1 / 14

The 3 Self-Evident Principles of Reason

The 3 Self-Evident Principles of Reason. Aristotle. The study of first causes. Philosophy is not investigative…not resolved on the level of sensation…it rather begins with ordinary experiences and ascends towards universal principles…

deirdra-lombard
Télécharger la présentation

The 3 Self-Evident Principles of Reason

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The 3 Self-Evident Principles of Reason Aristotle

  2. The study of first causes • Philosophy is not investigative…not resolved on the level of sensation…it rather begins with ordinary experiences and ascends towards universal principles… • Philosophical reasoning is valid through reason alone, and it reasons on the basis of universal principles to make conclusions… • Each principle is presupposed whenever we begin know anything at all…

  3. The Principle of Identity • Each being (state of being) is what it is… • Without the principle of identity one could not begin know anything as it is… • It can not be true for “what is” and “what is not” to mean the same thing… • If so, then one could not be able to distinguish between anything at all… • A carrot is a carrot, not a watermelon…

  4. Identity • If we are to deny the principle of identity then nothing would exist determinately… • Everything would be indeterminate… • If so, then nothing would be determinately known as it is, and knowledge would be impossible… • Nobody would be able to distinguish between anything determinately…and, nobody would have an opinion because knowledge would be impossible…

  5. The Principle of Non-Contradiction • Nothing can both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect… • Nothing can be both true and false at the same time… • The principle of identity and non-contradiction are related in this aspect… • If one denies the principle of identity, then one has to deny the principle of non-contradiction and vice versa…

  6. Non-Contradiction con’t • To deny the principle of non-contradiction leads to an absurd state of affairs… • Because one would have to use the principle in order to deny it…in other words, I would have to hold that denying non-contradiction is just as true as affirming it… • My denying the principle would mean nothing at all… • What would this bear upon?

  7. Non-Contradiction con’t • Example: What would you do if you look outside tomorrow morning and there was 5 feet of snow on the ground? • What would you do? Is this absurd? • Why accept these 2 principles, even if we can reason their force of necessities? • Cornerstones? • What is our education system based on?

  8. The Principle of the Excluded Middle • Either it is (has being) or it is not (has no being), there is no in between… • What could possible exist between a state of being and a state of non-being? • It is suggested that the term “becoming” is that which is in between the two states…

  9. The Principle of the Excluded Middle • This can not be true, because the term “becoming” refers to change…some existing “thing” that is changing to become something else… • The term “thing” refers to something in a state of being…..it must first “be” in order to change into something else – some other state of being • Example: a solid – to a liquid – to a gas… • What about a seed?

  10. Denying truth is Absurd • Phrases such as: “What is true for you might not be true for me”…“You have your truth, and I have mine” • Statements like these imply that truth becomes entirely subjective… • Absurd statements imply living in an absurd world…no trust, no structure…chaotic? • One must ask exactly what these statements are in reference towards…such as the debate between Adler and Russell…

  11. Absurd Living… • We have already shown that to make the statements “There is no truth” and “We hold no truth in common” are both self-refuting… • So, to continue to argue in favour of these statements is entirely absurd…because it goes against self-evident principles… • Further evidence: imagine a world where the principle of non-contradiction did not apply… • If you have a driver license it means that you’re not allowed to drive…and if you don’t have your license you may drive anything you like… • Do you actually need your license to drive?

  12. The Principle of Causality • Why are the self-evident? • The effect (on/of something) cannot be greater than the cause…nothing comes from nothing…something has to come from something else… • A thing cannot give what it does not have! • To deny this principle would imply that something comes from nothing… • Something being from a state of non-being…

  13. The Principle of Causality con’t • Example: if you pour a 5 ounce glass of water into an empty glass what would you expect? • There should be exactly 5 ounces of water or less in the empty glass…can there be 5 plus ounces of water from one glass to another… • Where did the extra water come from? • A thing can only give what it has… • To say that something has come from nothing is absurd…or that nothing is something • Theory of Evolution – Intelligent Design

  14. To Conclude… • It would be very difficult to deductively reason any ordinary experience on behalf of Logical statements without accepting these principles… • It would be an absurd and unintelligible world in which knowledge and communication would be impossible… • So we can conclude that there is truth along with universal truths that we all hold in common… • It is impossible to deny the existence of truth…

More Related