Timeline for Is there such a thing as absolute proof?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 16, 2019 at 14:56 | comment | added | user20253 | @LordHieros - It's actually even more difficult. if 'exists' means exists fundamentally then even thought may be reducible, Those who claim Mind is reducible do not reify thoughts or their objects. At any rate, it cannot be proved in logic that thinking things exist. if they did then this would prove that time exists and logic cannot do this. | |
| Mar 27, 2018 at 9:35 | comment | added | LordHieros | I agree with @labreuer, "A thinking thing exists" assumes that thoughts have to come from a thing. The only certainty is that "thoughts exist", and tha't's accepting that existing is necessary in order for something to be... Which I think is a tautology, but that's besides the point.Great answer nonetheless. | |
| Oct 25, 2013 at 1:08 | comment | added | labreuer | The question Could 'cogito ergo sum' possibly be false? puts the certainty of "That a thinking thing exists" into doubt. Would you comment? The accepted answer possible cedes the statement "there are thoughts", but that wasn't the statement under question. | |
| Sep 25, 2013 at 2:02 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Sep 25, 2013 at 4:08 | |||||
| Jan 20, 2013 at 10:32 | comment | added | danielm | Just a note (I realize this thread is more or less stale): why are we even discussing consensus? Consensus has no bearing on truth or the aim of philosophy. It's completely irrelevant and an arbiter of nothing. | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 19:04 | comment | added | Jon Ericson | I answered a related question that corresponds to your first point: philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/206/… | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 13:54 | vote | accept | John M. | ||
| Jun 8, 2011 at 1:19 | comment | added | Joseph Spiros | @boehj Well, it can go a little further: I appreciate the discussion and the time you put into it. Thank you :) | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 1:18 | comment | added | boehj | All I can say is that one can prove things using classical logic, if you first accept some axioms. This conversation can go no further I'm afraid. | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 1:13 | comment | added | Joseph Spiros | @boehj So since I can philosophize on any formal logic I like, anything that's consequential from that logic is proven in philosophy? If so, then ANYTHING, and not just any ONE thing, can be proven "in" philosophy. At which point the question about "proof" becomes meaningless. I tried to come up with an answer that actually IS an answer, rather than something that descends into insanity. Of course, it's just my opinion... :) | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 1:11 | comment | added | boehj | You're quite correct that it's not. But again I'll say: If we accept classical logic as a part of philosophy, and if we accept the axioms of the predicate calculus, then yes, we can prove things in philosophy. | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 1:08 | comment | added | Joseph Spiros | @boehj I was responding to the style of the question. The question actually was "Can you prove, absolutely, and 100% that something is true, in the field of philosophy?". 100% of philosophy is not classical logic. Classical logic is not the arbiter of absolute truth within philosophy. | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 1:05 | comment | added | boehj | The question is: "Can you prove anything in philosophy?" If we accept classical logic as a part of philosophy, and if we accept the axioms of the predicate calculus, then yes, we can prove things in philosophy. You seem to not accept classical logic as a part of philosophy on the basis that there are other logics. That's akin to saying "I don't accept Lions as a part of the animal kingdom because there are other Great Cats." | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 1:00 | comment | added | Joseph Spiros | @boehj There is no consensus on what constitutes valid "logic" in philosophy. You're relying too strongly on classical logic for your point. What about non-classical logics? | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 0:58 | comment | added | boehj | The first two paragraphs in your answer seem to admit both of the things I claim. In particular, you say "Proof is a concept in mathematics...". Proof is also a concept in logic. Are you claiming that logic is not part of philosophy? | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 0:52 | comment | added | Joseph Spiros | @boehj I have put forward my argument above. But, don't get me wrong, I appreciate your thorough response. :) | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 0:46 | comment | added | boehj | Well, then the onus is on you to put that argument forward for us to inspect. I've done my bit. | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 0:39 | comment | added | Joseph Spiros | @boehj Personally, no, but I also don't doubt that someone could deny it and come up with a decent argument for it. :) | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 0:38 | comment | added | boehj | I divided my answer into two parts. Do you deny that a thinking thing exists? | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 0:36 | comment | added | Joseph Spiros | @boehj Well, then wouldn't the answer be "yes, ANYTHING can be proven in philosophy, but not conclusively or with any consensus" ? And what's the use in that? :) | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 0:34 | comment | added | boehj | I'm not defining philosophy by classical logic. I'm answering the question, "Can anything be proved in philosophy?" In your answer you say: "Note: This answer assumes you're asking whether it is possible to prove any SINGLE thing in philosophy. If you are instead asking if it's possible to prove ANYTHING, well, that's a different question. I'm sure SOME people would say you can." That's exactly what I've done. | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 0:31 | comment | added | Joseph Spiros | You described classical logic, but philosophy is hardly defined by classical logic, given that many non-classical logics exist and their existence is inherently the result of philosophical pursuit. | |
| Jun 8, 2011 at 0:30 | history | edited | boehj | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed up an error
|
| Jun 8, 2011 at 0:15 | history | answered | boehj | CC BY-SA 3.0 |