A reader asks, regarding my last post: "Now, I'm no particular fan of deconstructionism, but part of your condemnation bothers me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to imply that we should never apply skepticism to first principles (or at least some subset of them). What justification do you have for this?" Sorry, but no. I did not imply that one cannot apply skepticism to first principles. First principles are statements which must be true because they cannot rationally be false. They cannot be investigated by rational deduction, because rational deduction presupposes them. They can be questioned, if at all, by induction, by seeing where and how they fit into the scheme of things. Something that purports to be a first principle, upon skeptical examination, might turn out not to be. Here is the procedure. Apply skepticism to first principles. See if a manifest absurdity results. If is does, accept the first principle as confirmed. If it does not, draw out the logical implications of the universe that would exist were that first principle not the case. If that universe matches the universe, (including the part of the universe where rational ideas live) the first principle is no longer a first principle. Examples: The first principle of objective truth: First Principle -- Truth exists. Contrary statement -- truth does not exist. No truth is true. Absurdity -- the statement that "no truth is true" if true, is false. Conclusion -- the idea of objective truth is inescapable, since we cannot articulate a logical conclusion without this principle. The principle of self-existence First Principle -- A is A. A thing is what it itself is. Contrary Statement -- A is not A. Absurdity -- If A is not A then that we can substitute any statement for the letter A. Let us substitute the statement "A is not A". If statement "A is not A" = statement not-A "A is A". Therefore the statement proves it own contradiction. If the statement is true, it is false. This reduces to the first case, the principle of truth. The principle of Free Will First Principle -- I make decisions. Contrary -- I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot. Absurdity -- if I make no decisions, I did not decide to believe the statement "I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot." If I did not decide to believe it, I did not decide to believe it on the basis of the fact that it is true. I cannot judge it to be true or false, because judgment is a type of decision. I cannot judge any statement to be true or false. Since I cannot judge any statement to be true or false, there is no truth. This reduces to the first case, etc. The principle of Honesty First Principle -- I ought to be honest Contrary -- I ought not be honest Absurdity -- If I ought not be honest, then I need not honestly address, or think about, even this question: whether I should be honest or not. I cannot trust even my own thoughts (if I am not being honest with my conclusions) and cannot conclude that any conclusion is true. Since I cannot judge any conclusion to be true or false, there is no truth. This reduces to the first case, etc. This is not what the moderns do. Their procedure is something like this: Apply skepticism to first principles. See if a manifest absurdity results. If it does, ignore the absurdity and reject the first principle. Announce this as a bold discovery. Marx concludes that there is no truth, merely the ideological superstructure (i.e. the excuses and rationalizations) of men conditioned by the means of production around them to support their selfish class interests. The , with equal absurdity, assert that there is no logic; that the principles of reasoning differ from race to race, and are genetically determined. The Determinists conclude that there is no free will. The Moral Relativists conclude that there is no moral rule saying we ought to be honest. Oddly enough, the only people out there in the world giving a philosophical and metaphysical reason for believing in truth, logic, free will, and morality are the zany atheist Objectivists and their diametric opposites, the zany theist Christians.
Sorry, but no. I did not imply that one cannot apply skepticism to first principles.
First principles are statements which must be true because they cannot rationally be false. They cannot be investigated by rational deduction, because rational deduction presupposes them. They can be questioned, if at all, by induction, by seeing where and how they fit into the scheme of things. Something that purports to be a first principle, upon skeptical examination, might turn out not to be.
Here is the procedure. Apply skepticism to first principles. See if a manifest absurdity results. If is does, accept the first principle as confirmed. If it does not, draw out the logical implications of the universe that would exist were that first principle not the case. If that universe matches the universe, (including the part of the universe where rational ideas live) the first principle is no longer a first principle.
Examples:
The first principle of objective truth: First Principle -- Truth exists. Contrary statement -- truth does not exist. No truth is true. Absurdity -- the statement that "no truth is true" if true, is false. Conclusion -- the idea of objective truth is inescapable, since we cannot articulate a logical conclusion without this principle.
The principle of self-existence First Principle -- A is A. A thing is what it itself is. Contrary Statement -- A is not A. Absurdity -- If A is not A then that we can substitute any statement for the letter A. Let us substitute the statement "A is not A". If statement "A is not A" = statement not-A "A is A". Therefore the statement proves it own contradiction. If the statement is true, it is false. This reduces to the first case, the principle of truth.
The principle of Free Will First Principle -- I make decisions. Contrary -- I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot. Absurdity -- if I make no decisions, I did not decide to believe the statement "I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot." If I did not decide to believe it, I did not decide to believe it on the basis of the fact that it is true. I cannot judge it to be true or false, because judgment is a type of decision. I cannot judge any statement to be true or false. Since I cannot judge any statement to be true or false, there is no truth. This reduces to the first case, etc.
The principle of Honesty First Principle -- I ought to be honest Contrary -- I ought not be honest Absurdity -- If I ought not be honest, then I need not honestly address, or think about, even this question: whether I should be honest or not. I cannot trust even my own thoughts (if I am not being honest with my conclusions) and cannot conclude that any conclusion is true. Since I cannot judge any conclusion to be true or false, there is no truth. This reduces to the first case, etc.
This is not what the moderns do. Their procedure is something like this: Apply skepticism to first principles. See if a manifest absurdity results. If it does, ignore the absurdity and reject the first principle. Announce this as a bold discovery. Marx concludes that there is no truth, merely the ideological superstructure (i.e. the excuses and rationalizations) of men conditioned by the means of production around them to support their selfish class interests. The , with equal absurdity, assert that there is no logic; that the principles of reasoning differ from race to race, and are genetically determined. The Determinists conclude that there is no free will. The Moral Relativists conclude that there is no moral rule saying we ought to be honest.
Oddly enough, the only people out there in the world giving a philosophical and metaphysical reason for believing in truth, logic, free will, and morality are the zany atheist Objectivists and their diametric opposites, the zany theist Christians.
Source.
To darkness I condemn you...
Oddly enough, the "zanies" are both Aristotelian (Thomists, I would assume, in the case of the Christians).
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
First Principle -- In the beginning God created heaven and earth
Contrary -- In the beginning God didn't create heaven and earth
Absurdity -- There is no God
Yeah, I don't get it.
An excellent sumations of first principles; I'd come up with all of them bar honesty. However one needs to put an empirical marker down to analyse the real world- prove not only existence exists but that I exist and hence can deduce from that ie through in ergo cogi sum and I'm a happy chappy.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
That is not the same kind of absurdity as denying the existence of truth. Re-read the post. Consider this: humans act. I argue humans do not act. Absurdity: I just acted and yet I denied that humans act. See?
-Jon
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap