Him
9th September 2003, 03:06 PM
So far in this 'adventure' of mine, I've had 3 classes due to an irregular schedual, a school retreat, and then changes to the said schedual.
And we haven't done much more than taken quizes over the reading material. We've covered the first two chapters, so I'll give a section by section overview of the text. I will not include common knowledge (such as what logic means), as that knowledge is, as such, common.
The first chapter is 'Questions about Logic'. By the way, the book is called "Unshakable Foundations" by Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino. Also note that I may or may not agree with the information I am about to give you, I am simply presenting it and trying to do so in an unbiased matter. My opinions will come later.
What are First Principles?
This section is mainly common knowledge. It mostly serves to explain what a worldview is, and, of course, what Aristotle's first principles are.
Why start with Logic?
This section simply introduces the LNC (law of noncontradiction) and explains about how it is unavoidable. If you were wondering, that is because if you deny it, you are assuming that the LNC is, of course, false. The problem is, you must use the LNC to do that.
What if All is Nothing but an Illusion?
This section introduces the laws of excluded middle and identity. It also says that we must exist, because to deny that we exist, we must exist.
What if Logic Doesn't Apply to Reality?
This section spent more time than neccessary to make what seems like one point: Logic is unavoidable.
What About the Use of Eastern Logic?
The first line of the section says:
'Some say that there is another kind of logic, Eastern logic, which holds to the idea that reality, at its very core, embraces contradictions.'
It then goes to say that according to Eastern logic, everything, is eventually meaningless. Including the distinction between Eastern and Western logic. If there was no basis for judging between correct and incorrect methods of thinking, then there would be no way to say that the Eastern view of reality was any more accurate than the Western counterpart.
Later in the section it says that the laws of logic are universal, and thus all logic is roughly the same. I suppose that the only purpose of this section was to introduce pantheism.
Can the Laws of Logic be Used as a Test for Truth?
This says that logic, by itself, will not help us find truth. It will only help detect error. What is true is logical, but not all that is logical is true.
That ends the first chapter. Since I'm so horribly late with this, I'll go ahead and post, and then add the second chapter when I finish it.
And we haven't done much more than taken quizes over the reading material. We've covered the first two chapters, so I'll give a section by section overview of the text. I will not include common knowledge (such as what logic means), as that knowledge is, as such, common.
The first chapter is 'Questions about Logic'. By the way, the book is called "Unshakable Foundations" by Norman Geisler and Peter Bocchino. Also note that I may or may not agree with the information I am about to give you, I am simply presenting it and trying to do so in an unbiased matter. My opinions will come later.
What are First Principles?
This section is mainly common knowledge. It mostly serves to explain what a worldview is, and, of course, what Aristotle's first principles are.
Why start with Logic?
This section simply introduces the LNC (law of noncontradiction) and explains about how it is unavoidable. If you were wondering, that is because if you deny it, you are assuming that the LNC is, of course, false. The problem is, you must use the LNC to do that.
What if All is Nothing but an Illusion?
This section introduces the laws of excluded middle and identity. It also says that we must exist, because to deny that we exist, we must exist.
What if Logic Doesn't Apply to Reality?
This section spent more time than neccessary to make what seems like one point: Logic is unavoidable.
What About the Use of Eastern Logic?
The first line of the section says:
'Some say that there is another kind of logic, Eastern logic, which holds to the idea that reality, at its very core, embraces contradictions.'
It then goes to say that according to Eastern logic, everything, is eventually meaningless. Including the distinction between Eastern and Western logic. If there was no basis for judging between correct and incorrect methods of thinking, then there would be no way to say that the Eastern view of reality was any more accurate than the Western counterpart.
Later in the section it says that the laws of logic are universal, and thus all logic is roughly the same. I suppose that the only purpose of this section was to introduce pantheism.
Can the Laws of Logic be Used as a Test for Truth?
This says that logic, by itself, will not help us find truth. It will only help detect error. What is true is logical, but not all that is logical is true.
That ends the first chapter. Since I'm so horribly late with this, I'll go ahead and post, and then add the second chapter when I finish it.