various essays in logic and logical positivism

7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism

1/39

Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism

By

Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif

Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Chapter 1

A Logical Positivist Proof for Gods Existence

By



Logical Positivism is defined as the idea that reality is best known

through rigorous logical inferences from sense experience. Given this

definition, following Thomas Aquainas, it is possible to prove Gods

Existence as the First Cause, Uncaused Cause, using Logical Positivism.

We start out by noticing that a person can have sense experience.

Thus, a person can have sense experience of pool balls sitting on a pool

table. Based upon sense experience, we can see that if a person hits a pool

ball with a pool cue, this causes the ball to move and to hit another pool ball,

having the effect of moving the second pool ball. Thus, using rigorous

logical inferences from sense experience, we can deduce, logically, that

cause and effect exist and operate. Thus, it next appropriate to consider the

cause of the pool ball which was hit by the pool cue. We can see that the


2/39

pool ball was manufactured by the use of human technology from materials

made from the Earth. In this sense, it is fair to say, in some sense, that the

Earth causes the pool ball to be caused and to exist. Now, we must then

inquire as to the origin of the Earth. How did the Earth come into

existence? We can say that the Earth came into existence and was caused

by the Universe. What then is the cause or origin of the Universe? If we

keep looking for causes, forever, we would only find an infinite regress of

causes, if they exist and operate. However, it is generally assumed that the

Universe is finite. If the Universe is finite, then it is apparent that a finite

Universe cannot contain within itself an infinite series of causes. The finite

cannot contain the infinite. Thus, based upon rigorous logical inferences

from sense experience, it is apparent that since there cannot be an infinite

regress of causes, instead there must Exist, an Uncaused, First Cause of the

Universe, namely, God. Thus, we have proved Gods Existence using

Logical Positivism, based upon the work of Thomas Aquainas.

Chapter 2

Advanced Logical Positivism as Personal Consciousness


3/39

By



One who has appropriated Logical Positivist Consciousness finds

that at Level One of Personal Consciousness, the person uses Rigorous

Logical Inferences from Sense Experience, in order to know reality best.

However, it should be noted that both Quantum Physics and the existence of

God can be proved based on logic and sense experience. Additionally, it is

apparent that the words in a text, such as a book, or a magazine, as well as

the words of spoken speech, both involve Sense Experience and therefore

can be taken into account using Logical Positivism. Additionally, it is also

fair to make certain assumptions for purposes of presenting a Logical

Argument or Proof. Thus, it would be fair, for example, to assume the

existence of Personal Autonomy, based upon Sense Experience and Logic in

order to present a Logical Argument or Proof. Finally, a person can also use

the Cognitional Structure, in altered form, with Logical Positivism. Thus,

the Modified Cognitional Structure is as follows:

Level One Sense Experience and

Logical Inferences therefrom

Level Two Understanding (Intuitive and Analytical)


4/39

Level Three Intuitive Judgment and Reflection

Chapter 3

Illogical Thinking is Schizophrenia

By



5/39


By age 25 if you cannot think logically, you are Schizophrenic.

Schizophrenia is a thought disorder where the person cannot reason

logically. Unfortunately, some psychiatrists, wrongly, think that

schizophrenia involves politically incorrect religious, or political beliefs. If

you cannot reason from A to B, causally, with a logical syllogism, then you

are schizophrenic. Thus, it may be that many psychiatrists are

schizophrenic. As they say, it appears that the inmates are running the

asylum. To be normatively, healthy, from a psychiatric point of view, you

must be able to use the causal syllogism, If A, then B, A, therefore, B.

Additionally, if a person cannot recognize that a logical contradiction exists

which is an invalid way of thinking, then the person is schizophrenic. Thus,

if you say A holds in the morning, and then not A holds in the

afternoon, when there has been no real change in circumstances, then you

are schizophrenic.

Chapter 4

Logical Positivism, Ockhams Razor, and Satan

By



6/39


Logical Positivism is defined as the fact that reality is best

known through rigorous logical inferences from sense experiences.

Ockhams Razor states that any inquiry must choose the simplest

explanation possible, and thus, Ockhams Razor is typically cited for the

proposition that you cannot logically or rationally talk about God.

Interestingly, some Satanists take the position that it does not violate

Ockhams Razor or Logical Positivism to accuse another person of being

Satan or a Satanist. Such persons are wrong. It is more irrational to talk

about Satan or Satanism than it is to talk about God. Satan is an irrational

concept. It is clear that Satan is not real, but instead is an hallucination.

After Einstein, it is clear that all concepts are in some sense relative.

Heisenbergs Indeterminacy Theory in Quantum Physics says the same thing.

Thus, there is no absolute evil or Satan, rather, only relative evil and

relative good. Unfortunately, some idiots in psychiatry and psychology are

stupid enough to accuse or even diagnose their clients with Satanism, when

such an assertion clearly violates Logical Positivist Rules and Ockhams

Razor. In such a case, it is not the client who is schizophrenic, but rather

the psychiatrist or psychologist. Such psychiatrists or psychologists are

clearly committing malpractice and should be sued or charged in criminal

court with Penury.


7/39

Chapter 5

Logical Positivism, Sense Experience,

and Phenomenology

By



8/39


Logical Positivism is defined as, Rigorous Logical Inferences

from Sense Experience. Thus, Logical Positivism must start with Sense

Experience. But, Kant, Husserl, Gadamer, and Lonergan all tell us that

after the age of 1 year old, a child (person) only has sense experience which

is mediated by Meaning, or Understanding.

Starting at an early age, children use ideas to label everything. There is

only meaningful sense experience. Additionally, sense experience takes

place within the context of a homeostatic biological system which involves

moderate relativism. Thus, the temperature of water at room temperature

will feel different after ice has been placed upon ones fingers, rather than

fingers which have been placed in hot water. Therefore, sense experience is

not an absolute, and thus, logical positivism, based on sense experience fails

to meet the standards of critical philosophy of science. Instead, philosophy

of science suggests that we should use the phenomenological method,

outlined by Husserl. Thus, Logical Positivism, revised, should be defined

as, Rigorous logical inferences from experience, as such (not sense

experience). Thus, Logical Positivism must include the data of

Consciousness and Values, not just a narrow positivistic approach. Thus,

Spiritual Experience and Cognitive Experience, for example, can be studied

as Psychology of Consciousness. Phenomenal Logical Positivism also


9/39

leaves room for the study of Quantum Physics, which standard Logical

Positivism does not.

Chapter 6

Logic and Logical Positivism are not Absolutes

By

Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A.,J.D., Esq., Coif


Some liberal fascists, not real liberals of course, try to convince us

that reality is best known through the use of Logical Positivism, defined as,


10/39

rigorous logical inferences from sense experience. Now, based on my

experience, most Logical Positivists are frauds, that is, they have never had a

logic class, and, they dont think logically. In other words, logical positivists

simply have a stupid, irrational, ideological belief in logical positivism,

which, has nothing to do with logic.

Now, some of us try to play the logical positivist game, to see

whether or not it works, and, we understand logic. However, if you

understand logic well enough, you begin to understand that logic is not

necessarily a logically consistent discipline. In theory, with logic, when you

start with the same logical premises, you should always be able to reason to

the same logical conclusion. Unfortunately, a logical proof can be

demonstrated where you start with the same logical premises and can reason

to a logically, contradictory conclusion. This does not mean we should

abandon logic, on the contrary, it simply means that we need to either see

logic as a useful tool, not an absolute, or, we need to develop additional,

more sophisticated logical rules.


11/39

Consider the following logical exercise:

1. A or B.

2. From A or B derive A.

You cannot derive B here because this would lead to the conclusion

that you can derive A and B from A or B which is impossible. You cannot

derive a conjunction from a disjunction. This of course is a Public Policy

or Jurisprudence, or Values, argument and is not strictly speaking based

upon syllogistic logic and would not be accepted as valid using Logical

Positivism, even though, not using this Public Policy, Jurisprudence, or

Values, results in a logical contradiction which would not be allowed by

Logical Positivism.

Now, we will do the same exercise, without the Public Policy,

Jurisprudence, or Values, argument. Consider the following:

1. A or B.

2. From A or B derive A

3. From A or B derive B

4. From 2. derive A

5. From 3 derive B

6. From 4 and 5 derive A and B

7. From 1 and 6 derive A or B and A and B

Now, we all ,know that A or B is disjunction, and, we also


12/39

know that A and B is a conjunction. We also know that a conjunction is

not a disjunction, and to assert, at the same time that you can have both a

conjunction and a disjunction with the same set of facts is irrational and

illogical. Now, you can prove this, more concretely, with a concrete

operations exercise. You have one orange. You can hold that orange in you

left hand or you can hold the orange in your right hand, but you cannot hold

the orange in both hands at the same time. This is physically impossible.

Thus, we have the logic statement OL or OR (Orange Left or Orange

Right). Now, you can also have the concrete the concrete exercise of

having two very similar oranges, one orange in the left hand and one orange

in the right hand. Thus, you have OL and OR (Orange Left and Orange

Right) Now, it is clear that OL or OR is not concretely the same as Ol

and Or (Orange Left or Orange Right is not concretely the same as as

Orange Left and Orange Right).

It is clear, therefore, that without Public Policy, Jurisprudence, and

Values, logic does not work, and, logical positivism does not work. We also

see that logic and logical positivism are tools to be used, not absolutes.


13/39

Chapter 7

Logical Arguments are Statistically Valid

By



I have heard that some, rather stupid people, are trying to say that a

Logical Argument can be allegedly wrong, on the basis that it is statistically

invalid. Of course, it must be noted, in the first instance, that statistics are

only supposed to be applied to a determination as to whether certain facts

exist. Statistical analysis does not apply to theory, nor does it apply to


14/39

logic. Moreover, when you stop and think about it, any valid logical

analysis is statistically correct 100% of the time. You see, if you ever were

to do a statistical analysis of a Logical Syllogism, you would find that you

get exactly the same results every time. This means, that there is a 100%

positively, valid, statistical correlation among the test data (the logic

experiment), thus proving that it is statistically valid. Accordingly, all

Logical Arguments are statistically valid, and therefore meet the

requirements of modern science. However, since Modern Science seems to

hypothesize that reality can only be known statistically, we can say that a

valid logical analysis produces results which are 99.9999999% valid.

Chapter 8

Logical Positivism Allows for Value Discussions

By



Logical Positivism states that we know reality best through rigorous

logical inferences from sense experience. Now, in terms of sense

experience, we have the five senses, taste, feeling, sight, smell, and hearing.

Now, when we consider the sense experience of feeling, we can see that

human being have internal feelings, that is, intuitive feeling and emotional


15/39

feeling, as well as external feeling, which is touch. Thus we can say that it

makes perfect sense from a Logical Positivist point of view to discuss

internal feeling such as intuitive feeling and emotional feeling.

Now, we know about values because we have sense experience of the

external world, such that we can see and know that we value certain things,

namely, the goods of good food, good clothing, good housing, good

education, good transportation, good entertainment, good recreation, etc.

We also can have feelings which we value. For example, when we self-

actualize (Maslow) we have internal experience feelings of satisfaction.

We also value love and relational feelings. Finally, we have the feeling of

valuing various goods, such as those discussed above.

Once we use feeling and sense experience to develop a set of values,

we then use logic to categorize and systematically order or rank these

values. We can also logically discuss our scale of values (Lonergan).

Thus, value discussions in a classroom or in other settings clearly come

within the ambit of Logical Positivism, since such discussions start with the

internal experience of feelings and then moves to a logical analysis and

ordering of such values and feelings. There is no logical reason to limit

sense experience to external sense experience only. Feelings within the

human body involve internal feeling experience and are just as valid as

external sense experience. Those who argue the Logical Positivism excludes


16/39

value discussions in a classroom are being stupid.

Chapter 9

Logical Positivism and Analogical Logic

By



Logical Positivism is defined as rigorous logical inferences from

sense experience. Of course, one aspect of sense experience is written

language, such as that found in Judicial Opinion. Also, logic is not just

confined to syllogistic logic, it also include analogical logic. A the

inductive syllogism states: If A, then B, A therefore B. Now, if in legal case

1, we have the Fact A, this becomes if A in our syllogism. Then, if we

find that we have in legal case 2, the Fact A, again, then we see that A

becomes A therefore B. Thus, once we can identify Fact A, and then


17/39

Abstract, Fact A, we can use the inductive syllogism to say that Rule or

Result B applies. Thus, we would find, logically, the following: If A, then

B, A, therefore B. Put another way: If A Fact, then B Result, A Fact,

therefore B result. Now, analogical logic works in a similar way. Instead

of saying the foregoing, we use A and A by analogy. Thus: If A, then B,

A(by analogy) therefore B. This is the way that most caselaw, legal

reasoning works. A lawyer or judge must learn to think, logically, by

analogy, not just using a strict logical syllogism. If you are not good at

analogical logic, you can practice, and get better at it. For example, Apple

is analogous to Orange as Steak is analogous to hamburger. Light is

analogous to Dark as Rough is analogous to Smooth. Paper is analogous

to Book as Can of Beans is analogous to a Bean. You can get help

practicing from someone who knows how to make analogies. If you want to

find a lot of analogies in a short period of time, try finding a study guide for

Millers Analogy Test online.


18/39

Chapter 10

Logical Positivism and Intuition

By



Logical Positivism states that reality best known through rigorous

logical inferences from sense experience. Many scientists and authors have

also asserted that you can know reality through the use of Intuition. Can we

develop a theory of Intuition that meets the requirements of Logical

Positivist rigor? Yes. I argue that Intuition is Arational in function, but,

can be rationally described in terms of how it develops and works. Intuition

is a Right Hemisphere function in normally, right handed, persons. Intuition

starts with Analogical Thinking and Logic. When a person has practiced

working with analogies long enough, the Right Hemisphere begins to


19/39

unconsciously do Analogical Thinking all the time. This results in the

Cognitive Attribute that Andrew Greeley denominates as the Preconscious,

or the Preconscious Mind. What happens is that the Frontal Lobe of the

Brain begins to Unconciously think, Analogically, and this becomes the

Preconscious. Now, it is also the case that the Human Mind, or the Human

Brain can begin to function using Quantum Subatomic Particles, not just

Neurons. In fact, it could be argued that a Neuron is a Quantum Subatomic

Particle. As a person begins to engage in a type of Meditation, Quantum

Subatomic Particles, masking themselves as Neurons, begin to actually

function as Quantum Subatomic Particles. Moreover, the Quantum

Subatomic Particles can interface with other Subatomic Particles, non-

locally, and acausally, at a distance, following Bells Theorom. At this point

Intuition can gather information from anywhere in reality, acausally.

Following this theory, Intuition can also develop into telepathy and remote

viewing, that is, clairaudience and clairvoyance. With Quantum Physics

this is all provable scientifically. Obviously, then, Intuiton, telepathy, and

clairvoyance are not a mental illness and are not Satanism, and do not

involve magic. Additionally, analogical logic is a part of Logical

Positivism, and therefore proven, using Logical Positivism, and, Quantum

Physics is also proven using scientific experiments which meet the

requirements of Logical Positivism. Finally, if you attempt to develop


20/39

Intuition using Quantum Physics which is non-causal this causes

Schizophrenia. The non-causal mind cannot think logically. The acausal

mind can think logically.

Chapter 11

Logical Positivism Destroys Freud

By



The founder of Modern Psychiatry, Sigmund Freud, rests his whole

profession position, as a psychitrist, on his concepts of the id and the libido.

Of course, we know that the id and the libido dont really exists. These

ideas are delusional on Freuds part. Logical Positivism tells us that we can

only consider rigorous logical inferences, based upon sense experience.

Obviously, the ridiculous ideas of the id and the libido are barred by Logical

Positivism. And so it is with the rest of Freud. All of Freud is just

fabricated, bullshit. Putting it bluntly, Freud was an idiot and must be

discounted, totally, by anyone who applies rigorous, academic standards.


21/39

Chapter 12

Logical Positivism is Fatally Flawed

By



Logical Positivism is defined as rigorous logical inferences from

sense experience. Logical Positivism claims to give a more adequate

explanation of reality than anything else. This is absurd. Logical

Positivism cannot explain or deal with Music. Music cannot be logically

analyzed. Music, which is studied, consists of octaves and notes which

involve mathematical relationships and which are set in place by Natural

Law. Natural Law ensures that tonal harmonics exist. Music is just not a

random occurrence. Music can be written using mathematics and a

knowledge of musical notes, octaves, chords, harmonies, etc. Music is a

major discipline. Now, sense experience might somehow assert that we can

hear sounds, and that this is valid, in some way. But, the sensation hearing


22/39

does not explain how human beings can hear, and enjoy musical tones, and,

it cannot explain why human beings scream when out of key music is

played. In fact, it has been argued that music which is purposely played out

of key causes mental illness and stomach ulcers. Logical Positivism cannot

begin to explain this.

Chapter 14

Logical Positivism is Trashed

By

Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq.,, Coif


Logical Positivism is defined as rigorous logical inferences from sense

experience. A huge hole in this idea of Logical Positivism is that it does not

include mathematics. Everyone knows that 2 plus 2 equals 4, and, this is a

statistically certain result. You can prove this by using stick counting. If

you start with 2 sticks and add two sticks, and combine the two sets of two

sticks, and then count the combined set, you count 4 sticks. Mathematics

produces predictable, consistent results, every time. Two plus two always

equals four, no matter if you are in Prague, or Moscow, or Chicago.

Mathematics is not culturally relative. Since, Logical Positivism does not,

by definition include mathematics, Logical Positivism is fatally flawed.


23/39

It is Logically Inconsistent to Follow Ockhams Razor

and be a Atheist Materialist

By



Ockhams Razor provides that Ockhams Razor excludes from any

academic or scientific discussion any unnecessary metaphysical or

theological assumptions. Atheist Materialism provides that a person who

believes in Atheist Materialism must deny the Existence of God, and must

believe that the essential nature of the universe or reality is materialism, that

is, that reality is ultimately material. Of course, the problem with Atheist

Materialism is that the material or material is a metaphysical concept

used by Aristotle and Thomas Aquainas. Of course, other metaphysical

concepts which play a similar role are Substance and Matter. In any event,

since Ockhams Razor excludes discussions of metaphysical concepts, an

Atheist Materialist is being irrational to believe that material or the

material is the basis for reality or the universe. And, if one were to

include material or the material in beliefs or discussions, Matter and


24/39

Substance would do equally well or better.

The Logic of Aristotle

By



Aristotelian Logic is based upon Logical Foundationalism. Logical

Foundationalism proves that Logic is Valid starting with sense experience,

proving that you cannot have (A)pple in your left hand at the same time as

you have not (A)pple in your left hand. By Logical Analogy, then, you

cannot have A at the same time and place that you have not A.

Similarly, if you are not permitted to start with sense experience, then, you

can simply use the idea in your mind or imagination that you cannot have

A and not A at the same time in the same place. In either case, if you

try to assert that you can have A and not A at the same time and in the

same place, this results in a Logical Contradiction which is supposed to be

impossible. Therefore, where a Logical Contradiction is present, it is clear

that a false or fallacious or illogical or irrational or unreasonable manner of

arguing, or making a statement, or presenting a proof, is present.

Once we have shown, and then seen, that a proof, a statement, an

argument, are invalid and or wrong, if a Logical Contradiction is involved,


25/39

then, we can use this to prove that certain types of arguments, or proofs, or

statements, are illogical or false or fallacious, and thus cannot be used.

Thus, several logical fallacies are ruled out as illegal arguments: The

Fallacy of Shifting Ground, the Fallacy of Hypocricy, the Fallacy of Lying,

the Fallacy of Assuming the Consequent, the Inductive Fallacy, The Fallacy

of Appealing to an Authority, the Fallacy of Vouching, etc.

Next, logically, we are permitted to use mathematics to derive other

logical principles. Thus, we can prove the Validity of Analogical Logic

using Math Fractions. Thus, A is to B as C is to D or

1 is to 2 as 2 is to 4, and, 2 is to 4 as 4 is to 8 using symbols:

2 : 4 @ 4 : 8, etc.

Next, logically, we are permitted to use mathematics to prove the

Natural Law Principle of Proportionality. Thus, 1 is to 1 as 2 is to 2,

and,

1 : 1 @ 2 : 2, and, 4 : 4 as 8 : 8. All of these Math Equations

demonstrate Perfect Proportionality. Thus, we can also derive,

damages is to damaged as punishment is to harm, as both ethical and

legal principles.

Next, logically, we are permitted to use mathematics to prove the

Natural Law Principle of Reciprocity. Thus, 1 is to 2 as 2 is to 1 and,

1 : 2 @ 2 : 1 and, 2 : 4 @ 4 : 2 and, 4 : 8 @ 8 : 4. From the


26/39

foregoing mathematical principle of reciprocity we can derive the ethical

and legal principle of Reciprocity, also known as the Golden Rule, which is,

Treat Another as you would wish to be treated in Similar Circumstances.

Next, we can derive the Principle of Utility, or Maximization of Value.

The Principle of Utility provides that, as a general rule, a rational person

chooses to have more, rather than less, of quality goods or services.

Moreover, as a general rule, a rational person chooses to experience pleasure

rather than pain. Moreover, as a general rule, a rational person chooses to

have meaningful happiness rather than to suffer. The foregoing is logically

and empirically provable by presenting a group of persons with certain

choices, such as, having good food to eat on a regular basis, rather than

starving to death; having a warm home to sleep in, in the winter, rather

than being outside and freezing to death; choosing the good rather than evil;

choosing The Good rather than Evil, etc.

Next, since a logical principle or rule has only reasonable scope and

application, it is logically permitted following the Principle of Equity, to

make a reasonable, or logical, or equitable exception to a rule or principle,

based upon great need, in order to avoid an illogical, unreasonable, or

absurd result, given the foregoing Logical, Ethical, and Legal Principles.

Next, in order to properly evaluate an argument, a proof, or a statement,

often it is required that you make the person who is asserting the argument,


27/39

proof, or statement, define the terms or ideas used in a way which is logical.

Remember, once a word or term or idea has been used in a certain way for a

long time, then, it is not logical to change the definition of that word, term,

or idea, without just cause shown. Instead, the person should develop a new

word, or idea, or term, and use it with the new definition.

Given the foregoing, it is thus possible to say that some choices are not

logical or rational, while others are, and, we can prove this using logic and

the Principles and reasoning set forth above.

Six Universal Cross Cultural Natural Law

Principles of Cultural Relativism-

By


Copyright 2010 Anthony J. Fejfar

The notion of Cultural Relativism is that reality is characterized by

moderate relativism, and, that, each person is entitled to choose his or her

own culture, within reason, and cannot be judged by the standards of

another culture, alien, or otherwise. Now, not just any culture qualifies as a

culture for purposes of Cultural Relativism, because, you see, there are

certain Universal Cross Cultural Rules that apply to and in, every culture,

for that culture to be a valid culture. Six Universal Cross Cultural,

Natural Law Rules that apply in every culture, are as follows:


28/39

3. Logic

4. Reciprocity

5. Utility

6. Proportionality

7. Equity

8. rational self interest

Logic is Universally, Cross Culturally valid as a Natural Law

Principle, because everyone can start with the notion that you cannot have

an (A)pple in your left hand, at the same time and the same place, as no(t)

(A)pple. Thus, you cannot have a carved wood figure, A in your left hand

at the same time and place as (n)ot A. From this you can also say that you

cannot have A and not A at the same time and place. Thus, any assertion

that you can have A and not A at the same time, in the same place, is invalid

and false. Thus, Logic is defined as that discipline which requires that in

any proof, statement, argument, or factual assertion, you cannot have a

logical contradiction, such as, A and not A, at the same time. From this,

every proof, statement, argument, or factual assertion, can be judged as

logically valid, if no logical contradiction is involved.

Reciprocity is Universally, Cross Culturally valid as a Natural Law

Principle, because you can teach and demonstrate Reciprocity using

Mathematical Fractions, such as:


29/39

1 is to 2 as 2 is to 1 1 : 2 @ 2 : 1

2 is to 4 as 4 is to 2 2 : 4 @ 4 : 2

4 is to 8 as 8 is to 4 4 : 8 @ 8 : 4

It is logically and statistically provable that it is in each persons rational self

interest to engage in Legal and Ethical reasoning using the Natural Law

Principle of Reciprocity. Legal and Ethically, the Natural Law Principle of

Reciprocity is stated as: Treat another person as you would wish to be

treated in similar circumstances. The foregoing Natural Law Principle of

Reciprocity is confirmed valid as meeting the universality requirement of

Kants Categorical Imperative.

Proportionality is a Universal, Cross Culturally valid Natural Law

Principle that can be taught and demonstrated with Mathematical Fractions:

1 is to 1 as 2 is to 2 1 : 1 @ 2 : 2

2 is to 2 as 4 is to 4 2 : 2 @ 4 : 4

3 is to 3 as 6 is to 6 3 : 3 @ 6 : 6

From the Mathematical Principle of Proportionality, several Natural Law,

Legal and Ethical Principles can be derived. First, any damage award

should be perfectly proportional, that is equal, to the amount that the person

was damaged. Secondly, any criminal sentence should be perfectly

proportional , that is equal, to the degree that the victim of the crime was

actually injured. Third, since we can prove, and for our purposes here,


30/39

assume, that each person has an individual, irrevocable, natural right of

liberty, we can deduce that all persons are Free and Equal, based on Natural

Law. Thus, following the Natural Law Principle of Proportionality, each

person must be treated equally before the law. Thus, each person has a

natural right of equal protection under law.

Utility is a Universal, Cross Culturally valid Natural Law Principle.

Utility carries with is two Ethical or Values Principles:

3. As a general rule, it is better for a person to have more,

rather than less, of any good, property, or service, etc.,

tangible or

intangible.

4. As a general rule, a person is better off if he or she

chooses pleasure over pain.

The foregoing principles of utility can be proven logically and

empirically. If you ask any person if he or she would rather starve or

have enough good food to eat, the vast majority of people will choose

good food rather than starving. Additionally, the vast majority of

people will choose the pleasure of receiving a good back rub over the

pain of being tortured with a cigarette lighter.

Equity is a Universal, Cross Culturally valid Natural Law

Principle. Equity makes an equitable exception from a general rule,


31/39

based upon extraordinary need. Also, equity only functions when

there is not adequate remedy at law. The ordinary remedy is to seek to

apply reasonable laws, which have reasonable scope and application.

As both Aristotle, Christopher St. Germain, and Bernard Lonergan

have shown, there are it is impossible to any ethical or legal rules

which apply in every possible situation. Instead, as noted above, laws

only can have reasonable scope and application to be valid, following

Grotius.

Rational Self Interest is a Universally and Cross Culturally valid

Ethical and Legal, Natural Law Principle. You see, rational self

interest, assumes and uses the foregoing Natural Law Principles, and

thus, it is valid for a person to chose rational self interest over altruism

and rational self interest over selfishness. The altruist can in theory be

forced to give away all that he or she has, and then, starve to death.

On the other hand, the selfish person wrongfully ignores or violates the

individual rights of others, and is incapable of following through with

business deal because he or she chooses to irrationally, selfishly, cheat

instead.

In conclusion, every Cultural Relativist is required to follow the

foregoing Natural Law Principles because they are Universally and

Cross Culturally valid, and thus they are valid in every culture, alien,


32/39

or otherwise.

Time and Logic

By



When a Logic Proof or Logic Exercise is used, it is assumed that the

entire logical endeavor is done with Time as a constant, that is, the whole

Proof is assumed to be done with Time standing still. Thus, the fundamental

rule of Logic is that you cannot have, or assert, a logical contradiction in the

same logic proof. Thus, you cannot have A and not A (A and A) at the

same time and in the same place, that is, you cannot have this happen in the

same proof. Thus, you cannot derive a disjunction from a conjunction in a

logic proof. Consider the following:

1. Assume A or B

3. From A or B, derive A and not B (A and B)

4. From A or B you cannot derive B and not a (B and A)

Because, you see, you cannot have A and not A (A and A) in

the same logic proof, nor can you have B and not B (B and B),

since both result in an illegal, logical contradiction.

Thus, you cannot derive A and B from A or B.


33/39

However, let us consider the approach which suggests, wrongly, that

you can derive A and B from A or B: (Assume T stand for Time)

T1 Assume A or B

T2 From A or B, derive A and not B (A and B)

T3 From A or B, derive, B and not A (B and A)

T4 From T2 and T3, above, derive A and A, and, B and B

Now, it may appear that the foregoing proof is logically valid, and thus,

that you can prove the existence of a logical contradiction using ordinary

logic rules. However, upon closer inspection, the foregoing proof which

seems to prove two different logical contradictions, is in fact, false or

invalid. Consider the following:

T1 Assume A or B

T2 From A or B at T1, derive A and B (A and not B)

T3 From A or B at T1 you cannot derive

B and A (B and not A) at T1 This would result in an

illegal logical contradiction. At T1 you cannot have both A

and B and B and A at T!.

Now, we can put this another way by doing the logical proof


34/39


35/39

6. From A is not B, derive B is not A

In addition to the foregoing analytic logic syllogisms, you can also have

analogical logic syllogisms:

1. A is to B as C is to D, From A, B, and D, derive C

2. A is to B as C is to B, From A, B, derive C

3. A is to B as C is to D, From A,B, and C, derive D

3. A is to B as C is to B, From C, B, derive A

Given the foregoing, in terms of Propositional Logic we can now come

up with the following syllogism/proof:

Sensate Logical Positivism (SLP)

Experience Logical Positivism (ELP)

SLP is to valid knowledge as ELP is to valid knowledge

If SLP, then, ELP

SLP therefore ELP

Therefore, Experience Logical Positivism is, or produces, valid knowledge

Thus, we have used an analytic-analogical logic proof to prove that

Experience Logical Positivism produces valid knowledge. Put another way,

logical reasoning from experience produces valid knowledge.


36/39

Avoiding the Hermeneutic Circle-

By



Emmanuel Kant is credited with destroying empiricism or positivism

based on sense experience by making the phenomenal versus noumenal

distinction. Kant said that the phenomenal world of sense experience

cannot really be known because we use meaning categories to organize and

make sense of, our sense experience. This world of meaning, Kant

denominated the noumenal world. Hans Georg Gadamer says pretty

much the same thing as Kant. Gadamer tells us that we can only really

know the world of hermeutic meaning, and not the world of phenomenon or

sense experience. However, Gadamer asserts that there are forestructures

of knowing which enable us to bypass the logically circular, hermeneutic

circle which results from what Girdeau Spann denominates, analytic spin.

You see, if you push hard enough, you find that all definitions are logically

circular, and, that, if knowledge is only known through conceptual

understanding, then it appears, at first blush, that all logical arguments,

proofs, and statements are ultimately logically circular, and are therefore

invalid. However, following up with Gadamers idea of forestructures of

knowing, it is apparent that a person can bypass the hermeneutic circle using


37/39

intuition, rather than just idealist understanding. Intuition functions, in the

first instance, through the use of preconscious, analogical thought processes.

Since analogical logic and analytic logic are not the same type of logical

thought processes, we can see that a third tier of thought which utilizes

analogical thought processes, rather than just analytic ideal thought

processes, and phenomenal sense experience, provides a way out of the

hermeneutic circle. You see, it may be that A is not B, but it may still be

the case that A is like B. Thus, when analogical thought processes are used

in conjunction with analytic thought processes and phenomenal experience,

then we can understand that knowledge involves more than mere sense

experience combined with idealism. Finally, it is also apparent that when

analogical thought processes speed up, they become unconscious, and then

go quantum, utilizing quantum non-locality at a distance (See Nick Herbert,

citing Bell), and achieve a sort of intuitive omniscience. In this way, we can

see that the Zen koan below makes perfect sense:

1. I saw the tree (sense experience)

2. The tree disappeared (metaphorically) (there is no tree


38/39

because tree is a logically circular concept)

3. Finally, I knew the tree (I intuitively judge the tree to exist

using analogically and quantum based intuition)

Accordingly, we can see that using analogically and quantum based

intuitive thought processes, the hermeneutic circle is avoided and we

can in fact know probable reality. We can never know any supposed

absolute reality, because unitary reality is really slightly aunitary, or

probable at the most at 99.99999999% real probability.

Logic, Concrete Logic, and Logical Positivism

By



Starting with sense experience, you can prove the validity of Logic. Using Concrete Logic, if you place

an (A)pple in your left hand, and then remove that (A)pple, you affirm, using first hand sense experience,

that you cannot have (A)pple and not (A)pple in your left hand, at the same time in the same place.

Similarly, if you put a carved letter A in your left hand, you can affirm, based upon first hand sense

experience that you cannot have A and not A in your left hand at the same time in the same place. Put more

abstractly, you cannot have A and not A at the same time in the same place. The foregoing is the basis for the

idea that it is false or fallacious to have a Logical Contradiction such as asserting both A and not A at the

same time in the same place. The Foundational Rule of Logic is, then, that in order for a Proof, an

Argument, or a Statement to be logically valid, respectively, each such Proof, Argument, or Statement cannot

involve a Logical Contradiction. All Logical Reasoning is based on the foregoing. Given this, we can see

that Logical Positivism, which is defined as, Logical reasoning from sense experience, appears to give us

accurate information about reality and the world around us. However, using the foregoing, it soon becomes

apparent that sense experience is not a sufficient foundation for Logical Positivism. In fact, internal


39/39

thoughts, feelings, intuition, imagination, and so on, all involve internal experience or intuitive experience

which is relevant to figuring out reality and the world around us, and thus, the idea of Logical Positivism

based upon sense experience, must be broadened as: Logical reasoning from experience. This is consistent

with Bernard Lonergans use of the Cognitional Structure which is: Experience, Understanding, Judgment

and Reflection.

Logical Foundationalism

By



Some academics have been arguing for non-foundationalism for quite some time. Non-

foundationalism asserts that something like the hermeneutic circle exists, and thus, there are no arguments

that can be made that have transcendent value. However, I assert that you can make certain arguments

which are based upon Logical Foundationalism which carry a great deal of throw weight. The idea that there

are certain Logical Fallacies which are irrational, unreasonable, and illogical, and thus cannot be used in a

statement, an argument, or a proof, and, that the proof that such fallacies are illegitimate can be proven in a

foundationalist manner starting either with sense experience, or with ideas. The idea is that to be logical,

reasonable, or rational, you cannot make statements, arguments, or proofs which involve a logical

contradiction. A logical contradiction occurs when a person attempts to assert that A and not A can

exist, or be true, at the same time, in the same place. For example, given the foregoing, you can prove,

logically, that Bill cannot be both 6 tall and 5 tall at the same time in the same place. You can also prove

that Front Street is not Market Street, and that the Missouri River and the Ohio River, are not the same river.

Now, the logical foundation for the foregoing is that you cannot have idea A and idea not A be true or

exist, at the same time in the same place. If someone were to object that a person making the foregoing

argument must start with sense experience, then, all you need do is start with the sense experience foundation

that a person cannot have an (A)pple in his left hand at the same time that the person has not (A)pple in

his left hand. Moreover, a person cannot have a carved wood A in his left hand at the same time that he

has not A in his left hand. By logical analogy, then, a person cannot logically assert that A and not A

exist in the same place at the same time. Such an assertion would involve a logical contradiction, and thus

would be illogical, irrational, unreasonable, false, and fallacious. Thus, we can logically reason to the

reasonable conclusion that Logical Foundationalism exists and operates, and is true.

various essays in logic and logical positivism

Documents