0:01: Introduction 1:13: Hostility to Logic 2:22: Existentialist and Pragmatist Views 7:33: Disdain for Logic in Art and Education 8:37: Logic in Other Areas 9:06: Logic in Science 9:49: Public Perception of Logic 10:53: Why Logic is Necessary 12:08: Metaphysical Primacy of Existence 16:10: Fallibility of Human Consciousness 24:03: Communists and contradictions 25:16: Hitler and the Catholic Church 25:55: Logic and mental health 27:30: Logic based on reality 28:25: Non-ontological schools of logic 33:20: Logic as a validating standard 36:12: The law of identity 37:57: Thinking in accordance with the law of identity 41:34: The law of contradiction 48:27: Law of Excluded Middle 51:05: Proof 55:11: Mysticism 57:00: Subjectivism 1:11:42: Stolen Concept Fallacy 1:13:47: Subjectivism and Logic 1:14:07: Fallacies in Subjectivist Arguments 1:20:00: Mysticism and Subjectivism 1:22:30: The Laws of Logic 1:23:49: The Law of Identity 1:24:57: The Precondition of Reasoning, Speech, and Action 1:35:41: Introduction to deduction and induction 1:36:41: Logic as an art or science 1:37:37: Other topics in logic 1:38:26: Course structure 1:39:23: Logic and epistemology 1:40:25: Agreement among philosophers 1:41:07: Course not on objectivism 1:42:17: Logic material can be obvious 1:44:21: Combination of theory and practice 1:45:29: Recommended reading 1:48:51: Symbolic logic 1:51:59: Inductive reasoning 1:59:56: Relationship between pollution consciousness and fallible consciousness 2:01:33: Aristotle's ethics of the mean 2:03:10: Colleges offering courses in mysticism 2:05:41: Religion based on logic 2:08:27: Definition of proof 2:13:05: Aristotle's argument against conclusions as opinions 2:15:29: Inference vs Judgment Generated using Summatim
-Enemies of Logic Written by a follower of Henri Bergson: “In attempting to describe what we actually know in the abstract logical terms, which are the only means of intercommunication that human beings possess, Bergson is driven into perpetual self-contradiction. Indeed, paradoxical though it may sound, unless he contradicted himself his description could not be a true one. The object of this book is to show exactly why Bergson must use self-contradictory terms if the explanation of reality which he offers is to be a true one.” Pragmatist/Positivist - claims to advocate logic, but considers logic to be a byproduct of linguistic convention that can change (i.e. social construct/game) Wittgenstein: “The propositions of logic all say the same thing, namely nothing.” -Why does man need Logic? (0:10:00) “Logic is the method by which a volitional, non-automatic consciousness can ensure that its content corresponds to the facts of an independent reality.” -What is Logic? (0:27:40) -Law of Identity (i.e. A is A) (0:36:00) -Law of Contradiction - nothing can be A and non-A at the same time in the same respect. (0:37:30) -Law of Excluded Middle - everything is either A or non-A at a given time in a given respect. (0:46:25) -Two general points (0:50:20) --Negatively - never hold contradictions --Positively - always check every conclusion you accept against the facts by means of logic. -Proof - the process of deriving a conclusion from antecedently known truths by reference to and on the basis of the Laws of Logic -Proof is the process of deriving a conclusion step-by-step from the directly given evidence of the senses; each step being taken in accordance with and on the basis of the laws of logic. Arbitrary - that which is put forth without basis, without evidence or proof Shun contradictions and shun the arbitrary Two False Philosophic Doctrines Mysticism - the view that a knowledge of reality is possible by means other than logic based on sense experience. (0:55:20) Non-sensory, non-rational means of knowledge. Feelings/emotions are valid tools of knowledge. Implies determined, non-automatic conscience (1:01:00) Mysticism:Epistemology::Amorality:Ethics (1:02:10) Subjectivism - the view that reality depends on the content of human consciousness (i.e. reality depends on or is determined by consciousness) (1:07:00) You can’t prove the Laws of Logic (i.e. they’re self-evident) (1:22:15) “The Laws of Logic are inescapable. And this leads to the very crucial conclusion that they must be used even to be denied; must be relied upon and accepted even by the opponents of the Laws of Logic, in the very act of trying to deny them he counts upon them.” (1:29:30) Reaffirmation Through Denial Concluding Words (1:35:00) Q&A (1:45:45)
14:50 reminds me of this, "Those who invalidate reason, ought seriously to consider, whether they argue against reason, with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle, that they are laboring to dethrone; but if they argue without reason, (which, in order to be consistent with themselves, they must do,) they are out of the reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument." - Ethan Allen. Works just as well for both sense perception and logic.
Whilst I like his style, and in terms of his ability to teach his subject, he is very good, his misrepresentations will be THE factor in many Objectivists changing sides.
00:00 Logic: Who Needs It 10:50 Why does one need Logic? Philosophical Theory 1. Metaphysical reason: Primacy of Existence Existence exists, and consciousness is one's means of perceiving it. Facts are what they are independent of a person's beliefs. If merely believing in something made it true, we would not need logic. 2. Epistemological reason: Humans are fallible. Since humans are capable of error, we need some way to ensure that our ideas correspond to reality. An infallible and automatic consciousness would not need logic. Even if it's knowledge was limited, it would be true as far as it went. No method of validation would be necessary. Logic is the means by which a fallible conceptual being (such as a human) validates whether its ideas correspond to reality. 20:23 In Practice Effect of Irrationality on Prosperity and Flourishing: Living in reality requires the achievement of certain values (such as planting food or making shelter). For which one must act in certain ways and not others. Since a human is not born with the knowledge of how to survive in reality, he must use logic to validate whether his ideas are true. An era of rampant irrationality is bound to be marked with poverty, stagnation, brutality, high child mortality, low life expectancy, and an overall lower quality of life. Effect of Irrationality on Freedom: All dictators control their population not simply through brute force but by first destroying a person's means of distinguishing right from wrong. Without rationality, freedom will cease to exist. Without freedom, there is no prosperity. Without prosperity, there is no flourishing. Reason is man's basic means of survival. Logic is the method of using that means. 27:16 Definition of Logic Principles of logic must be ontological: Based on the facts of reality. It cannot be a matter of divine commandment, social consensus, or personal whim (non-ontological). If the principles of logic weren't ontological, there will be no grounds to appeal to logic to validate adherence to reality. 30:35 For instance, suppose a person were to adopt a Matriarchal Theory of Logic: If my mother likes your idea, it's true. If not, it's false. What reason is there to assume that adhering to your mother's personal whims gets you any closer to the truth than following your own whims? Why not then just cut the middle layer and believe anything you want to? But this is the exact state we want to move away from. It doesn't matter whether the standard is determined only by your mother or by everyone in the society taken together (democratically). All non-ontological theories of logic can be dismissed upfront. 34:17 Ontological Theory of Logic Which principles of reality can be the base for the foundations of logic? Since logic needs to be applicable to all of existence, we need a principle that's true of everything that exists, simply because it exists. This gives us the Law of Identity: Everything that exists is what it is. A is A. Logic is the method of thinking in accordance with the Law of Identity. How do we ensure our thinking is in accordance with the Law of Identity By keeping in mind a fundamental corollary of the Law of Identity - The Law of Non-contradiction: Nothing can be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect. Consider the classic syllogism. All men are mortal Socrates is a man Therefore, Socrates is mortal. To say All men are mortal Socrates is a man Therefore, Socrates is immortal Would be an invalid conclusion, because it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (if all men are mortal and Socrates is a man then Socrates MUST be mortal) 45:00 So Logic is the art of thinking without contradictions. According to Objectivism, thinking of a process of identification of some aspect of reality. This gives us Ayn Rand's definition of logic: Logic is the Art of Non-Contradictory Identification. 46:18 The Law of Excluded Middle Another restatement of the Law of Identity: Everything is either A or non-A, at the same time and in the same respect. (There is no third possibility other than A or non-A). This plugs the gap on the other type of attack on the Law of Identity. One way to violate identity is to say something is and isn't A (Contradiction). Another way is to say that it's neither A nor non-A (Excluded Middle). All laws of logic are restatements of and derived from the Law of Identity. 50:00 What does being logical consist of? At this point we can summarize it with two conclusions. Negatively: Never hold contradictions Positively: Always check every conclusion you accept against the facts by means of logic. Before coming to any conclusion, ask what are the facts, what are the true premises that lead to this conclusion. In other words, prove your conclusion. (I.e never believe the arbitrary) In other words, to be logical, shun contradictions, and shun the arbitrary. Proof is the process of deriving your conclusion from antecedently known truths by reference to and on the basis of the laws of logic. The premises your conclusion depends on must in turn be proven to be true based on prior premises, terminating in direct observation. Proof is the process of deriving a conclusion starting from the facts directly available by sense perception, step by step, with each step in accordance with the laws of logic. 54:20 Two philosophical attacks on logic: Mysticism and Subjectivism Mysticism: Knowledge of reality is possible by means other than logic based on sense experience. What means? Answers given by mystics are endless: revelation from God, intuition, faith, hunch, instinct, gut feeling, democracy, trance, etc. Ultimately, what's common to all of them is appeal to emotions. Mysticism is not a matter of the contents of your belief, rather your method of thinking. Aquinas believed in God based on what he considered rational arguments. The arguments may be wrong, but he did not appeal to emotions. Aquinas was not a mystic. On the other hand if you go on a trance on LSD and come back believing there is no god, you'd be a mystical atheist. The key to mysticism is the view that feelings/emotions are a valid means of knowledge. The core of mysticism is the denial of the fact that man needs a standard to validate his thoughts. It comes down to "I just know it", which translates to "I just feel it." The famous mystical quote is revealing in this regard, "to those who understand no explanation is necessary, to those who do not understand no explanation is possible in either case, I do not explain." Mysticism implies determinism. Whatever thought comes to your mind is automatically true simply because you thought of it/felt it. In other words, an automatic view of consciousness. A mystic treats his consciousness at the conceptual the same as an animal's consciousness at the perceptual level. Mysticism : Epistemology :: Amorality : Ethics - not a standard, but a denial of standards. Once a movement accepts mysticism as it's method, it soon degenerates into a bunch of sects since there's no way to determine which revelations are real. A sacred text is to religion what the laws of logic are to science. This of why science doesn't require sacred texts. 1:06:50 Subjectivism Whereas mysticism attacks the epistemological basis of logic (there are no standards necessary to validate whether your ideas are true i.e correspond to facts), subjectivism attacks the metaphysical basis of logic (there are no facts apart from your feelings/ideas). Subjectivism is a view of the nature of reality. It's a form of Primacy of Consciousness. If facts are anything you want them to be, then you have wiped out the basis for the need or possiblity of logic, argument, proof, refutation, etc. You may encounter someone who claims Subjectivism is true and then asks you to refute his claim. This is the fallacy of the stolen concept: Using a concept (here: proof of refutation) while ignoring or denying the more fundamental concepts it depends on (logic and external reality). A sign of a subjectivist is someone who says "this is true _for_ me, but may not be true _for_ you." A isn't A, it's whatever someone wants it to be, for him. 1:15:30 challenge: produce any statement that's true for someone but not others. The misconceptions here come from two types of examples. 1. Spinach example "Some men like spinach" This is not true _for_ some men. It's true _of_ some men that they like spinach. But it's true for all men that some men like spinach. 2. I have a bag cold Meaning: It's true for me that I have a cold, but not for you that you have a cold. The confusion here stems from improperly specifying who "I" stands for. If John has a cold and Bob doesn't, it's true for everyone that John has a cold and Bob doesn't. A is A. If it's a fact, it's a fact for everyone. 1:19:45 To sum up, mysticism deprives man of any method to validate the correspondence of his thoughts to reality. Subjectivism deprives man of a reality to think about. Consciousness is your means of awareness of existence. Mysticism cuts the tie between consciousness and existence. Which means deny consciousness (to not be conscious of reality is to not be conscious. There's nothing else to be conscious of.) Subjectivism denies that existence exists. That there is an external reality independent of your consciousness. Mysticism denies consciousness. Subjectivism denies existence apart from consciousness. Mystic says you don't have to identify without contradiction. Subjectivism says there is nothing to identify. Being logical requires a repudiation of both mysticism and subjectivism. Facts exist and facts don't care about your feelings. Test
A note to new students: You may not understand everything in this first lecture until you've studied Peikoff's course on History of Philosophy. Listen to it again after taking that course.
"The philosopher Ronald de Sousa once memorably described philosophical theology as "intellectual tennis without a net," and I readily allow that I have indeed been assuming without comment or question up to now that the net of rational judgment was up. But we can lower it if you really want to. It's your serve. Whatever you serve, suppose I return service rudely as follows: "What you say implies that God is a ham sandwich wrapped in tinfoil. That's not much of a God to worship!" If you then volley back, demanding to know how I can logically justify my claim that your serve has such a preposterous implication, I will reply: "Oh, do you want the net up for my returns, but not for your serves? Either the net stays up, or it stays down. If the net is down, there are no rules and anybody can say anything, a mug's game if there ever was one. I have been giving you the benefit of the assumption that you would not waste your own time or mine by playing with the net down." - Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
1:21:45 Can you prove the laws of logic? Of course it's true you cannot "prove" the laws of logic. The concept of proof itself arises from acceptance of the laws of logic. To request proof of the laws of logic is a stolen concept. The law of identity is self-evident. It requires no outside evidence. In any perception of reality, even if you don't know what you're seeing, you know it is what it is. 1:39:00 relationship between epistemology and logic Epistemology is a broader subject, within which logic is one sub-area. 1:45:11 Question Period Q) Reading materials 2:08:35 Definition of Proof: the process of deriving a conclusion, step by step from the directly given evidence of the senses, each step being made in accordance with and on the basis of the laws of logic.
"The law of identity is self-evident. It requires no outside evidence. In any perception of reality, even if you know what you're seeing, you know it is what it is." The law of identity is a rule for not screwing up your logic: don't re-use labels. You are utterly confused drawing anything else from it.
@@someonenotnoone I don't understand what your response has to do with my notes? I think I meant to write "even if you don't know what you're seeing." I'll fix that.
@@YashArya01 I'm saying you are confusing a basic method to not screw up logic for something deeper. "The law of identity" is not about understanding nature, it's about practicing logic. Don't re-use labels. Don't say A is something, and then use A to refer to something else. Because you'll screw up your logic.
@@someonenotnoone did you literally just jump to this timestamp? You're coming up with basic level stuff from symbolic logic. This is deeper than that.
Awareness is the very fabric of reality. When one see's an apple that is awareness as an apple. Awareness appears as an existence in the form of finite perceptions. Reality by definition is a tautology and can only be expressed gramatically as such i.e awareness is known by awareness alone. Awareness implies self awareness, unself awareness is a contradiction in terms.
When you quote Dewey and A.J.Ayer back to back and refer to the pragmatic-analytic schools as holding the same views on logic, we know you are either highly unaware of what these schools teach or your are a creative genius. Looks like he fell and hit his head while watching a fox clip on anti-Christmas paranoia and his brain must have substituted Christmas with Logic. Poor thing. I keep forgetting objectivism was still around. Thought it had died of cultic pneumonia around 2008, 9. I’m all ears. Teach me thine conceptual cognition, father.
Going by the quotes alone, to an Objectivist, they pretty much are the same thing, if the schools in question doesn't put much stock in reason and logic, than everything from ethics onwards is a distinction without a difference. Now, if you can give us quotes or specific book/treatises by Dewey, Ayer or fellows that suggest them to be strident Aristotlians (the only philosophers Rand recommended was Aristotle, Aquinas and herself, although there is an article in the Objectivist Standard that gives a favourable opinion towards Reid) than that opinion might change. Good luck.
@@artofthepossible7329 I shall evaluate reorienting myself towards whatever rand says we should do. Got a list of things rand says we should do? I don’t know, like with 10 items?
Please, for the sake of reasonable conclusions, do not learn logic from objectivists. Study science and mathematics so you understand how logic actually works, and how it actually doesn't, *without putting all of your worldview at stake.* Then, once you have a *working* understanding of logic, including logic beyond the zero order of dichotomies, come back to objectivism. If you're anything like literally every other person I know who had a working understanding of logic *before* being introduced to objectivism, you'll see the lack of working practice with logic that Rand, Peikoff, and Brooks suffered from. "A is A" means don't re-use labels. It's a practical step to not screwing up your logic. It's not a comment on the nature of reality and existence.
@@YashArya01 Actually logic for people outside of objectivism is incredibly valuable, nothing like a waste of time. It's within objectivism that it becomes a dead-end/position at Ayn Rand Institute.
0:01: Introduction
1:13: Hostility to Logic
2:22: Existentialist and Pragmatist Views
7:33: Disdain for Logic in Art and Education
8:37: Logic in Other Areas
9:06: Logic in Science
9:49: Public Perception of Logic
10:53: Why Logic is Necessary
12:08: Metaphysical Primacy of Existence
16:10: Fallibility of Human Consciousness
24:03: Communists and contradictions
25:16: Hitler and the Catholic Church
25:55: Logic and mental health
27:30: Logic based on reality
28:25: Non-ontological schools of logic
33:20: Logic as a validating standard
36:12: The law of identity
37:57: Thinking in accordance with the law of identity
41:34: The law of contradiction
48:27: Law of Excluded Middle
51:05: Proof
55:11: Mysticism
57:00: Subjectivism
1:11:42: Stolen Concept Fallacy
1:13:47: Subjectivism and Logic
1:14:07: Fallacies in Subjectivist Arguments
1:20:00: Mysticism and Subjectivism
1:22:30: The Laws of Logic
1:23:49: The Law of Identity
1:24:57: The Precondition of Reasoning, Speech, and Action
1:35:41: Introduction to deduction and induction
1:36:41: Logic as an art or science
1:37:37: Other topics in logic
1:38:26: Course structure
1:39:23: Logic and epistemology
1:40:25: Agreement among philosophers
1:41:07: Course not on objectivism
1:42:17: Logic material can be obvious
1:44:21: Combination of theory and practice
1:45:29: Recommended reading
1:48:51: Symbolic logic
1:51:59: Inductive reasoning
1:59:56: Relationship between pollution consciousness and fallible consciousness
2:01:33: Aristotle's ethics of the mean
2:03:10: Colleges offering courses in mysticism
2:05:41: Religion based on logic
2:08:27: Definition of proof
2:13:05: Aristotle's argument against conclusions as opinions
2:15:29: Inference vs Judgment
Generated using Summatim
Thanks
can i get all video subtitles or captions, because i'm from arabian background with arabian terms for logic and philosophy in general and detail
@@Gezginaraştırmacı I don't have that either
-Enemies of Logic
Written by a follower of Henri Bergson: “In attempting to describe what we actually know in the abstract logical terms, which are the only means of intercommunication that human beings possess, Bergson is driven into perpetual self-contradiction. Indeed, paradoxical though it may sound, unless he contradicted himself his description could not be a true one. The object of this book is to show exactly why Bergson must use self-contradictory terms if the explanation of reality which he offers is to be a true one.”
Pragmatist/Positivist - claims to advocate logic, but considers logic to be a byproduct of linguistic convention that can change (i.e. social construct/game)
Wittgenstein: “The propositions of logic all say the same thing, namely nothing.”
-Why does man need Logic? (0:10:00)
“Logic is the method by which a volitional, non-automatic consciousness can ensure that its content corresponds to the facts of an independent reality.”
-What is Logic? (0:27:40)
-Law of Identity (i.e. A is A) (0:36:00)
-Law of Contradiction - nothing can be A and non-A at the same time in the same respect. (0:37:30)
-Law of Excluded Middle - everything is either A or non-A at a given time in a given respect. (0:46:25)
-Two general points (0:50:20)
--Negatively - never hold contradictions
--Positively - always check every conclusion you accept against the facts by means of logic.
-Proof - the process of deriving a conclusion from antecedently known truths by reference to and on the basis of the Laws of Logic
-Proof is the process of deriving a conclusion step-by-step from the directly given evidence of the senses; each step being taken in accordance with and on the basis of the laws of logic.
Arbitrary - that which is put forth without basis, without evidence or proof
Shun contradictions and shun the arbitrary
Two False Philosophic Doctrines
Mysticism - the view that a knowledge of reality is possible by means other than logic based on sense experience. (0:55:20)
Non-sensory, non-rational means of knowledge.
Feelings/emotions are valid tools of knowledge.
Implies determined, non-automatic conscience (1:01:00)
Mysticism:Epistemology::Amorality:Ethics (1:02:10)
Subjectivism - the view that reality depends on the content of human consciousness (i.e. reality depends on or is determined by consciousness) (1:07:00)
You can’t prove the Laws of Logic (i.e. they’re self-evident) (1:22:15)
“The Laws of Logic are inescapable. And this leads to the very crucial conclusion that they must be used even to be denied; must be relied upon and accepted even by the opponents of the Laws of Logic, in the very act of trying to deny them he counts upon them.” (1:29:30)
Reaffirmation Through Denial
Concluding Words (1:35:00)
Q&A (1:45:45)
Thank you!
Everyone should know the basics of reason and logic. This is so wonderful it’s on RUclips.
They should learn it from people who actually practice it - computer scientists and mathematicians, not novelists who called themselves philosophers.
14:50 reminds me of this, "Those who invalidate reason, ought seriously to consider, whether they argue against reason, with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle, that they are laboring to dethrone; but if they argue without reason, (which, in order to be consistent with themselves, they must do,) they are out of the reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument." - Ethan Allen.
Works just as well for both sense perception and logic.
This is gold. Thank you for uploading this.
This is my university!!
A whole course on logic, perfect for an emotional neurotic like myself.
Whilst I like his style, and in terms of his ability to teach his subject, he is very good, his misrepresentations will be THE factor in many Objectivists changing sides.
can i get all video subtitles or captions, because i'm from arabian background with arabian terms for logic and philosophy in general and detail 🙏🙏
Best I've found on this.
Thank you for this!
00:00 Logic: Who Needs It
10:50 Why does one need Logic?
Philosophical Theory
1. Metaphysical reason: Primacy of Existence
Existence exists, and consciousness is one's means of perceiving it.
Facts are what they are independent of a person's beliefs. If merely believing in something made it true, we would not need logic.
2. Epistemological reason: Humans are fallible.
Since humans are capable of error, we need some way to ensure that our ideas correspond to reality. An infallible and automatic consciousness would not need logic. Even if it's knowledge was limited, it would be true as far as it went. No method of validation would be necessary.
Logic is the means by which a fallible conceptual being (such as a human) validates whether its ideas correspond to reality.
20:23 In Practice
Effect of Irrationality on Prosperity and Flourishing:
Living in reality requires the achievement of certain values (such as planting food or making shelter). For which one must act in certain ways and not others. Since a human is not born with the knowledge of how to survive in reality, he must use logic to validate whether his ideas are true.
An era of rampant irrationality is bound to be marked with poverty, stagnation, brutality, high child mortality, low life expectancy, and an overall lower quality of life.
Effect of Irrationality on Freedom:
All dictators control their population not simply through brute force but by first destroying a person's means of distinguishing right from wrong.
Without rationality, freedom will cease to exist. Without freedom, there is no prosperity. Without prosperity, there is no flourishing.
Reason is man's basic means of survival. Logic is the method of using that means.
27:16 Definition of Logic
Principles of logic must be ontological: Based on the facts of reality. It cannot be a matter of divine commandment, social consensus, or personal whim (non-ontological).
If the principles of logic weren't ontological, there will be no grounds to appeal to logic to validate adherence to reality.
30:35 For instance, suppose a person were to adopt a Matriarchal Theory of Logic: If my mother likes your idea, it's true. If not, it's false.
What reason is there to assume that adhering to your mother's personal whims gets you any closer to the truth than following your own whims? Why not then just cut the middle layer and believe anything you want to? But this is the exact state we want to move away from.
It doesn't matter whether the standard is determined only by your mother or by everyone in the society taken together (democratically). All non-ontological theories of logic can be dismissed upfront.
34:17 Ontological Theory of Logic
Which principles of reality can be the base for the foundations of logic? Since logic needs to be applicable to all of existence, we need a principle that's true of everything that exists, simply because it exists.
This gives us the Law of Identity: Everything that exists is what it is. A is A.
Logic is the method of thinking in accordance with the Law of Identity.
How do we ensure our thinking is in accordance with the Law of Identity
By keeping in mind a fundamental corollary of the Law of Identity - The Law of Non-contradiction: Nothing can be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect.
Consider the classic syllogism.
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
To say
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is immortal
Would be an invalid conclusion, because it violates the Law of Non-Contradiction (if all men are mortal and Socrates is a man then Socrates MUST be mortal)
45:00 So Logic is the art of thinking without contradictions.
According to Objectivism, thinking of a process of identification of some aspect of reality.
This gives us Ayn Rand's definition of logic: Logic is the Art of Non-Contradictory Identification.
46:18 The Law of Excluded Middle
Another restatement of the Law of Identity: Everything is either A or non-A, at the same time and in the same respect. (There is no third possibility other than A or non-A).
This plugs the gap on the other type of attack on the Law of Identity. One way to violate identity is to say something is and isn't A (Contradiction). Another way is to say that it's neither A nor non-A (Excluded Middle).
All laws of logic are restatements of and derived from the Law of Identity.
50:00 What does being logical consist of?
At this point we can summarize it with two conclusions.
Negatively: Never hold contradictions
Positively: Always check every conclusion you accept against the facts by means of logic. Before coming to any conclusion, ask what are the facts, what are the true premises that lead to this conclusion. In other words, prove your conclusion. (I.e never believe the arbitrary)
In other words, to be logical, shun contradictions, and shun the arbitrary.
Proof is the process of deriving your conclusion from antecedently known truths by reference to and on the basis of the laws of logic.
The premises your conclusion depends on must in turn be proven to be true based on prior premises, terminating in direct observation.
Proof is the process of deriving a conclusion starting from the facts directly available by sense perception, step by step, with each step in accordance with the laws of logic.
54:20 Two philosophical attacks on logic: Mysticism and Subjectivism
Mysticism: Knowledge of reality is possible by means other than logic based on sense experience. What means? Answers given by mystics are endless: revelation from God, intuition, faith, hunch, instinct, gut feeling, democracy, trance, etc. Ultimately, what's common to all of them is appeal to emotions.
Mysticism is not a matter of the contents of your belief, rather your method of thinking. Aquinas believed in God based on what he considered rational arguments. The arguments may be wrong, but he did not appeal to emotions. Aquinas was not a mystic. On the other hand if you go on a trance on LSD and come back believing there is no god, you'd be a mystical atheist.
The key to mysticism is the view that feelings/emotions are a valid means of knowledge.
The core of mysticism is the denial of the fact that man needs a standard to validate his thoughts. It comes down to "I just know it", which translates to "I just feel it."
The famous mystical quote is revealing in this regard, "to those who understand no explanation is necessary, to those who do not understand no explanation is possible in either case, I do not explain."
Mysticism implies determinism. Whatever thought comes to your mind is automatically true simply because you thought of it/felt it. In other words, an automatic view of consciousness.
A mystic treats his consciousness at the conceptual the same as an animal's consciousness at the perceptual level.
Mysticism : Epistemology :: Amorality : Ethics - not a standard, but a denial of standards.
Once a movement accepts mysticism as it's method, it soon degenerates into a bunch of sects since there's no way to determine which revelations are real.
A sacred text is to religion what the laws of logic are to science. This of why science doesn't require sacred texts.
1:06:50 Subjectivism
Whereas mysticism attacks the epistemological basis of logic (there are no standards necessary to validate whether your ideas are true i.e correspond to facts), subjectivism attacks the metaphysical basis of logic (there are no facts apart from your feelings/ideas).
Subjectivism is a view of the nature of reality. It's a form of Primacy of Consciousness.
If facts are anything you want them to be, then you have wiped out the basis for the need or possiblity of logic, argument, proof, refutation, etc.
You may encounter someone who claims Subjectivism is true and then asks you to refute his claim.
This is the fallacy of the stolen concept: Using a concept (here: proof of refutation) while ignoring or denying the more fundamental concepts it depends on (logic and external reality).
A sign of a subjectivist is someone who says "this is true _for_ me, but may not be true _for_ you." A isn't A, it's whatever someone wants it to be, for him.
1:15:30 challenge: produce any statement that's true for someone but not others.
The misconceptions here come from two types of examples.
1. Spinach example
"Some men like spinach"
This is not true _for_ some men. It's true _of_ some men that they like spinach. But it's true for all men that some men like spinach.
2. I have a bag cold
Meaning: It's true for me that I have a cold, but not for you that you have a cold.
The confusion here stems from improperly specifying who "I" stands for. If John has a cold and Bob doesn't, it's true for everyone that John has a cold and Bob doesn't.
A is A. If it's a fact, it's a fact for everyone.
1:19:45 To sum up, mysticism deprives man of any method to validate the correspondence of his thoughts to reality. Subjectivism deprives man of a reality to think about.
Consciousness is your means of awareness of existence. Mysticism cuts the tie between consciousness and existence. Which means deny consciousness (to not be conscious of reality is to not be conscious. There's nothing else to be conscious of.) Subjectivism denies that existence exists. That there is an external reality independent of your consciousness.
Mysticism denies consciousness. Subjectivism denies existence apart from consciousness.
Mystic says you don't have to identify without contradiction. Subjectivism says there is nothing to identify.
Being logical requires a repudiation of both mysticism and subjectivism. Facts exist and facts don't care about your feelings.
Test
Super helpful, Thanks!
This is amazing
where could we find a copy of the booklet mentioned in this talk containing hundreds of examples of fallacies?
10:55
23:45
43:56
A note to new students: You may not understand everything in this first lecture until you've studied Peikoff's course on History of Philosophy.
Listen to it again after taking that course.
It’s pretty logical already to follow
@@rafeeqwarfield9690 that's great!
1:35:34 Two fundamental types of inference
Not infants
1:13:34
0:36:00 //timesone
"The philosopher Ronald de Sousa once memorably described philosophical theology as "intellectual tennis without a net," and I readily allow that I have indeed been assuming without comment or question up to now that the net of rational judgment was up. But we can lower it if you really want to. It's your serve. Whatever you serve, suppose I return service rudely as follows: "What you say implies that God is a ham sandwich wrapped in tinfoil. That's not much of a God to worship!" If you then volley back, demanding to know how I can logically justify my claim that your serve has such a preposterous implication, I will reply: "Oh, do you want the net up for my returns, but not for your serves? Either the net stays up, or it stays down. If the net is down, there are no rules and anybody can say anything, a mug's game if there ever was one. I have been giving you the benefit of the assumption that you would not waste your own time or mine by playing with the net down."
- Daniel C. Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
1:21:45 Can you prove the laws of logic?
Of course it's true you cannot "prove" the laws of logic. The concept of proof itself arises from acceptance of the laws of logic. To request proof of the laws of logic is a stolen concept.
The law of identity is self-evident. It requires no outside evidence. In any perception of reality, even if you don't know what you're seeing, you know it is what it is.
1:39:00 relationship between epistemology and logic
Epistemology is a broader subject, within which logic is one sub-area.
1:45:11 Question Period
Q) Reading materials
2:08:35 Definition of Proof: the process of deriving a conclusion, step by step from the directly given evidence of the senses, each step being made in accordance with and on the basis of the laws of logic.
"The law of identity is self-evident. It requires no outside evidence. In any perception of reality, even if you know what you're seeing, you know it is what it is."
The law of identity is a rule for not screwing up your logic: don't re-use labels. You are utterly confused drawing anything else from it.
@@someonenotnoone I don't understand what your response has to do with my notes?
I think I meant to write "even if you don't know what you're seeing." I'll fix that.
@@YashArya01 I'm saying you are confusing a basic method to not screw up logic for something deeper. "The law of identity" is not about understanding nature, it's about practicing logic. Don't re-use labels. Don't say A is something, and then use A to refer to something else. Because you'll screw up your logic.
@@someonenotnoone did you literally just jump to this timestamp? You're coming up with basic level stuff from symbolic logic. This is deeper than that.
@@YashArya01 You see it that way and I can't stop that. But it's not.
Reality is not two there can be no primacy. "Awareness is known by awareness alone," is the sole irreducible axiom of reality.
Why does the primacy of existence not hold?
An apple is an apple regardless of what you or me think of it.
What is your definition of existence and what is it contingent upon?
If existence exist as something what is that something, and if existence exist as all things what knows all things?
Awareness is the very fabric of reality. When one see's an apple that is awareness as an apple. Awareness appears as an existence in the form of finite perceptions. Reality by definition is a tautology and can only be expressed gramatically as such i.e awareness is known by awareness alone. Awareness implies self awareness, unself awareness is a contradiction in terms.
@@adeelali8417 Tautologies are not meaningful.
Tough crowd.
When you quote Dewey and A.J.Ayer back to back and refer to the pragmatic-analytic schools as holding the same views on logic, we know you are either highly unaware of what these schools teach or your are a creative genius.
Looks like he fell and hit his head while watching a fox clip on anti-Christmas paranoia and his brain must have substituted Christmas with Logic.
Poor thing. I keep forgetting objectivism was still around. Thought it had died of cultic pneumonia around 2008, 9.
I’m all ears. Teach me thine conceptual cognition, father.
Going by the quotes alone, to an Objectivist, they pretty much are the same thing, if the schools in question doesn't put much stock in reason and logic, than everything from ethics onwards is a distinction without a difference.
Now, if you can give us quotes or specific book/treatises by Dewey, Ayer or fellows that suggest them to be strident Aristotlians (the only philosophers Rand recommended was Aristotle, Aquinas and herself, although there is an article in the Objectivist Standard that gives a favourable opinion towards Reid) than that opinion might change.
Good luck.
@@artofthepossible7329 I shall evaluate reorienting myself towards whatever rand says we should do. Got a list of things rand says we should do? I don’t know, like with 10 items?
This guy kinda sounds like Barack Obama.
I have a new favorite conspiracy theory
Please, for the sake of reasonable conclusions, do not learn logic from objectivists. Study science and mathematics so you understand how logic actually works, and how it actually doesn't, *without putting all of your worldview at stake.* Then, once you have a *working* understanding of logic, including logic beyond the zero order of dichotomies, come back to objectivism. If you're anything like literally every other person I know who had a working understanding of logic *before* being introduced to objectivism, you'll see the lack of working practice with logic that Rand, Peikoff, and Brooks suffered from.
"A is A" means don't re-use labels. It's a practical step to not screwing up your logic. It's not a comment on the nature of reality and existence.
@@someonenotnoone oh, this is what you mean.
Don't waste my time.
@@YashArya01 Actually logic for people outside of objectivism is incredibly valuable, nothing like a waste of time. It's within objectivism that it becomes a dead-end/position at Ayn Rand Institute.
@@someonenotnoone what? Obviously logic isn't a waste of time. Talking to you about it is.
@@YashArya01 Funny, people who practice logic professionally don't think that.
@@someonenotnoone then talk to them. Don't waste my time with basic points already covered in the lecture. I did not invite you to a discussion.