2 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Logic has no foundation - except in metaphysics. Hegel explains why.
"Also the comment you replied to was downvoted because it’s asserting (just asserting, not with an argument) that logic’s scientific application to physical reality somehow dismisses the broader philosophical matter of justifying logic.**"**
Because the assertion that material reality is the ultimate universal axiom is a wildly held view (and is the basis for the concept of science), and will always supersede any other interpretation in the hierarchy of reality.
So if logic applies to the most fundamental aspects of the only truly objective things in the universe, then it has a foundation, a very solid one at that.
Theory without practice is mere intellectual play, and thinking that logic has no basis in philosophy or human thought, despite both of those things being influenced by metaphysics, is a perfect example of applying theory without considering the actual validity of that application to, well, anyone's life.
Comment by Bruhmoment151 at 31/01/2025 at 17:14 UTC*
5 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Naturalism may be the most widely accepted worldview but that doesn’t mean it should just be asserted without engaging with the criticism you’re responding to.
My point here isn’t even that naturalism is wrong. My point is that you’re not engaging with the serious matters of debate in the philosophy of logic, you’re just asserting naturalism.
You don’t have to deny the relevance of physical reality to avoid assuming naturalism, you just need to recognise that you’re going to have to engage with critics of naturalism to make your claims anything more than an assertion.
I would, in the general sense, consider myself a naturalist so please don’t assume I’m criticising because I’m opposed to naturalism.
Edit: Material reality being the ‘ultimate universal axiom’ is not the basis for science. Science is simply rooted in the belief that material reality can be understood through application of the scientific method - something else could turn out to be the ‘ultimate universal axiom’ and science would largely be unscathed. I’m nitpicking a bit here but I feel it’s important to mention anyway.