A Question

[Cure of Ars]

Is there an absolute and intrinsic law for logic?



The above question is what I'm wanting to know. I have made the following argument but I do not know if it is a valid one. If anyone could shed some light on this then it would be appreciated.


[quote]I have a question for all those out there that deny natural law but still hold to the laws of logic. Why is there an absolute and intrinsic law for logic but there is not an absolute and intrinsic law for morality? The human will can use the laws of logic to find the right ways to reason and avoid the faulty ways of thinking in the quest for rational truth. Likewise, the will can use the laws of morality to find the right behaviors and avoid the faulty ways of living for the quest of living a life of truth. It seems to me that if human morality is relativistic that human logic should also be relativistic. Why isn’t this the case?[/quote]

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Cure of Ars' date='Jul 5 2004, 12:30 PM'] Is there an absolute and intrinsic law for logic?



[/quote]
definitely. as i've emersed myself in catholic apologetics and theology have learned to discern what is and is not proper logic. aquinas of course is the pro at this. read the summa and you will learn what logic is! at any rate, there are indeed certain understood rules that define a certain pattern of deductive reasoning as logical or not. i suppose these could be written down--and probably are somewhere--but i've found that as you aquaint yourself w/ logic you just come to know what is right logic and what isn't.

[quote]It seems to me that if human morality is relativistic that human logic should also be relativistic. Why isn’t this the case?[/quote]i would say that natural law is often viewed as relativistic while logic never is b/c natural law is printed on our hearts, and as such is perceptible to the ever wavering powers of emotion--whereas logic is exclusive to the mind, which is often a much more precise and consistent tool.

however, natural law is and should always be considered just as absolute. for one, it is the truth of God, of which there is only one. even tho subjectivity often prevails, there is no room for it. secondly, why imprint a law on the hearts of men if it is not absolute? if God impressed upon the heart of each man a different law depending upon the emotions and preferences of that person, then there would be chaos. actually, there IS chaos for this very reason--b/c men have taken what is absolute and have turned it into their own personal way to live.

the tricky part then is separating our wants, desires, inclinations, and preferences from this law so as to reveal the absolute truths that are demanded of all men. i think this can be done by applying that "more consistent tool" i mentioned earlier: logic. if we are so unwavering in our perception of logic, even tho this perception develops in the minds of each individual person, then apply this logic to our perception of natural law--which is often wavering--in order to refine our perception so that it reveals what natural law truly is.

logic and natural law go hand-in-hand, for they are both tools given to us by God in order for us to know and love him. it just so happens that one tool is more susceptible to distortion then the other. logic and natural law are much like sacred tradition and the bible in that regard. although they are both equal in authority--and given to us so that we can know and love God--the bible is MUCH more susceptible to distortion. so we use sacred tradition in order to reveal what is absolute w/in the bible. likewise, we can use logic to reveal what is absolute about natural law.

often times you can tell if somone is operating under natural law by determining if their thoughts or actions are logical or not. homosexual intercourse is not logical (we all know the reasons). same-sex marriage is not logical. masturbation is not logical. none of these things, therefore, are condoned by natural law.

anyway, i've probably given u much more information then you requested. when i saw ur question i just kinda ran w/ it. ah well, i hope it helps.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

cure of ars.............was this info helpful? how is your debate on natural law coming along?

[Cure of Ars]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jul 11 2004, 02:07 AM'] cure of ars.............was this info helpful? how is your debate on natural law coming along? [/quote]
Well at this point no one is really responding to my posts. This could be for a couple of reasons (a) my arguments are so solid that they do not want to touch them (b) the moderators are to lazy or chicken to enforce the forum rules and this has turned a lot of people away because of the amount of nasty personally attacks © people don’t want to think and be challenged. I think the answer is (b) because the forum has been dead lately.

Your response was helpful but I am still not sure 100% that it is a good argument. No one really challenge me when I posted it. The reason why I’m not sure is because of the following, is logic closer to mathematics then it is to morality? If logic is closer to mathematics, does mathematics point to there being physical laws? Isn’t there types of mathematics that do not correspond to reality? I don’t know the answer to these questions so that is why I’m not 100% sure of the argument.

Edited July 11, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[St. Catherine]

I forgot to log off and on again.

Edited July 12, 2004 by St. Catherine

[Cure of Ars]

Here is my last argument that I posted.

Using just natural law it is clear to see that we can not be happy without being connected to something beyond ourselves, something transcendent. It is in our nature to hunger for something beyond us. Our modern society has a metaphysics of materialism which tends to undervalue the intangible. This causes problems because people aim for things that are less than transcendent.

The major faith traditions throughout history testify to needing something transcendent. The Greeks i.e. Aristotle (and latter Christian’s) recognized four levels of happiness. I am quoting the following;

[quote]
1. laetus: Happiness in a thing. Thus, “I see the linguini, I eat the linguini, it makes me feel good, I am happy.” This kind of happiness is based on something external to the self, is short-lived and, on reflection, we do not consider that it is all there is to human happiness.

2. felix: The happiness of comparative advantage. “I have more of this than X.” “I am better at this than X.” This kind of happiness results from competition with another person. The self is seen in terms of how we measure up to others. It has been called “the comparison game.” Such happiness is rather unstable and, if one fails, can lead to unhappiness and sense of worthlessness. Exclusive pursuit tends to oppress others. Most people would not imagine a world as satisfactory if it was composed of only happiness #2 type people.

3. Beatitudo: (Beatitudo = happiness or blessedness). The happiness that comes from seeing the good in others and doing the good for others. It is, in essence, other-regarding action. Happiness #3 is, in some sense, at war with happiness #2. One cannot be at the same time in competition with someone else and doing the good for and seeing the good in them. Most people would prefer a world (community, family, relationships) structured around the pursuit of happiness #3 than entirely based in happiness #2. Happiness #3 is higher than happiness #2. The problem with #3 is that it is necessarily limited. We cannot be someone else's everything. For example, we or they, will die and if our happiness is contingent upon them, it dies with them. “There must be more than this.”

4. Sublime Beatitudo: (sublime = “to lift up or elevate”). This category, the most difficult to describe, encompasses a reach for fullness and perfection of happiness. The fullness, therefore, of goodness, beauty, truth and love. So we recognize in this category, those things that are, in a sense, beyond what we are capable of doing purely on our own.  [/quote]


[url="http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0016.html"]http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apol...ics/ap0016.html[/url]

Our materialistic consumer culture tends to overvalue level one and two to the exclusion of level three and four. Abortion is motivated by level one and two happiness, while motherhood by its nature, is directed to level three and four. Abortion does not lead to happiness and in fact destroys it leaving women unhappy and empty.

Edited July 12, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Cure of Ars]

The next step to my argument;

[quote]
“abortion has had a profound effect on our culture’s view of “choice” and “freedom”. Any culture must choose between two competing notions of freedom:

1. “freedom from”, which tends to be grounded in strong momentary emotion (such as avoiding a particular pain or pursuing a particular pleasure)

2. “freedom for”, which pursues what is most pervasive, enduring, and deep and therefore frequently delays gratification, makes sacrifice, and sometimes even endures pain

“Freedom from” tends to promote short term or immediate gratification. “Freedom for” pursues longer term gratification of the whole person in his deepest cognitive, emotive, and spiritual states. “Freedom for”, therefore, tends to promote commitment, while “freedom from” tends to shy away from it.

We cannot afford to underestimate the role the culture plays in defining “freedom”. From the day we are born our parents, teachers, friends, and the media give signals about when we should feel enslaved and when we should feel fulfilled and free. They tell us about either the importance of commitment and sacrifice or the foolishness of them. They create structures of expectation and anticipation about fulfillment and success. Children, adolescents, and adults all seek some form of approbation, acceptance, and esteem and, because of this, seek to imitate what the culture considers “smart” and avoid what the culture considers “dumb”.

In its attempt to justify abortion, the court used the terminology of “choice” and “freedom”, but if one reads between the lines, not only in the Roe vs. Wade decision but also in its various legal philosophical, and anthropological interpretations, one will notice that the implicit definition of “freedom” is based on choosing in accordance with one’s strongest emotion at a particular moment. Women are not encouraged to think about what is most pervasive, enduring, and deep. They are not even encouraged to take some time off to reflect on what this decision will mean for their future and the future of others around them. The question of freedom is about what I want in the moment, which forces “want” to be viewed as the strongest emotion (the pain to be avoided or pleasure to be pursued). (Spitzer, Healing the Culture, p. 293 ) [/quote]


With this quote I am building off my post on the 4 levels of happiness. To understand what I am talking about please see this post first.

[url="http://prochoicetalk.com/message-board-forum/about852.html"]http://prochoicetalk.com/message-board-forum/about852.html[/url]

An attitude of “freedom from” comes from level 1 and 2 happiness while “freedom for” has at its aim level 3 and 4 happiness. Any culture that idolizes “freedom from” over “freedom for” will miss out on that which is really pervasive, enduring, and deep in life. They will not reach for the transcendent. The pro-choice stance is a case in point.

[Theoketos]

I would say that the beginging rule of Logic is the principle of non-contridiction. This principle is thus relates Logic to Natural Law.

Also Natural Law uses Logic. It is logical or derived from clear reasoning.

Everything else you said is right on.

That that is is, and that that is not is not that that is.