Perhaps I don’t understand the nature of logic, but from what I understand is that every logical argument begins with a predetermined set of accepted norms (which are called axioms).
So, for example, the argument:
1. Human beings are Material
Comes with the assumption that human beings exist.
At first it seems like a ridiculous thing to point out, but it’s true.
If we take a truly logically sober approach to this argument, we are obligated to point out this axiom…the assumption that human beings exist.
That being said, on what basis do we believe human beings exist (going a bit sophist here)?
One could argue that if we are able to record stimulation and physical responses in or by a human being, than the human being exists, right? Because if something can be interacted with by the physical senses of the human being, it exists.
Here’s the loophole:
The person claiming that a physical response was measured merely has had an EXPERIENCE in which they witnessed a stimulus being measured. But it’s still only an experience. The experience of a stimulus being recorded (in light of true sober-minded logic) could have been a hallucination. or a dream.
Now if many people claim they witnessed this stimulus being measured, than maybe it can be considered true?
According to most scientists today, it’s very possible for many people to have similar or the same hallucination, and Logically speaking, arguing that everybody had a hallucination is a reliable claim. Google the topic..there are many stories about mass hallucinations and such.
So if everything is experience, and experience is not considered a reliable axiom for arguments in our culture (Think about arguments for God’s existence, and how we shut them down because they are held up by sole experience), than truly an argument begins with something that’s accepted by faith.
No, I’m not religious. I do not believe in God.
I DO believe that the idea that we have finally discovered THE arbiter of truth through reason and logic is a result of certain men and women surfing the wave of our consciousness’s evolution without remembering there’s an entire ocean behind them and below them…
in other words, it’s irrational in itself to claim that reason and logic, manners of thinking that have arisen from a stage of our evolution, are the arbiter of ALL TRUTH, if our perception of truth is constantly still evolving.
One may look at all this and say “Well it’s just common sense to assume that I exist or that they exist”. Common sense being another fancy word for something everyone just “accepts because it’s true” or “accepts by faith”?
Common sense because our culture and her previous generations have instilled in us the mere idea that we exist as physical beings? It’s all faith if you ask me.