Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

“If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place. If you do not assume mind is primary, there is no “you” to make any argument at all.”
- William J Murray

1 posted on 01/17/2018 7:29:47 AM PST by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Heartlander

Too early inna mornin’ ferdis s**t

hahahaha


2 posted on 01/17/2018 7:34:31 AM PST by karnage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander

I’ve always thought it was a shame that Ayn Rand was not a Christian. She very much understood the importance of the law of non-contraction (”A is A”). She had a lot of good thought — but her refusal to accept religion ended up hobbling her philosophy.


3 posted on 01/17/2018 7:36:22 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (Benedict McCain is the worst traitor ever to wear the uniform of the US military.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander

Wouldn’t thinking include making conclusions? Or, consider that “cogito” could be translated “I reason” which implies the ability to come to conclusions.


7 posted on 01/17/2018 7:47:05 AM PST by Little Pig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander

keeper


8 posted on 01/17/2018 7:49:36 AM PST by reed13k
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander

Tell that to a Marxist. They will simply disagree with everything said here because, after all, the ends justifies the means, and there is no truth other than that.


9 posted on 01/17/2018 8:07:46 AM PST by Doche2X2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander

Great post!


10 posted on 01/17/2018 8:35:28 AM PST by Slyfox (Not my circus, not my monkeys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander

Bookmark


11 posted on 01/17/2018 9:00:11 AM PST by IronJack (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander

Thanks for the post, and I did enjoy the thread.

Please correct me. As I understand Descartes’ argument, I could be living in a matrix and the super intelligence is feeding me my illusions, which I think are non-contradictory and about which I have opinions, all of which are just as illusory as the illusions are. So why is there a “me” in this picture at all? Must there not first be a “me” to even observe the possibility of non-contradiction? If I must “first assume the law of non-contradiction” I must first before that, have or be an assumptimizer asumptimificating this and all other assumtimilifications. (Forgive me trying to be cute.)

I am still with Descartes and cannot see the thesis to have been proved. “Assuming non-contradiction” assumes an assumer and therefore Descartes contention is rather the more basic, and non-contradiction derived from it. Anyone help me?

-—cogito ergo sum, cogitaretur-—


12 posted on 01/17/2018 9:39:31 AM PST by BDParrish (One representative for every 30,000 persons!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Heartlander

Deshorse pulls descarte down desroade.


13 posted on 01/17/2018 9:45:07 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson