Heh, you leave a rather large relativistic domain if 'cogito ergo sum' is the only certainty. I agree that the general competing approach is the attempt to derive moral claims from 'cogito'-like premises whose logical force is hard to deny, e.g. Levinas finds a call to ethics in the alterity (= 'otherness/difference') of the other (noting, of course, that an undeniable call to being ethical differs from brute normative claims about what one ought to do). Nonetheless, I think that sensible arguments can be made to the tune that absolutes are unatainable in normative discourse.
I agree that paraconsistency is rather odd - it certainly doesn't sit well intuitively with most people (that is, unless possessed of the insight afforded by copious hallucinogens). Question: what exactly do you mean when you say that claims to contradiction are tantamount to claiming omnipotency? In particular I was wondering if you were making use of the technicality that in systems based on classical logic a true contradiction can be used to prove any sentence.
Explosion ensues. As a consequence the dinstinction between truth and falsity disintegrates and the system becomes next to useless - hence the non-tolerance of contradiction in such systems. A
paraconsistent system, however, in which the methods of deduction are modified slightly, does not have this problem.
How does contradiction emerge in option four? For example, suppose I were to say "
all statements are made in the face of uncertainty and against a background of presuppositions and biases - even this one".
Hey,
I had two philosophical questions:
1) What are your thoughts on arguments against say the classical Christian paradigm from materialistic apologetics- ie Michael Martin's "Transcendental Argument for the Non-existence of God" (TANG)? The crux of this argument is that the grounds for logic, morality and the uniformity of nature fail for presuppositionalists when they propose a non-self contained universe, subject to the ultimate (and unknowable) will of a diety.
The argument would, in its simple form, call for a materialistic universe as the only grounds for cognition and values. Primarily because:
-God could make the law of non-contradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time.
-Under this view, what is moral is a function of the arbitrary will of God; for instance, if God wills that cruelty for its own sake is good, then it is.
Note that we don’t need to say that God actually does make A be not-A, or that God actually does make gratuitous cruelty good (although one can use the Bible to prove it). Rather, the point is that such a thing is possible if a god exists. This alone is enough to deny the necessary nature of anything, and therefore to deny logic altogether – since logic is necessary. It cannot be the case that A is not-A.
If logic and uniformity of nature don't exist, then how can we know anything? Even though Ume criticised its limits, we generally gain knowledge through our capacity to use logic and to find regularity in nature – induction.
I guess in sum, an argument from this stance could follow:
Posit a cognitive feature F (examples: logic, morality, induction, etc).
1.F is necessary or has a necessary part.
2.If theism is true, then a hypothetical god is Creator (source of the entire material universe) and/or Sovereign (in control of the entire material universe).
3.If theism is true, then all in the material universe is contingent (on a hypothetical god’s will), and no part of it can be necessary.
4.If theism is true, then there is no necessary feature or necessary part of a feature in the material universe.
5.Theism is false. (from 1 and 4).
The theist could reply that while they don't personally know everything, god has reveal this knowledge to them directly (through revelation etc). However, accepting existence of god under this framework begs the question of how they know this to be true.
2) On Descarte's "I think therefore I am"- What do you make of Eckhart Tolle's criticism that this is a basic logical fallicy, since we are able to separate from our thoughts and "observe" them (Ask yourself what is my next thought going to be and then listen for it)? This is the basis of much Zen meditation- the mind itself must be separate from thought.
Tolle said:
"
The philosopher Descartes believed that he had found the most fundamental truth when he made his famous statement: "I think, therefore I am." He had, in fact, given expression to the most basic error: to equate thinking with Being and identity with thinking. The compulsive thinker, which means almost everyone, lives in a state of apparent separateness, in an insanely complex world of continuous problems and conflict, a world that reflects the ever-increasing fragmentation of the mind. Enlightenment is a state of wholeness, of being "at one" and therefore at peace. At one with life in its manifested aspect, the world, as well as with your deepest self and life unmanifested - at one with Being. Enlightenment is not only the end of suffering and of continuous conflict within and without, but also the end of the dreadful enslavement to incessant thinking. What an incredible liberation this is!
