RE: Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist
September 21, 2015 at 4:14 pm
(This post was last modified: September 21, 2015 at 4:44 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Logic requires both a valid form -and- sound propositions. To call something sound...we must be able to -show- that it is true. A person has no business asking another to prove the "assumption" that knowledge requires that something can be shown...while using a system that offers the promise of knowledge -if and only if- the truth of the premises can be shown. -If- it is an assumption, it is shared by all who attempt to leverage logic. Those who would doubt that, even as an assumption......don't get to play with the logic blocks and expect or claim truth (or criticize the positions of others) on that basis anymore.
Even reason requires evidence, and evidence must be.......evident, or it isn't evidence - it's something else.
Now, we can play with logic, we can arrange those blocks and allow premises -without- evidence (for sake of discussion, for example), but only as an exercise in the craft of forming arguments - it does not, at that point, have the ability to determine truth, because those stated conditions have not been met. In the end, conclusions we reach without having checked off both boxes -may be true-, but they won't be true for the reasons we've given...and so it's nonsensical to call them proven. They are simply accepted, or not.
As an example, AKD has -accepted- idealism.....in this case, however, neither of those two boxes have been checked off. While, ultimately, what AKD has accepted may be true, it isn't so for the reasons stated, and AKD has provided neither himself nor us with any knowledge on that issue. There's nothing wrong in this, of course....we operate on assumptions that either we, personally, can't prove...or that may not be provable -all day long-. We often call them axioms.
Even reason requires evidence, and evidence must be.......evident, or it isn't evidence - it's something else.
Now, we can play with logic, we can arrange those blocks and allow premises -without- evidence (for sake of discussion, for example), but only as an exercise in the craft of forming arguments - it does not, at that point, have the ability to determine truth, because those stated conditions have not been met. In the end, conclusions we reach without having checked off both boxes -may be true-, but they won't be true for the reasons we've given...and so it's nonsensical to call them proven. They are simply accepted, or not.
As an example, AKD has -accepted- idealism.....in this case, however, neither of those two boxes have been checked off. While, ultimately, what AKD has accepted may be true, it isn't so for the reasons stated, and AKD has provided neither himself nor us with any knowledge on that issue. There's nothing wrong in this, of course....we operate on assumptions that either we, personally, can't prove...or that may not be provable -all day long-. We often call them axioms.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
