Kripke vs Presuppositionalism
Рет қаралды 5,135
Күн бұрынAn explanation of how Saul Kripke's Semantics could be used to refute the claims of Presuppositionalism, as part of the series "Better a Witty Fool" A Critique of Presuppositionalism.
Sponsors: João Costa Neto, Dakota Jones, Joe Felix, Prince Otchere, Mike Samuel, Daniel Helland, Mohammad Azmi Banibaker, Dennis Sexton, Yu Saburi, Mauricino Andrade, Will Roberts and √2. Thanks for your support!
Donate on Patreon: / carneades
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/carneades
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
@jankuiper3422 6 жыл бұрын
Great video. I liked the summary of the previous videos. Got me into it again. :)
@CarneadesOfCyrene 6 жыл бұрын
+Jan Kuiper I'm glad! The series was started quite a while ago, so I wanted to bring everyone up to speed.
@michaelhaag3367 6 жыл бұрын
Glad you are back
@CarneadesOfCyrene 6 жыл бұрын
+Michael Haag So am I! Thanks for still watching. :)
@sethapex9670 6 жыл бұрын
how can we know that any worlds exist which are not accessible to this one?
@edthoreum7625 6 жыл бұрын
exoplanet trapisst 1 ?
@sethapex9670 6 жыл бұрын
the laws of logic are not different in the Trappist 1 star system
@deepashtray5605 6 жыл бұрын
How do you know?
@sethapex9670 6 жыл бұрын
the only reason it would be inaccessible is if it didn't actually exist, since in order to claim it is inaccessible you would have to deny the empirical evidence we have of it which shows that it follows the same laws of the universe as our star system does and is therefore logically accessible. But if you deny that empirical evidence you would have to on the same grounds deny the evidence that it exists at all since the same data both shows that it exists and follows the same laws as our system does. and if you do deny the evidence you are denying that the example given of an inaccessible world exists. It is impossible for us to have empirical evidence of a logically inaccessible world, since having empirical evidence of a world requires that that world follow the same laws. This, however, does not mean that worlds for which we have no empirical evidence are logically inaccessible. So even if we assume there is no empirical evidence for God (discounting near-death experiences and personal testimony to miracles), it does not follow that God is logically inaccessible. If there exist no worlds which are logically inaccessible to our own, Logic must be universal.
@deepashtray5605 6 жыл бұрын
Is the English language universal too?
@grantstrachan488 6 жыл бұрын
Can't wait for St Thomas Aquinas vs PreSup that will be gold.
@Brklyn-dd9yo 6 жыл бұрын
I'm so glad that your focusing on Presuppositionalism, cause all my philosophy professors don't really know what that is. Smh
@CarneadesOfCyrene 6 жыл бұрын
+Br00klyn116 No problem. Presuppositionalism misuses many terms of philosophy, but has gained prominency since its adovcates are so loud. Philosophers are not aware of it since it is such bad philosophy, which is why i wanted to do this series showing how many philosophers from all ends of the spectrum would have concerns with Presuppositionalism.
@woodsofchaos 5 жыл бұрын
Can you upload that chart in the beginning? It's in a horrible resolution in the video and it would be quite handy in quite a few debates.
@Ansatz66 6 жыл бұрын
"It does not seem strange that there might be some world where a non-classical logic is true." That does seem strange, since the nature of a logic is to define what is true. Logic is a system of reasoning that provides rules about what we can and cannot infer, so it is up to logic to dictate what is true, what is false, and what it even means to be true or false. So the idea that some world could somehow make a logic true is strange in a few ways. For one, a logic is not a proposition, so it's a category error. Perhaps what we really mean to say is that there is a world where the laws of a non-classical logic are true, but that makes no sense since the logic itself is the sole authority on what is true in that logic and the world has no relevance to that issue. The laws of a logic are true by definition in that logic no matter what world we're in. It's like saying that there might be some world where the word _blue_ refers to a color in English. It's just a strange thing to say because _blue_ always refers to a color in English. If there were some world where people used the word _blue_ to refer to something other than a color, then they would not be speaking English.
@Voidsworn 6 жыл бұрын
That reminds me of the thoughts I have had about multiverse concepts. If any of the laws of physics are different in some important way in some other universe such that matter/energy configurations like ours cannot exist there, then we cannot access there either. We can only access those universes with similar enough laws to ours governing them.
@CarneadesOfCyrene 6 жыл бұрын
+Voidsworn Interestingly there is a type of modality which deals with exactly that. There are some possible worlds which might be logically accessible to us (anything that is logically necessary here is true there) but are scientifically not accessible since all fo the laws of physics here are not true there. Great idea.
@no.neutrality.apologetics900 6 жыл бұрын
"Boards . . . don't hit back." - Bruce Lee 'Enter the Dragon'
@CarneadesOfCyrene 6 жыл бұрын
+no.neutrality.apologetics Neither do straw men. Which position do you think is a straw man?
@no.neutrality.apologetics900 6 жыл бұрын
lol, somehow I knew you'd like that reference :) I wonder if this person whose website you are getting these epistemic questions from realizes they are appealing to propositional logic as opposed to presuppositionalism. Presuppositionalism, according to Bahnsen, is the demonstration that God is proven to be by the impossibility of the contrary. Meaning that, any other position to take than that, God must be, truth must be, and logic must be, will inevitably contradict itself unto refutation. Bahnsen openly admits he got this clever play on words from Aristotle who made this claim regarding the LNC. Be that as it may, the logos to which Aristotle appealed, and to which you continually appeal in your videos whether you believe you do believe you do or not, demonstrates that to claim what is true is a contradiction to true skepticism. It's always funny to see a skeptic immediately refrain from making any propositions who understands why it contradicts their position. As you aware, we always speak from positions of belief, not knowledge. If Bertrand Russell were able to do what not even Aristotle, Plato, or Socrates could, then ole Berty would have done so instead of investing so much effort in Principia Mathematica.
@matthewfrazier9254 6 жыл бұрын
ITS BACK!!!
@CarneadesOfCyrene 6 жыл бұрын
+Matthew Frazier Yay! I really do want to finish all of the series that I have going, there are jsut not enough hours in the day. Thanks for sticking around!
@Eta_Carinae__ 6 жыл бұрын
Can those inaccessible worlds be accessible (albeit a different kind of accessibility) through modality though?
@CarneadesOfCyrene 6 жыл бұрын
+Allan Bartlett Yes... depending on if you accept the necessitation rule or not. The necessitation rule builds logical necessity into any modal logic which accepts it. So if you accept the necessitation rule, then your modal logic is limited to those possible worlds which are logically accessible.
@music4meh 5 жыл бұрын
We acces the different possible worlds through postulation/extrapolation from this world (other than the actual world, they aren't actually entities, not even fictional. In modal logic we conceptualize/visualize them, but that's it). Imagining these inaccesible worlds, is accesing them (which refutes their inaccesibility), due to the inaccesibility of their content, we cannot imagine their content (otherwise they hadn't been inaccesible). The inaccesible worlds in Kripke models/frames (used in modal logic) express logical impossibility. They contain things that cannot be for these worlds cannot be: they contain logical impossibilities, which doesn't mean that there could be logical impossibilities, just that we can imagine and designate them. These inaccesible worlds don't contain actual modal modes, just the expression/visualization of negation of certain modes (as I said, they express impossibility). The interpretation is very interesting for other modal logicians though, who disagree with the theory that we extrapolate/postulate these worlds. They could make the argument for relative logic/possible worlds with logic deviating from our own, just doubt Kripke would.
@Aristos_Arete 2 жыл бұрын
In any given claim one seems to be making a statement of truth. Makes me think of aristotle, that is just what the second operation of the intellect does. Whereas if you think of the first operation, there is no truth claim involved, only pure, simple apprehension.
@CarneadesOfCyrene 2 жыл бұрын
Is there always an assumption of truth with a statement? If I say "Harry Potter is a wizard" I don't think that I am trying to make a true statement, if anything I am trying to make a false statement.
@carlantoniazzi6594 2 жыл бұрын
Better a witty fool says your position
@elirodriguez5329 6 жыл бұрын
When will the website be finished being built?
@CarneadesOfCyrene 6 жыл бұрын
+Eli Rodriguez Good question. I'm shooting for putting some more work into it and having a basic version of it ready by January. I wish I had more time to devote to it.
@elirodriguez5329 6 жыл бұрын
Carneades.org Ok no rush, flowers bloom with time. Thanks for the reply
@Human_Evolution- 6 жыл бұрын
Glad you still love Philosophy!
@CarneadesOfCyrene 6 жыл бұрын
+Human Evolution For sure! We are still around making videos on philosophy every week! :)
@johnbalfour8157 6 жыл бұрын
Wouldn't positing that a possible world in which classical logic is false be a form of presuppositionalism itself? That is, are we not presupposing such a world exists in order to negate such logic?
@CarneadesOfCyrene 6 жыл бұрын
+John Balfour The presuppositionalist argument ahs two parts, defeat the skeptic, and then claim that the only way we can defeat the skeptic is with God. in order to build out the project that everyone has Presuppositions, they need to defeat those who claim that we should not have presuppositions to begin with. That's the frist half of this series. Or in other words, the Presuppositionalist is saying that it is impossible for someone to hold that logic is not universal. If we can show that it is even possible to hold that logic is not universal their argument stops before it even gets started. They can't jsut dismiss things in this first half with the claim that "that's jsut another presupposition" since they have not gotten to the point where we need presuppositions to understand the elements of the world like logic. This reverse works in the second half, and even then the skeptic will have some concerns.
@johnbalfour8157 6 жыл бұрын
I see. I was a bit confused on how presuppositionalism related to possible worlds.
@XiaosChannel 6 жыл бұрын
i was like, kripke vs everybody? hell yah! then i noticed it's one word, "Presuppositionalism"
@CarneadesOfCyrene 6 жыл бұрын
+Xiao'sChannel Haha, that would be a fun video to do, though probably a confusing one... :)
@krishnadasa108 4 жыл бұрын
This video is so illogical. It proves the point of presuppositionalism in that if you deny God, all meaning, including the meaning of these arguments, is gone.