[Jack Simth]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Why do you claim that? Different people can use different paths of logic to arrive at different conclusions.

Let's try a mathmatics analagy for a moment: There are many different algorythims that can successfully multiply two numbers together. However, if two algorythms designed for the same number system derive different results, one of them (at least) is incorrect. Further, it is possible to prove which one is false by going back to the base definitions involved. This is possible because math is truly based on logic; there are assumptions involved, but more often than not they are either definitions to cut down on the problem being worked on or criteria under which the derived fact holds true. That does not work with philosophy, as many of their base assumptions are by nature unproveable, arbitrary, and all-encompasing (such as Kant deciding that reason should be the basis for all decisions). As they are unproveable and arbitrary, we arrive with differing schools of thought in philosophy centering around those base assumptions. Were such assumptions not present, you would end up with only a single school of thought, as you could truly prove that a competing school of thought was objectively wrong. There would still be differing opinions on some of the newly brought up/newly discovered fine points until such time as an objective (dis)proof comes around (as it is with mathmatics), but on things of any importance at all, everyone would be in agreement (again, like math: Using the standard definitions of +, =, 2, and 4 in the standard base 10 number system, 2 + 2 = 4; no exceptions). That isn't the case with philosophy. Any philisophical school of thought is ultimately based on one or more basic assumptions that cannot, by their very nature, be proven. Such assumptions are either arbitrary, "feel-good" statements, or those that (while they cannot be proven) few would disagree with (often defended by a question). Something requiring an unproveable assumption is outside the realm of logic alone. Note that I am including the "alone" in that statement. Don't get me wrong - assumptions aren't necessarily a bad thing. You can go far with a good assumption set. However, unless it can be objectively tested, an assumption lies outside the realm of pure logic.

That, and there are schools of philosophy that don't recognize logic as the keystone of ethics, choosing instead to go with emotions.

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Philosophical arguments are never the end-all, beat-all that solve all of life's problems.

Arguments? No. However, some of the schools sometimes claim to be.

Edit: I hate it when my signiture is correct.

[ August 21, 2003, 06:58: Message edited by: Jack Simth ]