Patrick, Peter or anybody, could you explain this a little more for me? I can understand up to item 21. But, I am unable to connect it to the next item- 22. I can't seem to grasp it. Thanks in advance.
I think this is the same person who also commented on my blog, but in case it's a different person, here's what I wrote over there:
---- Thanks for your comment, Samuel. I will probably say more on this topic in a future blog post since you raise an excellent point here! Yes, the connection between existence and logic does need to be stated since I have an implicit argument instead of an explicit one.
I will give a quick overview of how it works here though, so as not to leave you hanging in suspense, though.
The first law of logic is the Law of Identity (A is A) followed by the Law of Non-Contradiction (A is not ~A), which some people think is the first law of logic (they’re really two sides of the same coin, but for now Identity works a little easier since we don’t have to worry about the “not”s). By nature of the word “is”, Identity is dealing with existence. Of course, in the tautology, we are not told what attributes A has, but whatever attributes they are must belong to A, because they form the identity of A.
So, when we have demonstrated via perception our own existence, we have likewise said “A is A” where A corresponds to our own existence. Thus, if the rest of the argument demonstrates the necessity of self-existence because of the existence of any one thing, then because our own existence can be put into the Law of Identity as “A is A”, this means that Identity itself establishes the need for self-existence.
In other words, I should have begun something like this:
A. A is A (the given law of logic). B. Show that a particular A exists (i.e., the perception argument). C. Show since a particular A exists, self-existence is necessary (i.e., the rest of the argument).
This would demonstrate more clearly how it links back to the laws of logic.
Patrick, Peter or anybody,
ReplyDeletecould you explain this a little more for me? I can understand up to item 21. But, I am unable to connect it to the next item- 22. I can't seem to grasp it.
Thanks in advance.
I think this is the same person who also commented on my blog, but in case it's a different person, here's what I wrote over there:
ReplyDelete----
Thanks for your comment, Samuel. I will probably say more on this topic in a future blog post since you raise an excellent point here! Yes, the connection between existence and logic does need to be stated since I have an implicit argument instead of an explicit one.
I will give a quick overview of how it works here though, so as not to leave you hanging in suspense, though.
The first law of logic is the Law of Identity (A is A) followed by the Law of Non-Contradiction (A is not ~A), which some people think is the first law of logic (they’re really two sides of the same coin, but for now Identity works a little easier since we don’t have to worry about the “not”s). By nature of the word “is”, Identity is dealing with existence. Of course, in the tautology, we are not told what attributes A has, but whatever attributes they are must belong to A, because they form the identity of A.
So, when we have demonstrated via perception our own existence, we have likewise said “A is A” where A corresponds to our own existence. Thus, if the rest of the argument demonstrates the necessity of self-existence because of the existence of any one thing, then because our own existence can be put into the Law of Identity as “A is A”, this means that Identity itself establishes the need for self-existence.
In other words, I should have begun something like this:
A. A is A (the given law of logic).
B. Show that a particular A exists (i.e., the perception argument).
C. Show since a particular A exists, self-existence is necessary (i.e., the rest of the argument).
This would demonstrate more clearly how it links back to the laws of logic.