That is, if we agree that it is illogical to assume an answer in order to argue that answer (hence, circular logic), then isn't the use of logic (as a system of thought) itself inherently illogical?
Any argument for the use of logic would have to be inherently illogical (since the use of logic in such an argument would assume that which is being argued), and as such once the use of logic was argued for successfully, logic would demand its own supporting arguments be rejected on the grounds that they are illogical. Furthermore, if our very use of logic as a system of thought and a means of measuring the validity of other arguments is itself inherently illogically, isn’t it then possible that there are other fundamental truths to the universe that also can only be arrived at through illogical means?
2006-10-30
09:24:39
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Thought
6