Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not being picky but we're talking about deductive logic and no way is gravity a known fact as a conclusion of deductive logic without some premise which its itself based on prior premises in a chain that leads back to something unknown.

Unless you can start from an unassumed premise about the world then the initial premise must be taken on faith. The claim from KS is that it cant be done and faith is required.

chez

[bearly]

hi, actually deductions can be made from any system of logic that has been proved to be consistent and complete. if what you mean is that all formal reasoning is analytic---that's correct.............b

[The Yugoslavian]

Great book. I may chime in at some point if I have some time. Kierkegaard is my fav.

I'd have gone with Either/Or though.

I helped a peer with his undergraduate thesis talk/paper on Fear and Trembling....it's very easy for thinking to get way too uptight on this one, so I may want to go back and look at what we discussed for later in your book club discussion.

Very good book, IMO. I should reread it....got it lying right next to my bed, lol.

Oh, btw, it's also useful to keep in the back of your mind the Continental tradition Kierkegaard fit into....most of the way he presents and elucidates his insights (and why he goes to great lengths to use telling pseudonyms and make fun of/belittle his contemporaries) was directly impacted by the juggernaut of the day that was Hegel.

Yugoslav

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not being picky but we're talking about deductive logic and no way is gravity a known fact as a conclusion of deductive logic without some premise which its itself based on prior premises in a chain that leads back to something unknown.

Unless you can start from an unassumed premise about the world then the initial premise must be taken on faith. The claim from KS is that it cant be done and faith is required.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Never made gravity an example to prove my point, it was just an example of possible controversy that was the first thing into my head in the wee hours. I was trying to give you more credit, actually.

As far as unassumed premises go, my point was that there will always be argument about these things. Which is why it is still debated. Your definition of an unassumed premise will differ from mine or KS's. The fact that I was too tired to get that across clearly is my problem, not yours.

Also I get less joy from these arguments than you, so don't mind me if I drop out for awhile. Multiple responses to a post where I find out we are talking about apples vs oranges was not my intent.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as unassumed premises go, my point was that there will always be argument about these things. Which is why it is still debated. Your definition of an unassumed premise will differ from mine or KS's. The fact that I was too tired to get that across clearly is my problem, not yours.

[/ QUOTE ]
even if there is an argument for any premise, as finite beings we are always going to have starts somewhere. So if we end with beliefs about the world then we started from something assumed.

[ QUOTE ]
Also I get less joy from these arguments than you, so don't mind me if I drop out for awhile. Multiple responses to a post where I find out we are talking about apples vs oranges was not my intent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your perogative but I thought we wre trying to get at what KS meant. Don't know where the apples vs oranges comes in.

chez

[ 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 ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before we get into the thorny paradise of reasonable belief, is KS talking about about reasonable belief or undoubted truth?

chez

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before we get into the thorny paradise of reasonable belief, is KS talking about about reasonable belief or undoubted truth?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what K is talking about, but I was responding to your statement that arguments are based on premises taken on faith. You gave the example of a belief in the external world, and said "try proving that you're not dreaming at all."

My point is that a premise that says there is an external world does not have to rely on faith but by contrast can be a reasonably held belief, and it does not have to be based on a 'proof' in order for it to be a reasonably held belief.

Hence a premise that says that the external world exists is not a premise that we must accept on faith.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before we get into the thorny paradise of reasonable belief, is KS talking about about reasonable belief or undoubted truth?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what K is talking about, but I was responding to your statement that arguments are based on premises taken on faith. You gave the example of a belief in the external world, and said "try proving that you're not dreaming at all."

My point is that a premise that says there is an external world does not have to rely on faith but by contrast can be a reasonably held belief, and it does not have to be based on a 'proof' in order for it to be a reasonably held belief.

Hence a premise that says that the external world exists is not a premise that we must accept on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
but not all our reasonable beliefs are true so either you have to have some doubt that your reasonable belief about the external world is one of the true ones or you need some faith.

btw what in the nature of the reasonable belief that gets you to your conclusion that the external world exists?

chez

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before we get into the thorny paradise of reasonable belief, is KS talking about about reasonable belief or undoubted truth?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what K is talking about, but I was responding to your statement that arguments are based on premises taken on faith. You gave the example of a belief in the external world, and said "try proving that you're not dreaming at all."

My point is that a premise that says there is an external world does not have to rely on faith but by contrast can be a reasonably held belief, and it does not have to be based on a 'proof' in order for it to be a reasonably held belief.

Hence a premise that says that the external world exists is not a premise that we must accept on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
but not all our reasonable beliefs are true so either you have to have some doubt that your reasonable belief about the external world is one of the true ones or you need some faith.

btw what in the nature of the reasonable belief that gets you to your conclusion that the external world exists?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I would reject the dilemma you pose--that you either have to have some doubt that your reasonable belief is true or you have to take it partly on faith.

I agree that any belief 'about the external world' (not just the belief that there is an external world) is subject to some, however minute, degree of doubt, but that does not mean that we 'fill in' the remainder with faith.

As Hume said, the reasonable man proportions his belief to the evidence, which I take to mean that we can rationally hold beliefs to varying degrees. I am more sure that the sun will rise tomorrow than I am that the Colts will win the Super Bowl, because the evidence suggests that the former belief is on firmer ground. This does not mean that any element of faith is a part of my holding either belief, just that I hold one belief more strongly in terms of its likelihood of being true than the other.