RE: Necessary Truths Exist
October 31, 2013 at 12:15 pm
(This post was last modified: October 31, 2013 at 12:39 pm by MindForgedManacle.)
(October 31, 2013 at 9:07 am)Rational AKD Wrote: I didn't base the argument off the PSR, but rather my own reasoning. I suppose P2 would presuppose the PSR, but the conclusion is nothing within the PSR.
The reason I assumed this was basically just using the PSR is because this looks exactly like other theistic arguments from contingency. But as you admit P2 assumes the PSR, you have to answer the challenges to it, otherwise the argument is unsound.
Quote:what I meant by reality was physical reality, or perhaps more accurate, contingent reality. by the fact that it is necessary, it transcends all contingent truths meaning it is not affected by or a part of contingent truths.
Which means your argument is a circular argument and thus is invalid and unsound. If you say thay by reality you mean "physical, contingent reality" (how you can arbitrarily divide reality like that I'll never know), you necessarily assume there is something transcendent in one of your premises, meaning you're assuming what you're supposed to be concluding.
Quote:this is not the definition I'm using when I say truth. the standard definition i'm using is "Conformity to fact or actuality." meaning truth is what is actually reflective of reality, which is separate from the perception of reality.
Er, that's exactly what I said. What you're referring to is what is known as the Correspondence theory of truth, which is exactly what I brought up.
Quote:I would agree that these truths are necessary. and by what I mean by transcendent, I would say they transcend reality.
Which is entirely wrong and a confused view. You didn't even argue for why these are "transcendent" truths, you're just asserting they are. Unlike you, I've already given an account of those necessary truths and why they aren't transcendent. Seeing as I've done so in my last post (the part which you didn't address), I again can say your argument is unsound.
Quote:this is really an argument rather than a necessary truth. it is contingent upon the "I doubt" part. though you may know this to be true, it is not necessarily true. it's contingent upon your existence which is also contingent.
It's actually not an argument. Rathet, it's a demonstration that everything I say or think necessarily presupposes my existence as a thing that thinks. The fact that I think is an incorrigible truth, and thus cannot be false. The rest follows necessarily.
Quote:what you say here seems to contradict. you first say they are "necessary features of language and thought" but then say they're rooted in reality. if they're entailed by features of language and thought, then they would be contingent upon our existence. but if they're rooted in reality, then they're true regardless of whether we exist or not. so that means they must be something other than necessary features of thought (or features of thought and something else), or they couldn't be true regardless of whether we exist or not.
Er, are you denying that our existence and language is part of reality? I didn't say they're (the laws) rooted in reality, other than in our language and thought, hence why they're called the laws of thought. They attest themselves to be true, because language necessitates such before any communication, thought and/or symbology can get off the ground.
These truths ONLY exist if there are minds to apprehend them. They are both necessarily true, yet contingent on minds because truth only exists of there are minds in the first place. They are very much like Descartes cogito in that way: necessary, immanent truths that are nonetheless contingent on the existence of at least one mind to realize their inherent, inescapable truth.
