UNDOUBTEDLY!!!

Source and proof? I doubt it...

All philosophers adhere to the Prime Triadic Axioms whether they know it or not. They contradict themselves in not admitting to these axioms and further philosophical arguments occurs from these original arguments to further define them while resulting in a circularity between the schools of thoughts.

Where one argument fails another argument maintains it and defines it while seamingly antithetical, they synthesis new schools in the process.

Why are we still arguing? I may not know every philosopher but I know with certitude that every field of knowledge is based upon premises which do not contradict those laws.

Now, unless you're going to provide proof and prove me wrong, I suggest we end this right here. You can have the last word if you wish.

Yes I will have the last word, thank you, considering the nature of proof:

Proof?

Taking it an authoritative statement is a fallacy according to the standard laws of logic. — eodnhoj7

So following the laws of logic is a fallacy according to the laws of logic, and logic is illogical?

I presented what the laws of logic really are above, read it, then pose the question again if you wish.

You said, taking a law of logic (the law of identity) as an authoritative statement is a fallacy according to the laws of logic. So I assume that taking any laws of logic as authoritative is fallacious, and logic is illogical. Isn't that what you are arguing?

Of course, if you do not accept the laws of logic then for you, everything is illogical.

Fallacious to their own framework only. So the above represents a new framework.

OK, that makes sense, your intent is to replace the existing logical framework with a new one. That explains why everything you say appears to be so illogical, it really is.

The frameworks fails on there own terms, however not relative to the above framework presented.

To reject the principles of logic is to be illogical. If your framework rejects logic as a failure, then naturally your framework is illogical.

It does not reject them, it rather observes these laws on there own terms contradict themselves outside this framework. The framework is self maintained and these laws exist as extensions of these 3 laws but the three laws are not limited to these laws of logic.

This is a very interesting argument. Please allow me to share my opinion.

The two sides of the argument use different meanings for the terms logic, axioms, subjective, among others.
From what 'eodnhoj7' states, he is right, in that, all statements must be fallacious because the logic he follows claims all logic (including his) is subjective and therefore subject to fallacy. In that way he proves his own fallacy.

On the other side, 'BrianW' and 'Metaphysician Undercover', must be right by their own logic because they follow from the laws of logic which they use.

In conclusion, there should be no argument once you discover there is no agreement in the terminology used because there is no consensus in understanding. Otherwise there is no end to this type of argument.

Thanks guys.

Actually Cleopatra you are really close.

All logic is subjective, but what determines logic as objective is the replication of subjectivity into both form and function. This is considering the subjective state is without form or function, it is inherently void.

Any thought or feeling I may have becomes objective when replicated. This replication is form and function. I may have x feeling. It becomes objective when that feeling replicates itself. It becomes further objective when a thought is connected through it where the thought replicates with it.

This in turn becomes more objective when a word or action is attached. Which becomes more objective when other people replicate this word or action...etc. Objectivity is the repitition of anything into a structure, where this structure is determined by symmetry as the replication of common limits.

This repitition of common limits observes a form of unity considering the limit as replicated is funda,mentally the same thing existing through itself. Objectivity as structure is unity.

Now all objective reality as in turn processed through a formless subjective nature that is essentially void. An example of the void nature of subjectivity can be observed in a self centered person referenced as "empty", "soulless", "hungry for more" etc, which in turn results in a selfish person generally causing chaos relative to the natural order.

This subjective nature, inherent within all of us, interprets an objective statement in a different manner from others. This causes a distortion in not just unity but objectivity. Hence the structure exists through a subjective interpretation with this subjective interpretation inverting it into a new one and causing a new objective phenomenon to take hold and exist.

So all logic has a dual subjective and objective nature under "self-evidence" with the word "axiom" being a singular word for these plural definitions. "Self" in turn cycles to an axiom as well as "evidence", and we see a progression of axioms from here.

All observable phenomenon are axioms, with non observable phenomena observed by there absence of observbility as axioms as well. Everything is an axiom.

Now, to shorten the overly long post, the nature of standard logic is dependent upon a strict linear form of reasoning. One thing is directed towards another then the next, etc.

If one fallacy is directed towards another fallacy then the fallacy cancels itself out. If the fallacy is applied to a law of logic, then the law of logic is canceled out.

The problem occurs that in canceling out the fallacies through fallacies we are left with truth statements. If I cancel out the fallacy of authority because of bandwagon, then "authority" is left as a truth statement and foundation for logic. So the fallacies negate themselves into truth statements and we are left with truths.

Now this changes when we apply these fallacies to the standard laws (Principle of Identity, etc.). They fall apart under these fallacies. However the question is do they fall apart on there own?

What I am arguing is that the standard laws, as directed through eachother lead to contradiction. P=P requires -P=-P to exist if P cannot equal -P. So -P exists through P=P and inherently defines it. The problem occurs is that while P and -P are defined, "=" is not and is subject to belief. Hence the argument above about the triadic nature of the law of identity. "=" is defined and not limited to strict belief.

If however they are to be taken on belief, then they are not really logical and set the premise for complete subjectivity. These laws failing to take in the subjective nature in turn lack objectivity considering these "objective" statements as observed above are interpreted subjectively.

"All statements are subjective" is both a subjective and objective statement where this dualism is unified under the word "axiom".

Now the question occurs as to the nature of these axioms, and the prime triadic laws of the axiom covers that.



In short terms I am arguing there logic is contradictory because it must progress, but if it progresses than the laws as foundations become void. They must be self-referential if they are to maintain themselves and they are not. The 3 Laws I argue are self referential and allow for the base laws of logic to exist. But the base laws contradict themselves on their own terms and can only exist if contained in a greater system.

On second thought you can ignore the above if you wish and focus on the below:

"This statement is false" is a paradox. If the statement is false it must be continually argued as such, hence the argument exists as a continuum. The same is applied if it is true.

All standard logic leads to paradox, hence all logic as axiomatic is a continuum. It progresses or regresses with this progress/regress observing the axiom as directed movement through a linear form and function.

This progression of one axiom to another, past is origins, observes a state of seperation. The statement italicized above separates into a further statement and so on and so forth.

However considering the new statement, if premised as the beginning point of the argument is directed to the italicized one we can observe a different nature of progression.

If both statements are viewed as starting points we can observe them as circular.

Hence all axioms are linear and circular directed movement with the axiom as both a linear and circular directed movement existing as a point of origin.

What I am arguing is that all axioms exist as a point of origin, linear progression and circularity and the foundation of logic are founded in directed movement which exists in axioms of geometry. Axioms are premised in geometry, as all axioms are C ontinuums.

Logic, math, science, religion, psychology are all interconnected under key universal principles.

What I am arguing is that the standard laws, as directed through eachother lead to contradiction. P=P requires -P=-P to exist if P cannot equal -P. So -P exists through P=P and inherently defines it. — eodnhoj7

There is nothing about P=P which requires -P, or implies the existence of -P whatsoever. This is your false assumption.

Brian says they collaborate.

Sure, -P=-P is consistent with P=P, and it may be argued that -P=-P follows logically from P=P if P=P represents the law of identity, because -P=-P could also represent the law of identity. But in no way does P=P require the existence of -P, or imply the existence of -P.

You have things reversed, -P=-P may follow from P=P (as the law of identity), but P=P does not require -P at all. P=P means simply P=P, it says nothing about -P and does not require -P.

-P requires the existence of P=P.

P=P requires P cannot equal -P considering "equal" and "not equal" are not defined except through there relations.

Considering "=" is defined in accords to (P,P) equality effectively is defined as "(=)P(=)" where it exists if and only of there is P.

"Equality" is not defined in the above axioms hence "non equality" through the principle of non contradiction is needed to prove the principle of identity.

P=P requires P cannot equal -P considering "equal" and "not equal" are not defined except through there relations. — eodnhoj7

No, this is incorrect. P=P leads to the conclusion of P cannot equal -P, it does not require it. Do you see the difference? We can say whatever we want about P, and this says nothing about -P, nor does it in any way require a -P. It only says stuff about P. However, by saying things about P we can draw conclusions about -P through the law of non-contradiction.

Considering "=" is defined in accords to (P,P) equality effectively is defined as "(=)P(=)" where it exists if and only of there is P. — eodnhoj7

As I told you already "=" in the law of identity signifies "is the same as". So what "=" indicates is that P is defined by P, P is the same as P. To understand "is the same as" does not require turning to "is not the same as", though understanding "is the same as" is prior to, and prepares one for an understanding of "is not the same as". One is the negation of the other, and negation can only follow after affirmation.

..

Actually the law of identity leading to the law of non contradiction, and vice versa observes them as connected and required to defined eachother.

They collaborate, and Brian agrees to this fact of "collaboration" if you look at the above posts.

Equality is not defined in the law of identity except as a middle term. The middle term of "not equal to" is needed to defined the law of identity considering both "equality" and "not equal" require definition.

P and -P are defined by there realtions in the respective laws, but equality and not equality are not unless the laws defined eachother.

Negation can result in affirmation. To argue the law of non contradiction first is to lead to the nature of identity. Noncontraction leads to identity for an absence of contradiction is structure.


You cannot apply "is the same as" and "equal" without leading to the fallacy of equivocation.

Sorry eodnhoj7 but I believe in the laws of logic in the way they are understood in philosophy. Because you seem to contradict them I cannot agree with you. I don't have better arguments than those already given so I will stick to what I know and understand, if yours works for you then it's also ok. Perhaps there is meant to be many paths to the same end.

Please don't misquote me. I said the three laws inference each other. This means that each of the three laws reach the same conclusion and therefore point to each other as correspondences.

And that is my point, they are strictly belief, hence contradictory. It is a religious dogma...Hence those with the most force win and you subscribe to a force of the will.

If there are many paths to the same end, then by default I do not not contradict them considering all paths are correct by your logic.

I am not contradicting them, as the principle of Identity I argue contains these laws as foundations.

P(p)P observes (p) as "equal", "is", "same as" and eliminates any problem of equivocation the standard laws are subject too.

The fallacies can be applied to eachother, and the laws of logic are incomplete.

Actually the law of identity leading to the law of non contradiction, and vice versa observes them as connected and required to defined eachother. — eodnhoj7

The law of identity leads to the law of non-contradiction, and not vise versa. It's a one way street, like the law of non-contradiction leads to the law of exclude middle and not vise versa. As proof, consider starting with the law of excluded middle, and you'll see that it's nonsense without the law of non-contradiction. It doesn't make any sense because it requires the law of non-contradiction to establish a relation between is and is not. However, we can establish the relation between is and is not, without the law of non-contradiction, because one follows the other and not vise versa. Likewise, the law of non-contradiction makes no sense without the law of identity, but the law of identity makes sense without the law of non-contradiction. One follows from the other, but not vise versa,

They collaborate, and Brian agrees to this fact of "collaboration" if you look at the above posts. — eodnhoj7

No. Brian said:

The three laws of logic, as are commonly known, are corollaries of each other:
1. The Law of Identity.
2. The Law of Non-contradiction.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle.

By corollary is meant, each law naturally inferences the other. — BrianW

Notice how the inference goes one way. Law #3 requires #2 which requires #1. But the inverse is not true, while #3 clarifies or expounds on #2 which clarifies and expounds on #1.

your are right "collerates as infer".

If each of the same laws reach the same conclusion are they connected by the conclusion?

As I have said, their connection or relation is that of correspondence, not whatever meaning you want to attach to it.

yeah a corellary,

On iPad, but looking it up on Google (will post defintion site), it observes "a proposition following from one already proved."

So one law leads to another.

If he wants to use infer, then we are left with " to deduce or conclude" which means one is deduced to another.

One progresses to another.

My point is made.

My point is made. — eodnhoj7

You mean my point is made. And yours is disproven.

"A close similarity, connection or equivalence" is the definition. So you are arguing they are connected. This is just sophistry you are using as you are attaching your own meaning.

I will make it simple

1. Equality is not defined in the laws without the laws being connected.
2. The fallacies can be applied on eachother.
3. The laws are incomplete and the fallacies lead to truth statements.