If Logic is Universal, Why Are There So Many Conflicting Schools of Philosophy?
If all philosophical schools claim to be founded in logic (well all the major ones), and logic is universal, how can so many be dramatically conflicting?
Is it because they start with different axioms (truths)? If they assume different truths, how can they justify their choice of axioms to each other? Surely at least one side has to be wrong (or less supported)? Or is all philosophy founded essentially on pure unsubstantiated opinion?
Re: If Logic is Universal, Why Are There So Many Conflicting Schools of Philosophy?
Major philosophical schools are generally rooted in logic, but there's usually still some value judgement involved. While one can logically examine and analyse one's choice, it's very hard to exactly and completely deconstruct the choice itself using logic alone.
Re: If Logic is Universal, Why Are There So Many Conflicting Schools of Philosophy?
Originally Posted by brazilianrocker
Rationalism, skepticism, pragmatism, etc.
Plus the conflicting views of individual philosophers, like those of Aristotle vs. Plato or Rosseau and Locke for example
Well people often make logical mistakes and therefore derive different conclusions in the same way mathematicians might derive different answers to a problem because one made a logical error. Yes those different schools are founded on different axioms of truth but you will the same 'unsubstantiated opinion' in almost every discipline.
Re: If Logic is Universal, Why Are There So Many Conflicting Schools of Philosophy?
Originally Posted by tomheppy
Well people often make logical mistakes and therefore derive different conclusions in the same way mathematicians might derive different answers to a problem because one made a logical error. Yes those different schools are founded on different axioms of truth but you will the same 'unsubstantiated opinion' in almost every discipline.
but in the case of the mathematician, one answer is irrefutably wrong - in the case of philosophy, why does anyone have to be wrong?
Re: If Logic is Universal, Why Are There So Many Conflicting Schools of Philosophy?
Originally Posted by zdo0o
but in the case of the mathematician, one answer is irrefutably wrong - in the case of philosophy, why does anyone have to be wrong?
For exactly the same reason one of the mathematicians must be wrong; they make a logically invalid deduction. Mathematicians must set out from axioms like the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory which is an axiom; it must be assumed. Philosophers make other more dubious assumptions but in reality they are of the same nature.
Re: If Logic is Universal, Why Are There So Many Conflicting Schools of Philosophy?
Originally Posted by tomheppy
For exactly the same reason one of the mathematicians must be wrong; they make a logically invalid deduction. Mathematicians must set out from axioms like the Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory which is an axiom; it must be assumed. Philosophers make other more dubious assumptions but in reality they are of the same nature.
they aren't assumed though, they are derived - without error - and are confirmed true not only in mathematical nature, but also in application to physics (i.e. even if you didn't "trust" the original axioms laid out, that 2 follows 1 and 3 follows 2 etc, many of the laws can be proven experimentally by a mad scientist in a lab). philosophy is a bit more special, and only completely abstract ideas that would never have any practical application ever seem to make sense - i think god is laughing at us
Re: If Logic is Universal, Why Are There So Many Conflicting Schools of Philosophy?
Originally Posted by zdo0o
they aren't assumed though, they are derived - without error - and are confirmed true not only in mathematical nature, but also in application to physics (i.e. even if you didn't "trust" the original axioms laid out, that 2 follows 1 and 3 follows 2 etc, many of the laws can be proven experimentally by a mad scientist in a lab). philosophy is a bit more special, and only completely abstract ideas that would never have any practical application ever seem to make sense - i think god is laughing at us
What are they derived from though? They are derived from the laws of logic and you can't, by definition, prove some laws of logic. You can't prove the law of non-contradiction or the law of the excluded middle. Mathematics must be founded on some truth; logic only gets you from A to B. Mathematics cannot be experimentally proved because it isn't dependent on nature you can only show that mathematics explains nature very well. I'd like to see someone empirically prove that 1+2=3 it is impossible almost by definition. Don't believe in God...
Also Godel proved that mathematics will always be incomplete.
Re: If Logic is Universal, Why Are There So Many Conflicting Schools of Philosophy?
Originally Posted by brazilianrocker
If all philosophical schools claim to be founded in logic (well all the major ones), and logic is universal, how can so many be dramatically conflicting?
Is it because they start with different axioms (truths)? If they assume different truths, how can they justify their choice of axioms to each other? Surely at least one side has to be wrong (or less supported)? Or is all philosophy founded essentially on pure unsubstantiated opinion?
Logic can be universal but its clearly relative, or probably more accurately - subjective.
Re: If Logic is Universal, Why Are There So Many Conflicting Schools of Philosophy?
Originally Posted by brazilianrocker
Rationalism, skepticism, pragmatism, etc.
Plus the conflicting views of individual philosophers, like those of Aristotle vs. Plato or Rosseau and Locke for example
Those philosophers are now historical figures. Their ideas were groundbreaking at the time, but have since been superceded. All of their ideas have either been expanded upon or dismantled.
A good introduction is Russell's "history of western philosophy" - you can see how philosophy developed from classical origins through church philosophy to modern methods.
Re: If Logic is Universal, Why Are There So Many Conflicting Schools of Philosophy?
Originally Posted by tomheppy
Correction: maths would be even more boring.
If you find maths boring because you weren't that good at it or you couldn't appreciate mathematical reasoning in the same way that others do, or whatever, then that's your problem. You live in a world governed by mathematical and physical principles. Without mathematics (obviously the applied rather than the pure, although the applied often depends on the development of the pure), your life (materialistically speaking) would be very different. Have you ever thought that some people might enjoy or be good at things that you don't like?
Godel proved something to be true, something that is now inarguable so long as the axioms of mathematics are accepted (anyone who argues that the axioms are untrue, or that 1+2=3 can never be proven, misses the point, which is that some things are taken to be axiomatic because they are so obvious and basic that they can't be proven). If you want something to dislike, dislike the discovery, not the discoverer.
In answer to the OP's question, I would say that indeed, the method of logical reasoning may be universal, but the logic itself is not, purely due to the fact that human perception and analysis of reality is inconsistent. When the initial assumptions are inconsistent, they will always result - providing that the laws of logical reasoning are followed - in different results. Take Marx, for example. His initial statement was that all human interaction is based on class struggle (or something along those lines), while the capitalist philosophers took the view that all persons in an economy are atomistic individualist utilitarians. These are both broad assumptions, which, whether they are incompatible or not (this isn't my point), clearly shift the focus of the analysis, and so on.
Discuss the merits and deficiencies of political theories and philosophical questions.
If Logic is Universal, Why Are There So Many Conflicting Schools of Philosophy?
