Hypothesis
(Add to the history is experience of itself, the end is found at the beginning) The specialized sciences start from the position that all the conditions of the fact are already present and the business of knowledge is to confirm the fact by focusing on the validity of each condition. The problem is, each condition is provided from some ground, which is not supposed to be addressed as related to the deriving of the fact; because it is assumed that the origin is besides the fact, if the fact is already present for consideration. For example if there is an object confronting your vision, the reason why it got there is irrelevant if it is already there. This vulgar pragmatic approach makes the reasons why something exists and the fact that it exists into different and separate matters. But these are just abstractions taken from the fluidity of the same event. From a purely practical standpoint asking why something is there that is already there is redundant if there is an issue that directly needs attention. For example a doctor working at the emergency room will not first ask why the person is bleeding but will attempt to stop the bleeding immediately. Later on for the sake of longevity, the doctor will ask for the reasons why the bleeding happened, whether it is caused internally by the bodies own doing, or is caused by some external reasons, both require entirely different treatments.
Logic is practical when applied to a topic outside itself but it is theoretical when applied to itself. Logic is inherently abstract, this means that if we apply logic to logic, than we would not be confronted with anything given in itself like an object would be given to perception. Logic initially presents an uncertainty for the mind and therefore the reasons why something is present in the first place is the very initial topic that logic begins with because this it takes to be the initial variation from which all other variations can be derived from.
Logic is fundamentally ontological and a certain worldview must be adapted first, and not last, to direct the thinking towards some end, determines it this way or that way. A worldview in the ontological sense is not a readapted cultural aphorisms or religions, but is rather a natural critical prejudice the individual has against something in his reality, whether that be culture or the human mind itself. Logic begins off as assuming that it is capable of critical reasoning meaning that it can disapprove things generally taken to be true because even if they are, logic cannot just accept them as so, but must show the reasons why because these reasons are why something can be considered rational in the first place. And with this assumption it begins off reasoning about what it means to be reasonable.
Logic is the activity of considering all routes of possibility for thinking and therefore it is the only ontology that cannot be merely handed over by tradition or culture as a ready made ideology or system of thought because part of its very nature involves that it has to be exercised and active against itself as a pre-given static system. Logic can never be handed over as a text book pamphlet of laws and rules, because to receive these requires the exercise of dissecting them and breaking them down as distinct components of the same undifferentiated motion of an activity.
Even though logic consists of universal and objective rules of thinking, these are only true in being activated and exercised by the employment of the natural ability of reasoning itself the individual is originally given by nature. If logic is the consideration of all possible routes of thought, it cannot be given those possibilities all at once as a command because than the logical nature of that would be questioned by logic. In other word, logic is a fundamentally self-contradicting mechanism and that is what makes it natural, I.e., it has it self as its own means for self-contradiction and self-correction.
Whatever exists is what is readily available The ontology of the materialistic science adapts an incomplete version of the principle of logic as the methodology of viewing nature. They maintain that whatever exists, is what is readily available for observation, or that what you begin with contains all the material needed to understand anything in the world. This is a misuse of the principle of logic which states that, all the content for thought is contained in thought itself, you do not need to look further outside of thought to find the subject matter for thought.
In the case of observing physical phenomenon, the rationalist philosophers have shown that whatever you observe does not contain all the material needed to understand the physical phenomena because the matter does not include the initial reason of how the object originated into being. For example, looking at an apple does not explain how it grew to the form it is exhibiting at the present moment. While on the other hand thought includes all the material needed to understand anything because that is the very mechanism that identifies the reasons of how something came into being. It is a necessary assumption that how something comes into being is one variable part of the full material making up the understanding of it.
They begin off with the physical objects observable to the senses and say that all you need to know about the world is readily available in the matter of the world, they just have to be discovered. And that thought being an aspect of this material world, has its content in objects outside itself because it is inherently empty and void of the content that is needed from the outside to fill it in. However the other aspect of the principle of logic they ignore and dismiss is that in order for all the content to be included within the same principle itself, the principle is only a principle because it can describe the origination and how the content came out to be in the first place.
And so in logic, or the origination of thought, which has no principle that caused it, other than itself, can be used as the causing principle of matter, which can be caused by something other than itself, or even if it is caused by itself, i.e., matter begets matter, it is only caused by itself as something other, which again is a principle of logic. ‘Caused by itself as something other’ means that what we classify under the general term “matter” are things that only share in the commonality of being different from each other, they are all an “other” to each other. Have you seen a material object that looks identical to another ? The mathematical answer is that there are no two identical entities in nature. This fact is derived from the observation abstracted from things which shows an asymmetrical aspect in all finite things, or a finite conception of all things. For example a curve is the boundary of any point. This simple observation is the law for all asymmetrical objects in the universe. The hypothesis is a basis for reasoning without any assumption for certainty of achieving truth. A hypothesis is a belief in reasoning that if a certain kind of speculation is carried through into action that will result in some kind of answer that confirms the original concern. This involves the intent behind the hypothesis, why is the hypothesis purported? The specialized sciences take the ontological ground as the hypothesis without belief of its speculation because the aim of the fact brought to thought is to disapprove its hypothesis. The empirical sciences make the aim of thought to disapprove the object by assuming the observation of element will disapprove the speculation about it. This implies that everything is outside of thought such that there is no such thing as, self-thought, independent from the extrapolation of what is brought for thought, but thought is made into something outside the thinking about what is being perceived. Demonstration- to “prove”
(Hegel logic 4;19;03) In philosophy, to “prove” means to show how the proof is found in the speculation, or how the subject by and from itself makes itself what it is. In other words, the ingredients of knowing something is found in the very same thing that is unknown, or begins as unknowing and than comes to know.
Hegel explains that
“in philosophy, “proving” amounts to exhibiting how the ob-ject makes itself what it is through and of itself.-[…] [truth comes only with the notion] Only the Concept is what is true, and, more precisely, it is the truth of Being and of Essence. [both of which when separately maintained in their isolation cannot but be untrue.] Being because it is still only what is immediate, and Essence because it is still only what is mediated. At this point, we could at once raise the question why, if that is the case, we should begin with what is untrue and why we do not straightaway begin with what is true. [To which we answer that “truth”, to deserve the name, must authenticate its own truth.] The answer is that the truth must, precisely as such, validate itself and here, within logical thinking itself, validation consists in the Concept’s showing itself to be what is mediated through and with itself, so that it shows itself to be at the same time the genuinely immediate.” (134)
-to make “valid”
Validity is being true at one time, conclusion follows from the premises, and “sound” is being true consistently To make “valid” in logic is a demonstration to show how variable components that belong as the mediate aspects of a relation consisting of opposite determinations are in fact identical. In other words validity is to prove how opposites are elements making up the same self-identical structure. In other words logic shows how the detailed variability of an intricate system are all identically undifferentiated within the same conception. How aspects that are taken to be different at one point, come together to be the same thing at a different point. It is ultimately the process of being “self-evident”.
“Abstract thinking of the understanding is so far being limited and unstable shows a perceptual tendency to work its own dissolution and swing round to its opposite. Reasonableness on the contrary just consists of embracing these opposites as unsubstantial elements.”
(Add to consciousness going in and out of existence, forgets its idea only to rediscover it constitutes its subsistence as consciousness, knowledge as recollection)
Self-evident-
first principles
the basis where demonstration deduces knowledge are what premises Aristotle calls the “first principles”.66
Peirce explains what this means:
“But the Aristotelians, who compose the majority of the more minute logicians, appeal directly to the light of reason, or to self-evidence, as the support of the principles of logic. Grote and other empiricists think that they have proved that Aristotle did not do this, inasmuch as he considered the first principles to owe their origin to induction from sensible experiences. No doubt, Aristotle did hold that to be the case, and held moreover, that the general in the particular was directly perceived, an extraordinarily crude opinion. But that process of induction by which he held that first principles became known, was according to Aristotle not to be recovered and criticized. It was not even voluntary. Consequently, if Aristotle had been asked how he knew that the same proposition could not be at once true and false, he could have given no other proof of it than its self-evidence.67”
The “first principles” are not first because they go before something in a chronological order since that alone can be arbitrary. The first principles of scientific knowledge must themselves be knowable, yet they are not derived from anything, they must be self-explanatory.68 they arise naturally. In other words, what determines something to be a first principle is for it to be a pure capacity.
Proper object
Aristotle explains that “the proper object of unqualified scientific knowledge is something which cannot be other than it is”.52 this claims means that true facts are already true and science is the confirmation of their truth.
The famous Descartes “I think therefore I am” is an example of this unqualified scientific knowledge because it cannot be other than what it is. As the saying goes “it is what it is”.
The difficulty is not in conceiving truth or the lack of but is in the demonstration of truth. Peirce explains: “Aristotle argues that there must be certain first principles of science, because every scientific demonstration reposes upon a general principle as a premiss. If this premiss be scientifically demonstrated in its turn, that demonstration must again have been based upon a general principle as its premiss. Now there must have been a beginning of the process, and therefore a first demonstration reposing upon an indemonstrable premiss.55”(from thesis)
A self-evident fact is “the fact could not be other than it is” and therefore it has no other conclusion than to explain the reasons why the conclusion is true, which Aristotle calls the “cause of the fact”53. The second condition of scientific knowledge is that we know only the “things that cannot be otherwise”.58
For Aristotle, science is only able to process what is possibly true.59 It is impossible to think of not-something because then you have thought of it. Any negation of a thought is just another thought. For example, it is impossible to think of not-a-cat because that triggers the thought of a cat, and in addition perhaps even the thought of a dog and an innumerable amount of correlative ideas. By this Aristotle means that anything we know is scientifically true when the “necessary conclusion is just equally as certain as its premises, while a probable conclusion is somewhat less so”.60 For example, we can scientifically know that the three internal angles of a triangle add up to be equal to two right angles, or that mammals birth their offspring alive.61
The fact about triangles is always true but the fact about mammals is only sometimes true. However even in the latter example, according to Aristotle, it is always true that mammals birth their offspring sometimes alive and sometimes dead.62 This means that something false itself is also true in being false, truth is a condition for something false. indicate that there are some conclusions whose premises are absolutely true, and other conclusions involve multiple true premises absolutely.63
“Falsehood is not simply the slag or dross which must be rejected to arrive at truth: it is the unshaped metal which must be reshaped and refined into truth, and which is necessarily present in the final shape of such truth.(phen of sprit 39)
If the conclusion is to explain why something is true, than that constitutes the first premise, and this constitutes the basis by what we take as the structure of a valid argument: true premises prior to the conclusion; that is, the premises must be known prior to knowing the conclusion.56 when we explain why something is true even if we are certain of its truth, we are explaining the activity of the thought process and not a mere abstraction.
something separated and maintained in isolation from the activity that brought rise to it, develops the name untrue. Falsehood is either an unrefined idea or it is an idea meant to deceive another idea that may be true.
“Why then should we begin with the true and not the false? The truth in order to deserve the name must authenticate its self as true, that is to say, the truth involves the demonstration to why it is true and not simply its mere assertion. The truth involves the explanation of the part that allows for it to be demonstrated. Truth becomes false when its justification is isolated into a mere claim for truth losing the task of actually doing. What is false therefore points to the true but fails to comprehend it by lacking the action to demonstrate it.
Validity soundness
The primary doctrine of logic begins with the idea that logic is the thinking about the structure of thinking. And so it is appropriate that logic belongs as a philosophical discipline in this sense. At least in its general sense without having any secondary specialization but as to what it is when we say logic in every sense of the term. Logic is concerned with the doctrine of Truth but not in the same way that ontology is concerned with Truth. the very skill set of ontology is logic. So how is it that logic is the science of truth yet ontology is the science of logic, and one is made not to presuppose the other but the one necessarily supposes the other. In better words, how is it that ontology requires logic for the attainment of truth yet logic attains truth without ontology?
This dilemma underlines logic as philosophical and logic without philosophy is as blind as matter without form, a bunch of branches on the ground do not make a house, without the implementation of a blueprint. As “When we speak of an “idea,” or “notion,” or “conception of the mind,” we are most usually thinking,—or trying to think,—of an idea abstracted from all efficiency. But a court without a sheriff, or the means of creating one, would not be a court at all; and did it ever occur to you, my reader, that an idea without efficiency is something equally absurd and unthinkable? Imagine such an idea if you can! Have you done so? Well, where did you get this idea? If it was communicated to you viva voce from another person, it must have had efficiency enough to get the particles of air vibrating.” (Peirce, “On Science and Natural Classes”, in The Essential Peirce 121)
There are first principles of logical thinking that makes it not deal with the same Truth as ontology. First, the term “validity” is the structural property of true argumentations. An argument on its own is not necessarily true because someone can argue for the sake of finding truth or one can argue to purposely dilute the truth. But the truth element in an argument is that it is the proper structure to present a claim if it is to be true, because you can be an argument and not be true but in order to be true it must necessarily be an argument because in the latter case an argument define structure and structure is identical with truth, or in other words, truth is a kind of order. Validity involves the valid structure and the truth of the premises insofar as the premises prove the conclusion. To present the claim as if it were true is to assert it but the mere assertion of a thing is not necessarily it’s truth.
This is where the idea of being sound comes in.
Second, the term “soundness” involves the factual basis of a claim, whether it be proven or disproven. In this area of truth, exactness is the aim, however the reality is that, no fact, no matter how proven and generally accepted it is taken to be, can involve an element where it may not be true in the way it is articulated. Even the fact that the earth is round sphere, although this is obviously true and is empirically shown to be true because we can see it from space, presents ambiguities- a sphere is always fundamentally 2-dimensional.
The argument in and of itself is not true but rather is structured in a way where some statements are presented as premises, which are intended to provide Reasons, justifications or purposes, to the further statement, that is, the conclusion. However the reasons themselves that we use to support the conclusion are always somewhat disputable and therefore an argument is present at every line of thinking.
The conclusion is in fact the first step in the argument because it is the claim that requires proof, whereas the premises follow after with the support in bringing truth to the claim. The term conclusion encompasses both the initial claim and the final resolution of it. According to the nature of validity logic is not merely a set of linguistic premises that are true, but rather the premises must be relevant to the conclusion in a way where if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true. This statement however says nothing but the fact that the only difference between the premise and the conclusion is that, where the premises are not yet true, the conclusion is necessarily true, but in order for the conclusion to be necessarily true the premises must themselves be true. Premises in this must then always be true and never false, and so each conclusion possess a set of “essential premises” that must necessary remain when any other irrelevant premises is removed- so as to remain to the same conclusion as that conclusion itself. The structure is really nothing but the way we understand the conclusion about something by breaking it down into premises that support it as truth.
The ordinarily held understanding that the premises come first before the conclusion is only the element of practice after the fact that the conclusion is understood as truth. This confusion is derived from the fact that the term logic possess varying meanings. But this is a fact about the nature of linguistic but it is not a fact about the nature of what language is made to express, that is, Truth. Truth in the ontological sense cannot possess differing meanings and it is in fact the science that presupposes the term “truth” to be exact in meaning.
What is the term logic?, how the laws of thought are abstractions from the truth and the reason why they are contradicted by quantum logic, is because we do not really understand how the laws of thought are abstractions taken from something that is not static. Reason why quantum logic contradicts classical logic is because quantum logic makes the realization that truth is not static rather it is an active process. This does not mean that the principles of classical logic are mistaken in what they aim to express, namely the principles of thought, they are rather mistaken because they leave ambiguous of what the nature of truth is. This however is a mistake not found in Aristotle, for he takes the first principle in the universe as being activity. However, his logic is misapprehended, namely because he was not entirely clear about the distinction between logic and ontology.
Aristotle’s logic is misunderstood because it is taken to be examined separately from metaphysics, which is a distinction that is unwarranted in Aristotle’s philosophy. Aristotle took thought to be the principle of the world, and not only something of the human being. Thought according to Aristotle is not only a human endeavour but rather something absolute. This is not the same in saying that he took human thought, or the abstractions made by logic, as being what constitutes absolute thought in the universe. Rather logic is merely the understanding of what this reason is in the world. Explain the law of identity, non contradiction, excluded middle.
These principles serve to demonstrate the difference between the universal and the particular. Like the premises and the conclusion, there is a general misunderstanding about what is the relationship between the concept of the universal in relation to the concept of the particular? It is ordinarily held that the universal is first prior to the particular, and that the particular shares a nature that is universal. This understanding is in fact itself an abstraction taken from intuitionistic logic- which is the logic concerning the varying particulars in the world that contradict each other. The law of excluded middle does not apply in this logic because this logic does not take a disproof of not-p as a proof of P. You need a direct proof of P as bearing a relation with the disproof of not-p. Intuitionistic logic however excludes the concept of the universal as bearing any relation with the particular. The universal is set aside as not important in this logic and that’s why the intuition requires further examination.