Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In our time nobody is content to stop with faith but wants to go further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people think Kierkegaard takes issue with people subjecting faith to doubt?

In logical terminology, what is the parallel of "faith"?

Scott

edit: And as a further hint, why do people think that I, an agnostic and a skeptic, agree with Kierkegaard?

[/ QUOTE ]

Paradox. Maybe, I should say: Paradox?

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why do people think Kierkegaard takes issue with people subjecting faith to doubt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could it be that the terms are mutually exclusive? That once you subject it to doubt, it ceases to be faith?

-McGee

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that the terms are mutually exclusive? That once you subject it to doubt, it ceases to be faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct that doubt fundamentally undermines faith, but I don't think that is what Kierkegaard's getting at, so I'll throw out another question/clue: If faith and doubt are mutually exclusive, why aren't faith and logic also mutually exclusive?

Scott

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that the terms are mutually exclusive? That once you subject it to doubt, it ceases to be faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct that doubt fundamentally undermines faith, but I don't think that is what Kierkegaard's getting at, so I'll throw out another question/clue: If faith and doubt are mutually exclusive, why aren't faith and logic also mutually exclusive?

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm on a roll at missing the point today so I'll have a stab at this, knowing I'm unsure about your point.

Faith and doubt are two different states of mind that refer to the nature of the world. If you have faith that P is the case then you accept that P is the case and hence don't doubt that P is the case. Therefore faith and doubt are mutually excusive.

Logic is not a state of mind about the nature of the world. Its a way of understanding what faith that P is the case means about the world e.g if you have faith the world is flat then logically that means you believe the world isn't banana shaped.

Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

chez

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Partial credit. Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions. The basis for these deductions might be an accumulation of known facts, rather than assumptions. Assumptions are frequently used to create a theory or thesis which then they may attempt to prove logically from facts known or derived. Only in pure philosphy, maybe, are deductions made from assumptions.

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Partial credit. Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions. The basis for these deductions might be an accumulation of known facts , rather than assumptions. Assumptions are frequently used to create a theory or thesis which then they may attempt to prove logically from facts known or derived. Only in pure philosphy, maybe, are deductions made from assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I want my full credit. What are these known facts from which you start?

chez

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a premise used in logic but a premise used in a logical argument.

If you conclude with a statement about the nature of the world then you sarted from at least one premise that is about the world. Where do the initial premises come from?

An example of an initial premise might be that you are observing a real external world. Try proving that you're not dreaming it all.

chez

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Partial credit. Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions. The basis for these deductions might be an accumulation of known facts , rather than assumptions. Assumptions are frequently used to create a theory or thesis which then they may attempt to prove logically from facts known or derived. Only in pure philosphy, maybe, are deductions made from assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I want my full credit. What are these known facts from which you start?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. Okay, some things have to start out as definitions. That 'color' is 'red'. We assume everyone agrees with these 'universal' definitions. From that standpoint everything might be considered an assumption. We assume that since gravity seems to always work, that it is a constant, and it has been measured to be that way. What is acceptable to you as a proof may not be acceptable to sometone else. Semantics will bog down anything.

Partial credit only.