9 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Logic has no foundation - except in metaphysics. Hegel explains why.
I thought it worked like this:
1. If Socrates is man, then Socrates is mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.
2. If the pizza is Hawaiian, then that pizza is an abomination. The pizza is a Hawaiian. Therefore the pizza is an abomination.
We posit that the two arguments have similar structure. We classify arguments that have this structure as valid. The justification for this classification is custom or repetition or that we have never observed an error with this type of classification.
Comment by zefciu at 31/01/2025 at 13:36 UTC
9 upvotes, 4 direct replies
The Hegel's argument could be summarized as "because we cannot prove logic itself, we need something higher". But if, like you, we understand logic as just a description of our human method of reasoning, then we don't need any metaphysical "foundation" to support it. We just describe what we do.
that we have never observed an error with this type of classification.
Playing Devil's Advocate here, but a Hegelian would probably answer "how could you know if you need logic in the first place to show this?"