In a debate about faith and doubt in which I was doubting all existence and my friend argued in favor of existence, he challenged my rationalistic perspective by asking me this: Your reasoning depends upon the rules of logic, but there is a problem: how do you KNOW, conclusively, that the rules of logic are sound? Isn't that an act of faith? Can't you conceive of a universe in which logic appears to work, but in which logic is actually an illusion? How do you know that you don't live in that universe? <i>Cogito ergo sum</i> did not cover this one. I was stumped. Can you help me out?

Comments

If a logical principle such as "F, therefore F or G" is false in some universe, then that universe contains a contradiction, and contradictions are impossible. So no universe containing a violation of logic could exist.

Also, if I were to tie your hand behind your back and then ask you whether you can touch your nose with it, that would be a peculiar question. And something similar is going on when one's asked whether one can defend all one's principles of reasoning. The whole practice of defending something assumes that principles of reasoning are in place. In fact, a cogito-like situation is indeed present: a state of affairs holds (thinking, defending) which demands presuppositions (existing, acceptance of rules) that make a certain doubt (about existence, about logic) self-stultifying.

Read another response by Marc Lange, Alexander George

Read another response about Knowledge, Logic