Do you believe in the Laws of thinking?
Lets see what Plato said:
"Socrates, in a Platonic dialogue, described three principles derived from introspection. He asserted that these three axioms contradict each other."
First , that nothing can become greater or less, either in number or magnitude, while remaining equal to itself Secondly, that without addition or subtraction there is no increase or diminution of anything, but only equality Thirdly, that what was not before cannot be afterwards, without becoming and having become. Plato, Theatetus, 155
Aristotle said the following:
The three classic laws of thought are attributed to Aristotle and were foundational in scholastic logic. They are:
law of identity
law of noncontradiction
law of excluded middle
Are we bound by these laws?
Be blessed
I think we are. One must be bound by the laws. Not executing the laws is worse and dangerous in the society and one self.
Do you believe in the Laws of thinking?
Lets see what Plato said:
"Socrates, in a Platonic dialogue, described three principles derived from introspection. He asserted that these three axioms contradict each other."
First , that nothing can become greater or less, either in number or magnitude, while remaining equal to itself Secondly, that without addition or subtraction there is no increase or diminution of anything, but only equality Thirdly, that what was not before cannot be afterwards, without becoming and having become. Plato, Theatetus, 155
Aristotle said the following:
The three classic laws of thought are attributed to Aristotle and were foundational in scholastic logic. They are:
law of identity
law of noncontradiction
law of excluded middle
Are we bound by these laws?
Be blessed
The principle of sufficient reason (also called the Causal Doctrine) states that anything that happens does so for a definite reason. In virtue of which no fact can be real or no statement true unless it has sufficient reason why it should be otherwise. It is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz.
The principle has a variety of expressions, all of which are perhaps best summarized by the following:
For every entity x, if x exists, then there is a sufficient explanation why x exists.
For every event e, if e occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation why e occurs.
For every proposition p, if p is true, then there is a sufficient explanation why p is true.
I like the reasoning in thinking.
The principle of sufficient reason (also called the Causal Doctrine) states that anything that happens does so for a definite reason. In virtue of which no fact can be real or no statement true unless it has sufficient reason why it should be otherwise. It is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz.
Supposing I said there was a planet without schools or teachers, study was unknown, and yet the inhabitants - doing nothing but living and walking about - came to know all things, to carry in their minds the whole of learning: would you not think I was romancing? Well, just this, which seems so fanciful as to be nothing but the invention of a fertile imagination, is a reality. It is the child's way of learning. This is the path he follows. He learns everything without knowing he is learning it, and in doing so passes little from the unconscious to the conscious, treading always in the paths of joy and love.
Maria Montesorri, MD
You will notice that Leibniz is smart enough to talk not in absolute terms, but in terms of "sufficient" reason.Essentially he is saying nothing is fully knowable.
As for believing in the laws of thinking, believing is not in my vocabulary.And from that sage Leibniz, we can see that nothing is fully knowable, philosophically speaking, including your own existence. Here even Descartes with his "I think, therefore I am" can be mistaken to be thinking, while he is actually a thought in some deity's head.
So you can see, we cannot truly know about anything, let alone the abstact laws of thinking. We can only try to deal with the relatives, the probabilities, the "sufficient" etc.
The following two statements are contradictory"anything that happens does so for a definite reason" and "In virtue of which no fact can be real or no statement true unless it has sufficient reason why it should be otherwise"
Did you mean ...." why it should not be otherwise" alternatively "why it should be"?
If you claim to know every act has a definite reason, but cannot attribute absoluteness to the reason, can you really demonstrate that every act has a definite reason?
You will notice that Leibniz is smart enough to talk not in absolute terms, but in terms of "sufficient" reason.Essentially he is saying nothing is fully knowable.
As for believing in the laws of thinking, believing is not in my vocabulary.And from that sage Leibniz, we can see that nothing is fully knowable, philosophically speaking, including your own existence. Here even Descartes with his "I think, therefore I am" can be mistaken to be thinking, while he is actually a thought in some deity's head.
So you can see, we cannot truly know about anything, let alone the abstact laws of thinking. We can only try to deal with the relatives, the probabilities, the "sufficient" etc.
The following two statements are contradictory"anything that happens does so for a definite reason" and "In virtue of which no fact can be real or no statement true unless it has sufficient reason why it should be otherwise"
Did you mean ...." why it should not be otherwise" alternatively "why it should be"?
If you claim to know every act has a definite reason, but cannot attribute absoluteness to the reason, can you really demonstrate that every act has a definite reason?