SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Ask John Galt...
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Father Terrence who wrote (930)1/2/1997 8:06:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly   of 4006
 
Got your shorts all in a twist, TB? You'd pick on poor old Thomas, who was doing his best with Aristotle's "proofs"? I brought up Thomas because I wanted to see if Del could handle him. Del was implying that only dopes are theists. Thomas may be wrong, but he wasn't stupid, and it requires more than empty insults to handle his arguments.

Now, start that water boiling to cook all those noodles. I'm curious: do you think a commitment to logical reasoning involves an apriori acceptance of the laws of logic, or can logic prove itself? ( I think this may be "the Transcendental Argument"). It seems to me that David Hume's scepticism demonstrates how exasperating it can be to prove concepts that we take for granted and use without question; but common agreement doesn't make induction or cause and effect any easier to prove. However if we don't accept the laws of logic on faith how can we reason at all? Can you think of a way to have logic prove itself?
S.Q.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News