Hi Craig --
[Ham, previously]: Logic defines the truth or falsity of fundamental principles that can be inferred from demonstrated experience... But the principles themselves are conceptual inferences drawn from experience.
[Craig]:
This seems backwards to me. Take the Law of the Excluded Middle: p or not-p (e.g., 'it is raining' or 'it is not raining'.) It not like we experience rain, then no rain, then rain, then no rain, but never anything else, so conclude that it must be raining or not raining. Rather logic is imposed on our experience of rain & no rain in order to make sense of it.
Right, it could be snowing or haling or fogging up. But the validity of a proposition is binary: it's either true or false. I assume that's what your example demonstrates. It's the "backwards" objection that has me puzzled. My guess is that you view a principle as a universal truth, whereas I see it as an intellectual construct. That is, WE impose our intellect on experience in order to make logical sense of it (as in a working principle). But before this, we impose "being" on Value to experience it, so that we have a relational existent from which to draw logical conclusions. Our intellectualizing of experience follows our "objectivization" of it.
Does that make sense to you? --Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
