Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
2. If human reason came from non-reason it would lose all rational credentials and would cease to be reason. 3. So, human reason cannot come from non-reason (from 2). 4. So human reason must come from a source outside nature that is itself rational (from 1 and 3). 5.
The Stoics believed that the universe operated according to reason, i.e. by a God which is immersed in nature itself. [4] Logic (logike) was the part of philosophy which examined reason (logos). [5] To achieve a happy life—a life worth living—requires logical thought. [4] The Stoics held that an understanding of ethics was impossible ...
[2] The indispensability argument differs from other arguments for platonism because it only argues for belief in the parts of mathematics that are indispensable to science. It does not necessarily justify belief in the most abstract parts of set theory, which Quine called "mathematical recreation … without ontological rights". [21]
[18] [17] [1] [3] Another way to define logic is as the study of logical truth. [5] Logical truth is a special form of truth since it does not depend on how things are, i.e. on which possible world is actual. Instead, a logically true proposition is true in all possible worlds. [5] Their truth is based solely on the meanings of the terms they ...
An argument is a series of sentences, statements, or propositions some of which are called premises and one is the conclusion. [1] The purpose of an argument is to give reasons for one's conclusion via justification, explanation, and/or persuasion.
This is also why Aquinas rejected that reason can prove the universe must have had a beginning in time; for all he knows and can demonstrate the universe could have been 'created from eternity' by the eternal God. [12] He accepts the biblical doctrine of creation as a truth of faith, not reason. [8]
A transcendental argument is a kind of deductive argument that appeals to the necessary conditions that make experience and knowledge possible. [1] [2] Transcendental arguments may have additional standards of justification which are more demanding than those of traditional deductive arguments. [3]
The corresponding conditional of a valid argument is a logical truth and the negation of its corresponding conditional is a contradiction. The conclusion is a necessary consequence of its premises. An argument that is not valid is said to be "invalid". An example of a valid (and sound) argument is given by the following well-known syllogism: