Is there anything that logical absolutes can't be applied to? Fantasy? Delusions? Uncertainty? 

If it can't be applied to all science then it is only an absolute within the context of logic.

It's fine to say that within the circle is A and outside the circle is not A. The problem arises when you label A. I labeled A as everything, then problem.

It's the foundation of all rational thought including science.

No there isn't anything it can't be applied to. Literally everything is what it is and isn't what it isn't.

Empiricism is founded on A=A. "That which I view is that which I view" whenever viewing anything empirically.

"these are merely self-evident, basic truths"

Matt Dillahunty swings and misses. This embodies a whole bunch of nonsense about logics. If the logical absolutes are true, they are true within a certain system of logic and a certain meaning of true. That makes them relative to the specific axioms and definitions used and thereby not absolute. What he and Hammy apparently want to state is a point about ontology, that a thing either is or isn't. But logic is not ontology and mixing the two just creates a mess of hidden assumptions. This is reifying classical logic in the extreme.

Everything is whatever it is and isn't whatever it isn't regardless of if we even exist to say "everything is whatever it is and isn't whatever it isn't". Not talking about the conceptualization of logic. It is indeed an ontological fact that a thing is a thing. You're making a use/mention error if you seriously think that a thing is not a thing unless we can conceptualize it.

Doesn't matter what definition or conceptualiation of truth we use or system of logic. It doesn't change the fact that something is what it is. We don't have any meaningful definition of truth at all without A=A. If you're equivocating with meaningless definitions, that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter how you mess about with defining things... in the normal sense of true something is what it is.

The normal definition of truth is based on the logical absolutes not the other way around.

@ Jor

I mean, let's put it this way regarding your point about it not being absolutely true because there are other definitions of truth:

If we define "truth" to mean "cabbage" it doesn't make it any less true to say a thing is a thing. That the logical absolutes are absolute is not about them being unconditionally true regardless of how we define "true" it's about the fact that any meaningful sense of truth is based on the logical absolutes which self-evidently just are a reality. The problem you are having is with starting with a definition of truth before thinking about the logical absolutes... it's the other way around. You start with the fact that a thing is a thing and not a thing is not a thing and then you get to truth. The fact you can disagree and define things differently is irrelevant. Why?

Because universal =/= absolute. Doesn't matter whether people agree on how to define "truth" doesn't change the fact that all meaningful definitions of truth are based on A=A which is an absolute reality before truth can even be conceptualized meaningfully. It indeed is ontological.

I mean, you can't even have a defintiion of truth that disagrees with me until you first agree that truth=truth which proves me right.

^^^This is an example of what Matt Dilahunty meant when he said that any argument against the logical absolutes is self-defeating and affirms the truth of them.

(November 19, 2016 at 8:08 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: Because universal =/= absolute. Doesn't matter whether people agree on how to define "truth" doesn't change the fact that all meaningful definitions of truth are based on A=A which is an absolute reality before truth can even be conceptualized meaningfully. It indeed is ontological.

noun: absolute; plural noun: absolutes

1.
Philosophy
a value or principle that is regarded as universally valid or that may be viewed without relation to other things.

(November 19, 2016 at 8:08 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: I mean, you can't even have a defintiion of truth that disagrees with me until you first agree that truth=truth which proves me right.

^^^This is an example of what Matt Dilahunty meant when he said that any argument against the logical absolutes is self-defeating and affirms the truth of them.

And you and Matt are simply confusing levels. A coherentist's theory of truth need not acknowledge any such symbolic equivalence. Logics and theories of truth are not on the same level.

A coherentist's theory of truth has to assume that it's about truth. Not talking about symbols. Talking about any theory of truth has to be about truth.

It doesn't have to be about relation to other things. That's the whole point it's self-evident. It's the absolute crux of self-evidence. The fact you are experiencing what you are experiencing is A=A. "I think therefore I am" presupposes your knowing that your thinking is your thinking and your being is your being. You can't even be conscious of yourself without knowing that you're conscious of yourself, without A=A.

All theories of truth have to be about truth. Or all theories of A have to be about A. A=A.

You can't have a theory of truth without truth=truth. Not talking about symbols. I'm not talking about the word "truth". I'm talking about actual truth. Truth has to be truth.

Again, it's very simple: You can't even have a theory of truth that isn't about truth. All theories and definitions of truth presuppose truth=truth.

Denying A=A is the very definition of denying reality. Because I'm not talking about the mentioning of the symbols "A=A" I'm talking about what it represents. What it represents exists without the symbol. Something is something regardless if those words exist. You can't pretend that everything isn't what it is if we don't have labels for it. A thing is a thing regardless of if we can say "a thing is a thing".

Denying that something is something is the very definition of denying reality. Again, you don't need a symbol to represent something for that something that the symbol represents to be a reality.

(November 19, 2016 at 10:30 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: A coherentist's theory of truth has to assume that it's about truth. Not talking about symbols. Talking about any theory of truth has to be about truth.

It doesn't have to be about relation to other things. That's the whole point it's self-evident.

All theories of truth have to be about truth. Or all theories of A have to be about A. A=A.

You can't have a theory of truth without truth=truth. Not talking about symbols. I'm not talking about the word "truth". I'm talking about actual truth. Truth has to be truth.

Again, it's very simple: You can't even have a theory of truth that isn't about truth. All theories and definitions of truth presuppose truth=truth.

That has to be the most incoherent ramble I've heard in a long while.

I think Hammy has it right. We forget that labels are words FOR something. If you have two different things, you use two labels. Therefore, if A=A, that means the same label can be applied to both A values. If A!=A, that means they aren't the same. This is not a philosophical or universal truth: it's simply a definition of what labels are. And anything that doesn't match that definition-- well, it just doesn't.

I am right.

I find it rather amusingly ironic that Jor spoke of the logical absolutes only applying to one specific system of logic, and then she tried to prove by definition that they're not absolute by using one specific philosophical definition of the word "absolute" when you can't even have a proof by definition without the logical absolutes, lol.

It's all about a use mention error. "A=A" =/= A=A.

She says it's the most incoherent ramble she's heard in a while, and I am very verbose and I do repeat myself a lot. But let's take one of my paragraphs separately:

Quote:You can't have a theory of truth without truth=truth. Not talking about symbols. I'm not talking about the word "truth". I'm talking about actual truth. Truth has to be truth.

This is not "incoherent".

I don't know what you mean by it not being a universal truth though, Bennyboy. Do you mean what I was saying about the fact just because not everyone universally agrees on it doesn't stop the truth applying absolutely universally?