not. My post was directed at arguments with a god proposed to exist.

The French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas addresses it in his concept The duality of Saying and Said. You may be able to find papers online (it may be paywalled).

A 'good' that would precede reality (i.e. 'the Universe') cannot be discovered in the Said, however, philosophical reasoning can make a case for it's plausibility.

Levinas commentator Giuseppe Lissa provides the following description of Levinas’ project Otherwise than Being (his latest work):

By investigating the depths of consciousness, by comparing its passivity to the process of ageing, Levinas investigates a "reality unknowable, but perhaps interpretable by a thinking that no longer claims to be an exercise in knowledge … because this thinking is engaged in the search for a meaning that precedes all knowledge."

In the film Absent God (1:06:22) Levinas says the following:

"The creation of the world itself should get its meaning starting from goodness."

It concerns philosophical plausibility of a 'good' that precedes reality. Whether or not to name that 'good' or write a poem to argue that it cannot be named (Tao Te Ching), philosophical relevance is evident in my opinion.

[Atla]

At first it is to be considered that the 'why' question of the cosmos is evidently applicable. On the basis of that argument, any concept will involve a question into its potential for being.

Sorry, I'm still not clear on this. What is "the 'why' question of the cosmos"?

It involves the question into Being.

German philosopher Martin Heidegger mentioned the following in an interview with a Buddhist monk in 1964 (ARD TV).

"die entscheiden der erfahrung meines denkens und das heist zugleich für die Abundlandischen Philosophie die besinnung auf die Geschichte des Abundlandischen Denkens hat mir gezeigt dass im geschehen denken eine frage niemals gestelt wurde nämlich die Frage nach dem Zein."

Translation: "the decisive experience of my thinking and that means for Western philosophy as a whole and at the same time a reflection on the history of Western thinking has shown me that in thinking about reality one question was never asked, namely the question of Being."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFSWDnD24Mc

Heidegger was a profound philosopher and a philosophy professor. His expert perspective is therefore meaningful for the indication that the concept 'Being' is taken for granted even by icons of philosophy in the history since Heidegger.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/

I'd say Eastern philosophy explored being as reality itself, and being as an organism. What Eastern philosophy doesn't seem to have explored much or at all, is being as a self-aware organism / self-aware human.

But if Heidegger is simply refering to self-awareness, then I don't see how that would be relevant to the cosmos in general.

[Pattern-chaser]

Is it an official religion or belief?

No, I don't think so.

What does Gaian Daoism involve? (what are its purpose, principles or values?)

The Gaia Hypothesis, extended from the world to the whole universe, lived according to Daoist principles (in general).

How did you came to such a belief?

How did you come to yours?

[Pattern-chaser]

At first it is to be considered that the 'why' question of the cosmos is evidently applicable. On the basis of that argument, any concept will involve a question into its potential for being.

Sorry, I'm still not clear on this. What is "the 'why' question of the cosmos"?

It involves the question into Being.

German philosopher Martin Heidegger mentioned the following in an interview with a Buddhist monk in 1964 (ARD TV).

"die entscheiden der erfahrung meines denkens und das heist zugleich für die Abundlandischen Philosophie die besinnung auf die Geschichte des Abundlandischen Denkens hat mir gezeigt dass im geschehen denken eine frage niemals gestelt wurde nämlich die Frage nach dem Zein."

Translation: "the decisive experience of my thinking and that means for Western philosophy as a whole and at the same time a reflection on the history of Western thinking has shown me that in thinking about reality one question was never asked, namely the question of Being."


Heidegger was a profound philosopher and a philosophy professor. His expert perspective is therefore meaningful for the indication that the concept 'Being' is taken for granted even by icons of philosophy in the history since Heidegger.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/

Are (fallacious) Appeals to Authority the only arguments you have?

[Pattern-chaser]

Whether or not to name that 'good' or write a poem to argue that it cannot be named (Tao Te Ching), philosophical relevance is evident in my opinion.

The Tao te ching does not equate "Tao" with "good".

[Astro Cat]

AC!

Nice OP, but I don't think the premises are sound (used for the conclusion). Lot's of directions to go with this one. Don't you just love politics and religion! Anyway, just a few bullet points...

1. In the logic of language/dialectics, presuppositions are required for an a-theist (or theist) to arrive at his/her judgement/belief system.
2. A priori logic (mathematics) described the initial conditions of Singularity, therefore, they infer a 'transcendence' of our temporal existence.
3. A priori logic (the cosmological argument) posits causation as logical necessity in order to stop infinite regress (turtle power), unless of course, one can prove eternity is a requirement for existence ( the concept of infinite regress). (Think: 'Singularity' might have always existed in 'eternity'.)
4. If the BB theory is correct (it's only a theory), then something transcendent of time actually caused time (also think relativity).
5. A priori logic (the ontological argument) dialectically posits the concept of God.
6. Excluding emotion, an a-theist belief system is dependent on dialectic reasoning and antinomies-contradictions-since every actual 'thing' involves a coexistence of opposed elements.

I am not sure what you mean, especially by the end here. Atheists don't have a "belief system... dependent on dialectic reasoning... since every actual 'thing' involves a coexistence of opposed elements." Where do you get that idea?

In a priori logic (or even common sense to a large degree) presuppositions themselves, can be argued as logically necessary for any dialectic reasoning to even take place at all. The opposite, or antecedent, of a-theism is theism.

To your point in your OP 'conclusion', whether or not the actual nature of a God is dependent on the limitations of logic, is an informal fallacy that doesn't address the concept of a transcendent God. For the above reasons, your conclusion fails only because it's a non sequitur.

I'm not seeing how my argument in the OP is a non sequitur, though. It aims to set out to show that arguments that God is transcendental to logic can't work because they put the cart before the horse; and it succeeds at doing so. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something somewhere, but which part exactly is a non sequitur?

However, I think your initial idea about the nature of logic itself, from your OP, is a good one to parse. For instance, one philosophical question could be: What is the "Foundation of Logic"? Any thoughts?

I am not sure anything is a foundation of logic. I think logic is really just limitation: things are limited to being what they are and limited from being what they are not. Reality requires limitations to be real (to "be" anything at all), and I think that's all that logic is.

[Astro Cat]

When one looks philosophically at the concept existing or Being, it involves a question into its potential or a 'why' question.

It seems simple logic that anything that an observer can 'see' in a retro perspective cannot provide a fundamental explanation. Therefore, most logical is that one is required to venture beyond the limits of logic.

I don't understand. What is beyond the limits of logic? It seems to me that for anything to be at all, to exist, it must exist as something; and that something has to be what it is and not what it is not. It must be logical to be at all. Can you elaborate?

What did you think of my quote from the book Tao Te Ching?

... The potential for reason and logic itself would be at question and that question is equal to the question into the origin of the cosmos.

I don't understand what this quote is trying to tell me. My first impression is that it's talking maybe about how reason and logic have "potential" as in to be used to understand the universe, but I don't understand the comparison to the origin of the cosmos.

Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu) has attempted it in book Tao Te Ching. The book starts with the following:

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

What is the meaning of an insight that logic would attempt to unlock (an insight into the origin of reason itself) when the insight that it unlocks cannot be said?

So, I'm trying to understand this. I know what someone means when they say that something is ineffable for instance: a feeling that's difficult to put into words, perhaps after some kind of emotional turmoil. I understand what they mean when they say that's ineffable: I form the picture that they're dealing with many conflicting emotions at once.

I don't understand what is meant if we say there is an "insight that cannot be said." What kind of insight is that? As with the emotional example (emotional turmoil --> someone says the way they feel is ineffable), that's not an insight or an understanding, that's someone being confused themselves. What kind of insight could be ineffable? I'm skeptical that it could be considered an insight at all, but I'm willing to listen.

One would enter the field of poetry that attempts to use language to transfer insight into experience that would then need to function as an addition to supplement logical reasoning to provide it with a ground to venture beyond the limit of its own origin.

I've read this sentence multiple times and I'm having a hard time walking away with any meaning from it. I'm not trying to be dense. Can you please elucidate or rephrase?

[Astro Cat]

The French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas addresses it in his concept The duality of Saying and Said. You may be able to find papers online (it may be paywalled).

Perhaps, I can usually get stuff through my uni if it's in a paywalled journal if there's something worth grabbing.

A 'good' that would precede reality (i.e. 'the Universe') cannot be discovered in the Said, however, philosophical reasoning can make a case for it's plausibility.

I used the word "said," but I used it in an ordinary conversational context. I get the feeling that you may be talking about something specific when you say "the Said." May I ask what that is? For instance, I don't know what it means for something to be "discovered in the Said." I form no cognition of what that collection of words is trying to communicate to me.

Levinas commentator Giuseppe Lissa provides the following description of Levinas’ project Otherwise than Being (his latest work):

By investigating the depths of consciousness, by comparing its passivity to the process of ageing, Levinas investigates a "reality unknowable, but perhaps interpretable by a thinking that no longer claims to be an exercise in knowledge … because this thinking is engaged in the search for a meaning that precedes all knowledge."

I feel like a broken record at this point, but I understand each word here individually, but collectively I cannot make heads or tails of what's trying to be said here.

I am not a stupid woman. I'm also not ignorant of art and poetry. I have a pretty big lexicon. I can usually pick up on metaphors, similes, and things of that nature. But I don't know what any of this is trying to communicate, it forms no cognizant picture to me.

For instance, this is my attempt to read this from start to finish.

"By investigating the depths of consciousness, by comparing its passivity to the process of ageing..."

Ok, I get the sense that someone is introspecting their conscious awareness, and they are noting that they're conscious all the time whether they're thinking about it or not the same way we age whether we think about it or not. I think I'm on track so far.

"Levinas investigates a 'reality unknowable, but perhaps interpretable by a thinking that no longer claims to be an exercise in knowledge..."

Now I'm lost. What is an unknowable reality, what does it mean to "investigate" it, and how does thinking that somehow isn't geared towards knowledge able to "interpret" anything? None of this makes sense.

"...because this thinking is engaged in the search for a meaning that precedes all knowledge."

Now I'm even more lost. What is a "meaning" that "precedes knowledge?" There can be no meaning without knowledge. For something to "mean" anything, it must be cognizable.

"The creation of the world itself should get its meaning starting from goodness."

I have no idea whatsoever what this means by "should get its meaning starting from goodness." I don't even know how to elucidate in what ways this gives me no concept, no communication, to chew on. It might as well say "The creation of the world itself should get its meaning from mustard." What does it mean to "get meaning from goodness?" What would it mean by "goodness" in the first place?

It concerns philosophical plausibility of a 'good' that precedes reality. Whether or not to name that 'good' or write a poem to argue that it cannot be named (Tao Te Ching), philosophical relevance is evident in my opinion.

Nothing can "precede" reality without itself being real, that would be putting the cart before the horse.

As I said, I am not a stupid woman. I am earnestly trying to understand. But I have a concern that some mystical quotes are just things that perhaps "sound deep" but don't really mean much. I'm still willing to hear things out here, but that is my concern.

[snt]

I don't understand. What is beyond the limits of logic? It seems to me that for anything to be at all, to exist, it must exist as something; and that something has to be what it is and not what it is not. It must be logical to be at all. Can you elaborate?

You seem to make an appeal to a restriction to utilitarian or 'usefulness' within the scope of a human perspective. Your argument is essentially "for anything to be is must be a Being".

To even consider venturing beyond the limit of logic, one should start with the motivating consideration: "is usefulness within a human perspective all that can be relevant for existence?". Surely, the foundation of existence (Being) cannot be itself, thus there one discovers a big door to a mysterious area that demands exploration.

Mystical door beyond knowledge
mystical-door-beyond-knowledge.jpg (20.73 KiB) Viewed 1118 times

The next question would be how to explore it responsibly?. The citation of Emmanuel Levinas - an icon of Western philosophy that is researched by dedicated scholars today - shows that one is to pursue a quest for a meaning that precedes knowledge, i.e. a meaning that precedes useful meaning.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/

My previous post hinted that the use of poetry - the use of experience as addition to logical reason would enable to make an attempt of exploration.

With regard the question: if it doesn't involve knowledge, what would be the use? The result of the work can be considered 'philosophical plausible insight'. While it may not be recognized today, it may involve a new to be discovered concept similar to 'knowledge' for qualitative referencing the nature of plausible insight beyond knowledge.

Chinese philosopher Laozi (Lao Tzu) has attempted it in book Tao Te Ching. The book starts with the following:

"The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal Name."

What is the meaning of an insight that logic would attempt to unlock (an insight into the origin of reason itself) when the insight that it unlocks cannot be said?

So, I'm trying to understand this. I know what someone means when they say that something is ineffable for instance: a feeling that's difficult to put into words, perhaps after some kind of emotional turmoil. I understand what they mean when they say that's ineffable: I form the picture that they're dealing with many conflicting emotions at once.

I don't understand what is meant if we say there is an "insight that cannot be said." What kind of insight is that? As with the emotional example (emotional turmoil --> someone says the way they feel is ineffable), that's not an insight or an understanding, that's someone being confused themselves. What kind of insight could be ineffable? I'm skeptical that it could be considered an insight at all, but I'm willing to listen.

It could be a philosophical plausible insight but there might be many more options that for example use emotions or spiritual experience.

With regard the insight not being able to be said. That would concern the notion that it involves an aspect that precedes anything that can have been said. It would be nonsensical to argue that only that what can be said is relevant for existence, because if that were to be so, nothing would ever need to be said.

Again: one reaches a door to a mysterious world.

One would enter the field of poetry that attempts to use language to transfer insight into experience that would then need to function as an addition to supplement logical reasoning to provide it with a ground to venture beyond the limit of its own origin.

I've read this sentence multiple times and I'm having a hard time walking away with any meaning from it. I'm not trying to be dense. Can you please elucidate or rephrase?

An expert on the book Tao Te Ching mentioned the following: "Logic has its place in human affairs, but it isn’t everything. There is a limit to what we can understand through rationality and reasoning. To transcend that limit, we need to fully engage the intuition."

So that is what the book Tao Te Ching attempted to do. However, it was an attempt in ancient times with ancient readers with ancient interests. Today there may be new insights that can be unlocked by venturing beyond the limit of logic.

For example from a astrophysics perspective, venturing beyond the limit of logic may provide valuable philosophical plausible insights that can then be used to innovate (advance) in useful reality. (i.e. it can provide a foundation or clues to 'think out of the box'). The venture would still concern a search for truth, but it's simply not about knowledge.