gLeN (me) said:
> However, clearly you can see that existence is
> fundamentally an assumption that is required to
> make Logic work.
Brian:
> No, actually I can't. But then, I never had much
> use for omphaloskepsis.
Really? You know as well as I that:
If Existence (as a concept) is necessarily valid for
Logic to function, then Existence (distinct from
Non-Existence) by nature must precede Logic.
Therefore, since Logic cannot precede Existence
without falsifying the above statement, it cannot
logically be used to prove its validity or its
very foundation. That would be obviously circular.
On the other hand, if Existence is *not* necessarily
valid as a concept in order for Logic to function...
Erh, well that idea immediately makes no sense! How
can Logic possibly work if the very _existence_ of
truth is in question??
So Existence can only be a matter of blind faith and
as such, Logic is no less a religion in the end than
any other belief system. Like all religions, Logic
requires an unquestioned assumption.
= gLeN
(aka: the philosophical antichrist)
Hahahahahahaha!
__________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs