3 upvotes, 1 direct replies (showing 1)
View submission: Logic has no foundation - except in metaphysics. Hegel explains why.
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.
Comment by Sad-Welcome-8048 at 31/01/2025 at 17:23 UTC
1 upvotes, 2 direct replies
Im not talking about naturalism, Im talking about objectivity; if we can say that gravity or the electromagnetic field, forces that act on the ENTIRE universe, and those forces have a logic that can measured down to the smallest possible mote, then said logic applies to ALL scales, even human.
Yes, other things can CONFOUND that logic and make a strictly logical approach not the "most correct" (depending on societal, cultural, or interpersonal contexts), but that logic STILL has foundation and still is a constitute component of said interaction.
Hegel is basically saying, at least the way the article presents it, these confounding concepts make the underlying logic not only "incorrect" (as we defined it), but inherently contradictory/invalid on a human scale. Im saying that just because it is genuinely impossible to account for that base logic in all circumstances, its never completely or even partially invalid, no matter how much it is confounded. Because the confounding factors dont have the capacity to change the function of material reality.
Therefore, logic has a foundation, even if as individuals we cant always apply it