A discussion from the Choosing Hats chatroom on the nature of the laws of logic:
22:28 Chris Why would you need to account for logic?
22:28 Chris I mean…logic is sort of…important, right?
22:28 deogloria yes
22:29 Celsus Do you need to “account” for how a car works to be able to drive it?
22:29 deogloria but atheists don’t account for logic in order to use it though….
22:30 Chris No Celsus, you don’t.
22:30 Chris You could be a completely ignorant fool regarding a car and still drive it.
22:30 Chris Sort of like atheists using logic.
22:30 Celsus Right, so why do you need to “account” for logic to be able to use it?
22:31 deogloria just to be clear
22:31 Chris Nobody is saying you have to account for it to be able to use it.
22:31 deogloria i’m a presupp
22:31 deogloria just asking qeustions
22:31 Chris Who said that?
22:31 Chris deogloria’s question had nothing to do with that.
22:31 deogloria just want to become bahnsen like
22:32 pat his childhood hero!
22:32 Chris Atheists practice that which they cannot account for in principle.
22:32 deogloria hey Chris, in principle they can’t account for it, but what if you are dealing with someone who doesn’t hold to any specific worldview, why does he have to account for it then?
22:33 Chris Everyone holds to a worldview.
22:33 deogloria yeah
22:33 deogloria haha
22:33 deogloria true
22:33 Celsus they haven’t? I don’t think logic is any mystery to explain. It is based on the law of identity which is one of its axioms.
22:33 deogloria people are walking worldviews
22:33 deogloria if you will – Bahnsen
22:34 Celsus deogloria, that is a good question. Most people never think about it
22:34 Chris What is the nature of the law of identity? Is it material? Is it particular? Is it true? How do we come to know it? Is it relative to individuals? Societies?
22:34 Celsus most people are not philosophers
22:34 Chris Why are we obligated to follow it?
22:34 Chris Everyone is a philosopher. Not all are very good philosophers.
22:34 Celsus it is conceptual
22:34 Chris Are concepts material?
22:35 *** Resequitur quit (Quit: Resequitur)
22:35 Celsus material beings (us) are able to conceptualize. It is a function of our brains
22:35 *** Resequitur joined #choosinghats
22:35 +++ ChanServ has given op to Resequitur
22:35 Chris That doesn’t answer the question.
22:36 Chris At least not directly. Are functions of our brain material?
22:36 Celsus yes
22:36 Chris So the law of identity is material?
22:36 Celsus no. it is conceptual
22:36 deogloria Celsus, put it like this, you don’ tneed to account for your xbox 360 to play it , but never theless you still have to account for it even though you don’t need to do so in practice, you have to do so to make sense and be a good philosopher
22:37 Chris You just said that concepts are functions of our brains.
22:37 Chris And that functions are material.
22:37 Chris Are you following your own thinking here, or just making stuff up as you go?
22:37 deogloria that is if you want to be a good philosopher
22:37 Celsus Is digestion material? Is running material? is drawing material? They are actions of what material things do.
22:37 Chris It follows that concepts are material.
22:37 Chris Yes, digestion is, running is, drawing is.
22:37 Chris Are actions material?
22:37 deogloria the particular instance of it is material, but your very speaking of it speaks otherwise
22:37 Chris You’re dancing all over the place.
22:38 Chris Because you’re a Randian.
22:38 Chris And don’t think for yourself.
22:38 deogloria what’s a randian Chris?
22:38 deogloria haha
22:38 Celsus I am not a Randian
22:38 deogloria ayn rand
22:38 Chris Fair enough.
22:38 deogloria you mean?
22:38 Chris I see no way to get around saying that concepts are material on your view.
22:38 Chris And hence so is the law of identity.
22:39 Celsus No. You are committing category error
22:39 deogloria Chris, it’s good to see you man. i need help with logic, smth atheists can’t make sense of just like me not being able to make sense of my ps3 even though i use it all the time
22:39 Chris Really?
22:39 Chris How so?
22:39 Celsus They are conceptual. What the mind does.
22:39 Chris I don’t think you know what you’re saying.
22:39 Chris Okay.
22:39 deogloria no chuckles ?
22:40 Chris And you said that concepts are functions of the brain/
22:40 Chris Correct?
22:40 taco deogloria: i think chris is in the middle of a conversation
22:40 Celsus yes
22:40 Chris And then you answered that functions are material.
22:40 taco deogloria: might be a good time to sit back and watch
22:40 Chris It follows then that the law of identity, which is a concept, is material.
22:40 Celsus It is a much material as running, digesting, drawing, etc.
22:41 Chris Yeah. Those are material.
22:41 Celsus They are?
22:41 Chris Unless you know how to run without legs.
22:41 Celsus running is made of matter?
22:42 Chris Oh I see. Well “running” is a particular expression of a non-material concept.
22:42 Celsus Running is something that legs do. Legs are material
22:42 Chris But that doesn’t really help anything.
22:42 Chris Are you okay with the analogy then and will say that logic is not material?
22:42 Celsus what don’t you understand about running?
22:42 Chris Oh that’s funny. haha
22:42 Chris Chris is a bloody idiot.
22:42 Chris he doesn’t get running.
22:43 Chris Let’s ignore that Celsus can’t give him a straight answer.
22:43 Resequitur yes, everyone is an idiot but Celsus
22:43 Chris Is the law of identity material Celsus?
22:43 Chris That’s a yes or no question.
22:43 Celsus I did answer. It is conceptual.
22:43 Chris Because concepts would also be either material or not.
22:43 Chris So then, are concepts material?
22:43 Chris Yes or no?
22:43 Chris “It’s a function”
22:43 Celsus false dicotomy
22:43 Chris Okay, is a function material or not?
22:43 RazorsKiss that’s “dichotomy”
22:43 Resequitur lol
22:43 Celsus false dicotomy
22:43 Chris We’ve been here already.
22:43 Celsus thanks
22:43 deogloria in between?
22:44 Chris Are functions material Celsus?
22:44 Celsus it is what material things do
22:44 Chris Okay, we’re back at actions.
22:44 Chris Are actions material Celsus?
22:45 Celsus it is what material things do
22:45 Chris Right, you have no answer.
22:45 Chris Thanks.
22:45 Celsus define “material”
22:45 Celsus made of matter?
22:45 Chris Something made of matter.
22:45 RazorsKiss wonders what philosophical category celsus is tryingto address.
22:46 Celsus then actions are not made of matter
22:46 Celsus but are functions of them
22:46 Chris Great. So non-material?
22:47 Chris If they are not made of matter, then they are non-material.
22:47 Celsus non-material simply tells what something is not. Not what it is
22:47 Chris Yes thank you Celsus.
22:47 Chris You don’t have to quote particular Objectivists for my sake.
22:47 Chris I’ve read them.
22:48 Chris Now it seems to follow from what you’re saying that the law of identity is non-material.
22:48 Celsus conceptual
22:48 Chris Yes, but concepts are not material.
22:48 Chris Are you following the conversation?
22:48 Celsus and?
22:48 Chris Okay. Great.
22:49 Chris So, how do we bring this non-material “concept” of A=A into contact with material reality?
22:49 Chris What does non-matter have to do with matter?
22:49 deogloria wow
22:49 deogloria awesome
22:49 deogloria a bonafide philosopher
22:49 Celsus simple. We apply the law of identity from what we perceive all around us
22:50 Celsus Chris, you don’t see the identity in material objects?
22:50 *** jsin joined #choosinghats
22:50 RazorsKiss If he did, identity would be material.
22:51 Chris No, I see the law of identity applied to or exemplified in particular objects being the same as themselves.
22:52 *** MrBsPapa quit (Ping timeout)
22:52 Celsus right. When we see a ball we conceptualize the generic concept of a ball. The concept of a ball could be of any size, color, material, etc.
22:52 Celsus the concept of a ball lacks specific measurements
22:53 deogloria you are only proving Chris’s point
22:53 Celsus I am?
22:53 Chris I had to step away.
22:53 Celsus What is his point?
22:53 Celsus I see no point
22:54 deogloria well all along
22:54 RazorsKiss You never do.
22:54 deogloria he has been trying to tell you that you can’t account for immaterial entities
22:54 deogloria such as laws
22:54 deogloria you’ve only proven by your last statement
22:54 Celsus I can account for logic fine. Logic is not an entity
22:54 deogloria his point
22:54 RazorsKiss What isn’t?
22:55 *** Resequitur quit (Quit: Resequitur)
22:55 RazorsKiss If you define it, it’s an entity of some sort – the question is, which entity is it, and which sort are we referring to?
22:55 Chris Really curious why you won’t identity yourself as an Objectivist Celsus.
22:55 Celsus deogloria, basis of the laws of logic is the subject-object relationship of any consciousness capable of forming concepts, such as man’s. It is not a mystery like the presuppers pretend it to be.
22:55 Chris That’s Objectivist philosophy 101.
22:55 Chris But I need to be going, unfortunately.
22:55 RazorsKiss is it an immaterial entity, or a material entity?
22:56 Celsus It’s not an entity at all.
22:56 RazorsKiss Define entity.
22:56 Chris I may be back in a little while.
22:56 *** Chris is now known as ChrisAway
22:56 RazorsKiss We don’t deal with brute facts here.
22:57 Celsus You are the one using the term. I think you need to define it
22:57 RazorsKiss You defined it negatively.
22:58 Celsus And what logic are we talking about? First-order logic, first-order predicate logic, second-order predicate logic, modal logic, fuzzy logic? Which one? Logic is not a monolithic entity, and there is no one set of ‘laws’ for all of logic. Not all logical systems even require axioms.
22:58 RazorsKiss Therefore, what is an entity, positively? I don’t think we’re going to have the same definition, in any case, because yours seems to preclude immaterial objects a priori.
22:58 Celsus entity n : that which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)
22:58 RazorsKiss For instance, an immaterial object, or entity, would be something like a thought, or a concept.
22:59 RazorsKiss A material entity would be something occupying space, perhaps.
22:59 Celsus OK then. So if each law of logic is an entity, the logic would be considered to be a system of many entities, right?
23:00 RazorsKiss That’s what a system entails, typically.
23:00 Celsus a system usually involves in perform a function
23:00 RazorsKiss For instance, Sola Scriptura is an entity composed of entities – and is itself part of another entity.
23:00 deogloria you could classify it all under as one entity if you wanted, because after all we are deealing with universals
23:01 RazorsKiss It’s a concept. That concept involves other concepts, and is itself involved in greater concepts.
23:01 Celsus ok
23:02 RazorsKiss just as you, as Cestus, are an entity, composed of myriad entities – but you, as Cestus, are part of a greater system.
23:02 Celsus ok. I am with you so far
23:03 RazorsKiss but all this was to say that logic is, in our system, an entity, or object – and in a great deal of historical philosophy – although by no means all.
23:03 *** LUbNarcissus joined #choosinghats
23:03 RazorsKiss so a flat denial that logic is an entity is by no means warranted prima facie
23:03 *** LUbNarcissus is now known as LUback4awhile
23:03 deogloria wb Lub
23:04 RazorsKiss there has to be an argument to demonstrate such a claim, no?
23:04 LUback4awhile ty deogloria
23:04 Celsus it depends on how you define the term
23:04 deogloria yw
23:04 RazorsKiss Well, that depends on how you construct definitions, in turn
23:04 Celsus Logic is not a monolithic entity, and there is no one set of ‘laws’ for all of logic. That was my point
23:04 RazorsKiss Because how you define things is often indicative of your presuppositional commitments.
23:05 RazorsKiss Well, that’s another claim in and of itself, obviously
23:06 RazorsKiss Which is what I was trying to point out. You make a whole lot of claims off the cuff – but in here, when I make a particular claim, it’s from a very well-defined position. You, at the very least, haven’t shared with us any such well-defined position.
23:06 Celsus But I have yet to see how presuppers can account for logic and how it is a problem for non-christians.
23:07 RazorsKiss Whether you agree with my position or not is, forgive the pun, immaterial. It is quite well-defined, nonetheless.
23:07 Celsus Christian accounts for how logic is possible is merely of this sort: Logic reflects the nature of God (how is never specified), and God is logical and rational (thereby making the account utterly question-begging).
23:07 *** Pinkster joined #choosinghats
23:07 RazorsKiss Well, I have yet to see how your lack of vision has much at all to do with our actual lack, or the lack of a lack thereof
23:07 RazorsKiss Well, there’s another interesting claim. Where have any of us said what you just outlined?
23:08 RazorsKiss Because that’s certainly not my account, or that of Van Til.
23:09 *** whatev|AFK is now known as what_ever
23:09 RazorsKiss So saying such and such Christian (the particularities being left unspecified) said X seems to be quite irrelevant, does it not?
23:09 Celsus Presuppers don’t know what an account is. Your worldview can’t account for logic. Your worldview CLAIMS (without evidence to support it) that such experiences are supernatural or infernal. See the problem? Your idea of an ‘account’ is “My religions say (fill in the blank).” That’s not an account. That’s a statement of belief. Not an account.
23:09 RazorsKiss Assertion, assertion, assertion.
23:09 RazorsKiss Shall I enumerate them for you?
23:09 Celsus Then offer your account for logic. I’m all ears
23:09 RazorsKiss It’s on the site.
23:10 RazorsKiss 1) Presuppers don’t know what an account is. <– unjustified assertion #1
23:10 RazorsKiss 2) Your worldview can’t account for logic. <– unjustified assertion #2
23:10 Celsus I explained it
23:10 RazorsKiss 3) Your worldview CLAIMS (without evidence to support it) that such experiences are supernatural or infernal. <– #3
23:10 Celsus Presuppers only give assertions. They have no justification for their core beliefs
23:11 RazorsKiss To whom? You just keep making assertions. Then, when I point out that they are mere assertions, you insist that they are explanations and/or arguments.
23:11 RazorsKiss They are nothing of the sort.
23:11 ChrisAway lol
23:11 RazorsKiss 4) Your idea of an ‘account’ is “My religions say (fill in the blank).” <– #4
23:11 RazorsKiss Now, are any of these arguments? Do they even resemble arguments?
23:12 RazorsKiss I submit to you that they a) are not and b) do not
23:12 Celsus Those are all true statements about presuppositionism. That is why it is not taken seriously in academia
23:12 RazorsKiss Now, you might be thinking of all sorts of wonderful and magical arguments concerning those
23:12 ChrisAway In a Christian worldview logic reflects the thinking of God. God is our standard for everything including reasoning itself, and God expects us to think in particular ways that may be expressed through logic. Through appealing to logic understood within the context of the Christian worldview we demonstrate that we have answers to general questions concerning universal, invariant, abstract
23:12 ChrisAway entities such as particular laws of logic like the law of non-contradiction.
23:12 ChrisAway If we are to be like God in the obligatory rather than sinful sense, then we are to have the same sort of consistency and coherence in our thought that is in God’s. We are, as the popular phrase goes, to “think God’s thoughts after Him.”
23:12 RazorsKiss Another two assertions.
23:12 ChrisAway Logic does not serve as a sort of otherworldly, divine mediator between God and the world. Rather, human logic belongs to the created order. It may be helpful to think of logic as analogous to morality (which we will discuss later). Morality is revealed with respect to the creature. Similarly, logic is normative; it is binding with respect to creaturely human thought. We may be further
23:12 ChrisAway helped through this analogy by considering logic as decreed in accordance with the nature of God as it is with moral law. God knows propositions truly such that consistency exists between them.
23:12 ChrisAway Logic is created upon the whole of the sets of relationships of the aforementioned consistency. God exists apart from His creation, and there is no inconsistency within God. Hence it is a mistake to suggest as some have that God might exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect if the law of non-contradiction is a part of the created order.
23:12 Celsus RazorsKiss, looks like Chris agrees with me
23:13 ChrisAway It follows from what we have said that logic, just like morality, is inherently personal in the Christian view. The non-Christian will no doubt cringe at the thought of having even her most abstract thoughts inextricably tied to the personal God. We may also now consider logic in another sense. Logic, like love, justice, righteousness, wrath, and all of the other attributes of God, is
23:13 ChrisAway related to God as an attribute best understood through the doctrine of Divine Simplicity.
23:13 Celsus so you are wrong
23:13 RazorsKiss lol…
23:13 ChrisAway We should nevertheless take care to draw the distinction between the thoughts of God and our own thoughts. There is a Creator/creature distinction even with respect to what we as Christians mean by logic.
23:13 RazorsKiss Wow, you read even faster than me!
23:13 ChrisAway Now that we have given a brief account of an understanding of logic from the Christian worldview, we must turn our attention back to what was supposed to be the topic of this discussion, namely, the non-Christian understanding of and justification for logic. If what we have provided above is an understanding of logic available to the Christian, then the non-Christian will, as already
23:13 ChrisAway mentioned, have an exceedingly different understanding of logic.
23:13 RazorsKiss And I read pretty stinking fast.
23:13 ChrisAway Of course we are already mistaken if we think that there will be only one different understanding of logic on the non-Christian view, for there are many different understandings of it. This point is not stated in lieu of or as constituting an argument in and of itself, but rather in order to emphasize for subsequent discussion that there is no one universally agreed upon understanding of
23:13 ChrisAway what logic is. If the non-Christian wants to reject that she has anything like logic in her worldview, t
23:13 Celsus RazorsKiss, let’s look at what I said again…[23:08] > Christian accounts for how logic is possible is merely of this sort: Logic reflects the nature of God (how is never specified), and God is logical and rational (thereby making the account utterly question-begging).
23:13 ChrisAway then we might just assume that she is saying that she does. If she wants to talk about her own view of logic, then we are on to something, for then we can begin to illustrate the impossibility of the contrary through the unbelieving rejection of the Christian worldview and its resulting problems concerning logic.
23:13 ChrisAway When we ask the non-Christian about logic then, we are not attempting to critique the non-Christian worldview through imposing our own understanding of logic upon it. We are, rather, performing an internal critique based upon the information provided by the non-Christian about this foundational feature of human reasoning and intelligibility. What is logic, and how is it justified?
23:13 ChrisAway Shall I keep going?
23:14 RazorsKiss I know what you said – and your reading of Chris seems to be akin to your reading of Hosea
23:14 ChrisAway Or is all of that just nonexistent?
23:14 ChrisAway <Celsus> But I have yet to see how presuppers can account for logic and how it is a problem for non-christians.
23:14 Celsus RazorsKiss, and it looks like Chris enjoys cut-and-paste from the Internet as well. Are you going to kick him or just be a hypocrite?
23:14 ChrisAway <Celsus> Presuppers don’t know what an account is. Your worldview can’t account for logic. Your worldview CLAIMS (without evidence to support it) that such experiences are supernatural or infernal. See the problem? Your idea of an ‘account’ is “My religions say (fill in the blank).” That’s not an account. That’s a statement of belief. Not an account.
23:14 RazorsKiss There’s a difference – he’s cut and pasting HIS OWN WORK
23:15 RazorsKiss ie: he wrote it
23:15 ChrisAway Celsus you are either a liar or ignorant.
23:15 *** MrBsPapa joined #choosinghats
23:15 RazorsKiss because I recognize the post
23:15 ChrisAway You said presuppers never provide an account of logic.
23:15 Celsus RazorsKiss, and what he wrote agrees with what I said. So you are wrong about my statemetns
23:15 RazorsKiss No, it doesn’t, Celsus.
23:15 ChrisAway There’s a whole lot more I could post.
23:15 ChrisAway Both from me and other presuppers.
23:15 Celsus ChrisAway, you offered a vicious circular account. Sorry
23:15 RazorsKiss You are just having a bout of reading comprehsension woes, apparently.
23:15 ChrisAway So I’m wondering if you’re a liar or just ignorant?
23:15 — RazorsKiss has banned *!*@pool-173-49-31-3.phlapa.fios.verizon.net
23:15 deogloria i can’t tell if celsus is being honest or being flippant, when he tells us that we haven’t accoutned for logic?
23:16 *** Celsus was kicked by RazorsKiss (Okay, at LEAST read the FAQ. Maybe once? Ever?)
23:16 ChrisAway Yeah, difficult to deal with people who just come in and pop off at the mouth.