[sim (OP)]

Every one on here debates using Aristotelian logic, but if this logic is not a criteria for truth then their arguments are nonsense ie  maths and science

The limitations of Aristotelian logic The end of Aristotelian logic. Logic/ essence and language leads to the meaninglessness of all views
http://gamahucherpress.yellowgum.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/logiccentrismbook.pdf


ESSENCE THE METAPHYSICAL GROUND OF LOGIC AND LANGUAGE:
A REASON FOR THE BANKRUPTCY OF LOGIC
THE STULTIFICATION OF REASON AND
THE MEANINGLESSNESS OF ALL VIEWS

Note

There are three laws that are essential to Aristotelian logic: the law of identity ‘A = A’; the law of self-contradiction ‘not p and not-p’; the law of the excluded middle ‘p or not-p’.

note

Gibson claims that of the three laws the law of identity is the more fundamental as it is implied in any proposition and presupposed by the law of non-contradiction. As Gibson notes “… the principle of identity is logically the more fundamental. It is implied in the stating of a proposition and is therefore presupposed in the very enunciation of the principle of non-contradiction.”

The law of identity requires an essence

As Aristotle noted without an essence, or ‘identity’ ontological, or nominal i.e. definitional, the law of self-contradiction is useless. If the law of self-contradiction is useless then our logic breaks down and becomes useless as an epistemic condition of truth

But

Thus as O’ Hear notes, logic is not ontologically neutral it implies an ontology. Again as he notes “[l]ogic, indeed is not metaphysically neutral but may well reveal the types of things various forms of thought and argument commit us to.” Putnam similarly claims that logic derives from metaphysics the belief in substances. As he notes, “[w]e get at the very beginning of logic, a metaphysics accompanying it and conditioning it

Putnam claims that if “the metaphysical picture that grew up with and conditioned classical logic is wrong, then some of the tautologies of classical logic may have to be given up

But

If there is no essence then logic ends in contradiction and has no validity as the law of contradiction is made null and void

Thus if the anti-essentialists are right then logic become useless since there is no essence for the law of self-contradiction to work. The only way that logic could be an epistemic condition of truth is that it does not break down, and for this to be, there must be an ontological or a nominal definitional one. The problem with this consequence is that the notion of essence reduces to absurdity.

Thus if the anti-essentialists are correct in their logic- then there is a  performative paradox

but

If there is no essence then logic ends in contradiction and has no validity as the law of contradiction is made null and void-and all the armaments on this forum: science philosophy etc are nonsense - of no truth value at all

[Bored chemist]

Every one on here debates using Aristotelian logic, but if this logic is not a criteria for truth then their arguments are nonsense ie  maths and science

Including yours- so I didn't read it.

[opportunity]

Who could argue against science being philosophical logic scoring points with what can be proven?

[opportunity]

Can anyone name how science has changed, BC to AD, based on philosophy. The condition of science has always existed as a fundamental process of questioning what one is aware of and how that can be measured and utilised.

[opportunity]

At the time of Jesus, Rome was ruling the world with logic. It was a "stalemate" of development. No one now realises how important the idea of something that couldn't be explained with science was back then.

[opportunity]

The idea of the "light shining in the darkness" wasn't heard of until "John" in witness of Christ.....and yet today its such a daa,...yea, light shines in the darkness. Yet in Roman times those words weren't evident.....it took someone so lost to see a light of logic to consider that as a truth that could then be applied to science....eventually. Is that not a fact of history as recorded, and if not, why was that story made-up.....as a need to?

[opportunity]

Can anyone guess what the next step of scientific logic will be in the 1000 years ahead?


A step beyond Rome, a step beyond Christ, a step beyond both? As a "logic" according to a situation we cant explain and must apply new reason to?

[opportunity]

We are not believing in en-mass in-situ belief constructing.....or are we? That's no surprise. That's a manufactured "crisis" that requires a swift basis of proof of logic.

[opportunity]

It makes us wonder whether all the great philosophical insights had prescience.....a structure of thought that ultimately  guided our development.

[opportunity]

In times ahead, beyond our current logic, if there is a God, can there be a time to ask that God what has gone wrong, or praise that God with what has gone right, or just dispel the idea of God and carry on despite what comes? What's most likely for a public forum? A continued need to explain everything, why no one that can be trusted can fix things....while trying to explain our purpose in a reality that may as well be a stage for actors convincing others what they are capable of emotionally?


The bankruptcy of logic.....it sounds like a false prophet.

[opportunity]

Its not too difficult to structure the awakening ahead......its a solution to everything we've been lying about.....across the board.....delicately put though for the delicate enough, and strong enough for those to know the ground they stand on.

[opportunity]

That's planet earth either trying to survive or just die.....is it alive or dead....does it defend itself.....is the idea of a macrocosm social structure complete hogwash?


Will the poets of the future laud the ability of science to be alerted to a dead planet?

[opportunity]

The Planet doesn't laud anything....and so when we as a social structure designs its surface, we probably need an escape plan, right?

[opportunity]

(that comment so dumb..right)


Ok.

How long before we symbiotically wipe our hands clean here of eco-disaster if the planet we live on doesn't respond?


We need to go to a planet that is growing, right?

[opportunity]

Is that a new philosophy? A new logic that perhaps won't need the idea of money for some time?

[opportunity]

Tracing money back.....its so dumb....its a hope in a future that really has no relevance in the future other than sentimental value.


We build what we have as houses and fortifications....that should be a life and not something to be sold.....well, obviously its not....planet dies....doesn't know where it is.

[opportunity]

Imagine a couple of you think you have everything, you know how the world works.

Imagine how stupid that is a concept...if you fail to realise the damage being done to nature to make you great in the social eyes of others?

[opportunity]

Imagine if your self-stuff just makes everyone think the planet isn't worth saving compared to you.....and so they just chop down everything to be like you?

Is that your fault?

[opportunity]

If you are being accused of destroying the planet, where are your  ideals headed?


Creating a better planet? Or just proving its possible to survive in space?

[David Cooper]

Logic is mathematics, so be aware of what you're unwittingly throwing out. John is in the kitchen. John is not in the kitchen. Those two ideas are incompatible with each other - they contradict. John has no more than two legs. John has three legs. These two ideas are likewise in contradiction with each other. 2 = 3. That's the same contradiction in something that's much more obviously within the domain of maths, but it's all maths.