(October 8, 2010 at 2:37 am)blood_pardon Wrote: I want to talk about conceptual realities. I mean to say perfect statements that exist only in the mind but are not dependent on the mind to be true.'Accounting for rationality'? A thing that did not cohere to the laws of logic wouldn't exist, saying something exists and that it is logical is redundant. Or, to put it the way Wittgenstein would, anything that was not consistent would not be a thought; anything that was not material and non-contradictory in its composition would not be real, would not be part of reality. Like God, for instance.
For example:
1. The Law of Identity states an object is the same as itself. A = A
2. .The Law of Excluded Middle says a statement is either true or its negation is.
3. The Law of Non-Contradiction states that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true.
These laws are true whether a person agrees or disagrees, they do not change, and they are not dependent on space or time. If they did then there would be no basis for rationality at all.
So how do atheists account for truth?
Your whole premise of asking for logic to account for itself is absurd, this is what logic is.
"Philosophy would do well to desist from issuing any further injunctions about the need to re-establish the meaningfulness of existence, the purposefulness of life, or mend the shattered concord between man and nature. It should strive to be more than a sop to the pathetic twinge of human self-esteem. Nihilism is not an existential quandary but a speculative opportunity." - Ray Brassier
My Blog, Nazis are Sexy
My Blog, Nazis are Sexy
