Date post: | 05-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | anthony-fejfar |
View: | 224 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 39
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
1/39
Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Chapter 1
A Logical Positivist Proof for Gods Existence
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2009 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Logical Positivism is defined as the idea that reality is best known
through rigorous logical inferences from sense experience. Given this
definition, following Thomas Aquainas, it is possible to prove Gods
Existence as the First Cause, Uncaused Cause, using Logical Positivism.
We start out by noticing that a person can have sense experience.
Thus, a person can have sense experience of pool balls sitting on a pool
table. Based upon sense experience, we can see that if a person hits a pool
ball with a pool cue, this causes the ball to move and to hit another pool ball,
having the effect of moving the second pool ball. Thus, using rigorous
logical inferences from sense experience, we can deduce, logically, that
cause and effect exist and operate. Thus, it next appropriate to consider the
cause of the pool ball which was hit by the pool cue. We can see that the
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
2/39
pool ball was manufactured by the use of human technology from materials
made from the Earth. In this sense, it is fair to say, in some sense, that the
Earth causes the pool ball to be caused and to exist. Now, we must then
inquire as to the origin of the Earth. How did the Earth come into
existence? We can say that the Earth came into existence and was caused
by the Universe. What then is the cause or origin of the Universe? If we
keep looking for causes, forever, we would only find an infinite regress of
causes, if they exist and operate. However, it is generally assumed that the
Universe is finite. If the Universe is finite, then it is apparent that a finite
Universe cannot contain within itself an infinite series of causes. The finite
cannot contain the infinite. Thus, based upon rigorous logical inferences
from sense experience, it is apparent that since there cannot be an infinite
regress of causes, instead there must Exist, an Uncaused, First Cause of the
Universe, namely, God. Thus, we have proved Gods Existence using
Logical Positivism, based upon the work of Thomas Aquainas.
Chapter 2
Advanced Logical Positivism as Personal Consciousness
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
3/39
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2009 by Anthony J. Fejfar
One who has appropriated Logical Positivist Consciousness finds
that at Level One of Personal Consciousness, the person uses Rigorous
Logical Inferences from Sense Experience, in order to know reality best.
However, it should be noted that both Quantum Physics and the existence of
God can be proved based on logic and sense experience. Additionally, it is
apparent that the words in a text, such as a book, or a magazine, as well as
the words of spoken speech, both involve Sense Experience and therefore
can be taken into account using Logical Positivism. Additionally, it is also
fair to make certain assumptions for purposes of presenting a Logical
Argument or Proof. Thus, it would be fair, for example, to assume the
existence of Personal Autonomy, based upon Sense Experience and Logic in
order to present a Logical Argument or Proof. Finally, a person can also use
the Cognitional Structure, in altered form, with Logical Positivism. Thus,
the Modified Cognitional Structure is as follows:
Level One Sense Experience and
Logical Inferences therefrom
Level Two Understanding (Intuitive and Analytical)
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
4/39
Level Three Intuitive Judgment and Reflection
Chapter 3
Illogical Thinking is Schizophrenia
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
5/39
Copyright 2009 by Anthony J. Fejfar
By age 25 if you cannot think logically, you are Schizophrenic.
Schizophrenia is a thought disorder where the person cannot reason
logically. Unfortunately, some psychiatrists, wrongly, think that
schizophrenia involves politically incorrect religious, or political beliefs. If
you cannot reason from A to B, causally, with a logical syllogism, then you
are schizophrenic. Thus, it may be that many psychiatrists are
schizophrenic. As they say, it appears that the inmates are running the
asylum. To be normatively, healthy, from a psychiatric point of view, you
must be able to use the causal syllogism, If A, then B, A, therefore, B.
Additionally, if a person cannot recognize that a logical contradiction exists
which is an invalid way of thinking, then the person is schizophrenic. Thus,
if you say A holds in the morning, and then not A holds in the
afternoon, when there has been no real change in circumstances, then you
are schizophrenic.
Chapter 4
Logical Positivism, Ockhams Razor, and Satan
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
6/39
Copyright 2009 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Logical Positivism is defined as the fact that reality is best
known through rigorous logical inferences from sense experiences.
Ockhams Razor states that any inquiry must choose the simplest
explanation possible, and thus, Ockhams Razor is typically cited for the
proposition that you cannot logically or rationally talk about God.
Interestingly, some Satanists take the position that it does not violate
Ockhams Razor or Logical Positivism to accuse another person of being
Satan or a Satanist. Such persons are wrong. It is more irrational to talk
about Satan or Satanism than it is to talk about God. Satan is an irrational
concept. It is clear that Satan is not real, but instead is an hallucination.
After Einstein, it is clear that all concepts are in some sense relative.
Heisenbergs Indeterminacy Theory in Quantum Physics says the same thing.
Thus, there is no absolute evil or Satan, rather, only relative evil and
relative good. Unfortunately, some idiots in psychiatry and psychology are
stupid enough to accuse or even diagnose their clients with Satanism, when
such an assertion clearly violates Logical Positivist Rules and Ockhams
Razor. In such a case, it is not the client who is schizophrenic, but rather
the psychiatrist or psychologist. Such psychiatrists or psychologists are
clearly committing malpractice and should be sued or charged in criminal
court with Penury.
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
7/39
Chapter 5
Logical Positivism, Sense Experience,
and Phenomenology
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
8/39
Copyright 2009 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Logical Positivism is defined as, Rigorous Logical Inferences
from Sense Experience. Thus, Logical Positivism must start with Sense
Experience. But, Kant, Husserl, Gadamer, and Lonergan all tell us that
after the age of 1 year old, a child (person) only has sense experience which
is mediated by Meaning, or Understanding.
Starting at an early age, children use ideas to label everything. There is
only meaningful sense experience. Additionally, sense experience takes
place within the context of a homeostatic biological system which involves
moderate relativism. Thus, the temperature of water at room temperature
will feel different after ice has been placed upon ones fingers, rather than
fingers which have been placed in hot water. Therefore, sense experience is
not an absolute, and thus, logical positivism, based on sense experience fails
to meet the standards of critical philosophy of science. Instead, philosophy
of science suggests that we should use the phenomenological method,
outlined by Husserl. Thus, Logical Positivism, revised, should be defined
as, Rigorous logical inferences from experience, as such (not sense
experience). Thus, Logical Positivism must include the data of
Consciousness and Values, not just a narrow positivistic approach. Thus,
Spiritual Experience and Cognitive Experience, for example, can be studied
as Psychology of Consciousness. Phenomenal Logical Positivism also
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
9/39
leaves room for the study of Quantum Physics, which standard Logical
Positivism does not.
Chapter 6
Logic and Logical Positivism are not Absolutes
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A.,J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Some liberal fascists, not real liberals of course, try to convince us
that reality is best known through the use of Logical Positivism, defined as,
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
10/39
rigorous logical inferences from sense experience. Now, based on my
experience, most Logical Positivists are frauds, that is, they have never had a
logic class, and, they dont think logically. In other words, logical positivists
simply have a stupid, irrational, ideological belief in logical positivism,
which, has nothing to do with logic.
Now, some of us try to play the logical positivist game, to see
whether or not it works, and, we understand logic. However, if you
understand logic well enough, you begin to understand that logic is not
necessarily a logically consistent discipline. In theory, with logic, when you
start with the same logical premises, you should always be able to reason to
the same logical conclusion. Unfortunately, a logical proof can be
demonstrated where you start with the same logical premises and can reason
to a logically, contradictory conclusion. This does not mean we should
abandon logic, on the contrary, it simply means that we need to either see
logic as a useful tool, not an absolute, or, we need to develop additional,
more sophisticated logical rules.
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
11/39
Consider the following logical exercise:
1. A or B.
2. From A or B derive A.
You cannot derive B here because this would lead to the conclusion
that you can derive A and B from A or B which is impossible. You cannot
derive a conjunction from a disjunction. This of course is a Public Policy
or Jurisprudence, or Values, argument and is not strictly speaking based
upon syllogistic logic and would not be accepted as valid using Logical
Positivism, even though, not using this Public Policy, Jurisprudence, or
Values, results in a logical contradiction which would not be allowed by
Logical Positivism.
Now, we will do the same exercise, without the Public Policy,
Jurisprudence, or Values, argument. Consider the following:
1. A or B.
2. From A or B derive A
3. From A or B derive B
4. From 2. derive A
5. From 3 derive B
6. From 4 and 5 derive A and B
7. From 1 and 6 derive A or B and A and B
Now, we all ,know that A or B is disjunction, and, we also
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
12/39
know that A and B is a conjunction. We also know that a conjunction is
not a disjunction, and to assert, at the same time that you can have both a
conjunction and a disjunction with the same set of facts is irrational and
illogical. Now, you can prove this, more concretely, with a concrete
operations exercise. You have one orange. You can hold that orange in you
left hand or you can hold the orange in your right hand, but you cannot hold
the orange in both hands at the same time. This is physically impossible.
Thus, we have the logic statement OL or OR (Orange Left or Orange
Right). Now, you can also have the concrete the concrete exercise of
having two very similar oranges, one orange in the left hand and one orange
in the right hand. Thus, you have OL and OR (Orange Left and Orange
Right) Now, it is clear that OL or OR is not concretely the same as Ol
and Or (Orange Left or Orange Right is not concretely the same as as
Orange Left and Orange Right).
It is clear, therefore, that without Public Policy, Jurisprudence, and
Values, logic does not work, and, logical positivism does not work. We also
see that logic and logical positivism are tools to be used, not absolutes.
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
13/39
Chapter 7
Logical Arguments are Statistically Valid
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar
I have heard that some, rather stupid people, are trying to say that a
Logical Argument can be allegedly wrong, on the basis that it is statistically
invalid. Of course, it must be noted, in the first instance, that statistics are
only supposed to be applied to a determination as to whether certain facts
exist. Statistical analysis does not apply to theory, nor does it apply to
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
14/39
logic. Moreover, when you stop and think about it, any valid logical
analysis is statistically correct 100% of the time. You see, if you ever were
to do a statistical analysis of a Logical Syllogism, you would find that you
get exactly the same results every time. This means, that there is a 100%
positively, valid, statistical correlation among the test data (the logic
experiment), thus proving that it is statistically valid. Accordingly, all
Logical Arguments are statistically valid, and therefore meet the
requirements of modern science. However, since Modern Science seems to
hypothesize that reality can only be known statistically, we can say that a
valid logical analysis produces results which are 99.9999999% valid.
Chapter 8
Logical Positivism Allows for Value Discussions
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Logical Positivism states that we know reality best through rigorous
logical inferences from sense experience. Now, in terms of sense
experience, we have the five senses, taste, feeling, sight, smell, and hearing.
Now, when we consider the sense experience of feeling, we can see that
human being have internal feelings, that is, intuitive feeling and emotional
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
15/39
feeling, as well as external feeling, which is touch. Thus we can say that it
makes perfect sense from a Logical Positivist point of view to discuss
internal feeling such as intuitive feeling and emotional feeling.
Now, we know about values because we have sense experience of the
external world, such that we can see and know that we value certain things,
namely, the goods of good food, good clothing, good housing, good
education, good transportation, good entertainment, good recreation, etc.
We also can have feelings which we value. For example, when we self-
actualize (Maslow) we have internal experience feelings of satisfaction.
We also value love and relational feelings. Finally, we have the feeling of
valuing various goods, such as those discussed above.
Once we use feeling and sense experience to develop a set of values,
we then use logic to categorize and systematically order or rank these
values. We can also logically discuss our scale of values (Lonergan).
Thus, value discussions in a classroom or in other settings clearly come
within the ambit of Logical Positivism, since such discussions start with the
internal experience of feelings and then moves to a logical analysis and
ordering of such values and feelings. There is no logical reason to limit
sense experience to external sense experience only. Feelings within the
human body involve internal feeling experience and are just as valid as
external sense experience. Those who argue the Logical Positivism excludes
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
16/39
value discussions in a classroom are being stupid.
Chapter 9
Logical Positivism and Analogical Logic
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Logical Positivism is defined as rigorous logical inferences from
sense experience. Of course, one aspect of sense experience is written
language, such as that found in Judicial Opinion. Also, logic is not just
confined to syllogistic logic, it also include analogical logic. A the
inductive syllogism states: If A, then B, A therefore B. Now, if in legal case
1, we have the Fact A, this becomes if A in our syllogism. Then, if we
find that we have in legal case 2, the Fact A, again, then we see that A
becomes A therefore B. Thus, once we can identify Fact A, and then
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
17/39
Abstract, Fact A, we can use the inductive syllogism to say that Rule or
Result B applies. Thus, we would find, logically, the following: If A, then
B, A, therefore B. Put another way: If A Fact, then B Result, A Fact,
therefore B result. Now, analogical logic works in a similar way. Instead
of saying the foregoing, we use A and A by analogy. Thus: If A, then B,
A(by analogy) therefore B. This is the way that most caselaw, legal
reasoning works. A lawyer or judge must learn to think, logically, by
analogy, not just using a strict logical syllogism. If you are not good at
analogical logic, you can practice, and get better at it. For example, Apple
is analogous to Orange as Steak is analogous to hamburger. Light is
analogous to Dark as Rough is analogous to Smooth. Paper is analogous
to Book as Can of Beans is analogous to a Bean. You can get help
practicing from someone who knows how to make analogies. If you want to
find a lot of analogies in a short period of time, try finding a study guide for
Millers Analogy Test online.
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
18/39
Chapter 10
Logical Positivism and Intuition
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Logical Positivism states that reality best known through rigorous
logical inferences from sense experience. Many scientists and authors have
also asserted that you can know reality through the use of Intuition. Can we
develop a theory of Intuition that meets the requirements of Logical
Positivist rigor? Yes. I argue that Intuition is Arational in function, but,
can be rationally described in terms of how it develops and works. Intuition
is a Right Hemisphere function in normally, right handed, persons. Intuition
starts with Analogical Thinking and Logic. When a person has practiced
working with analogies long enough, the Right Hemisphere begins to
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
19/39
unconsciously do Analogical Thinking all the time. This results in the
Cognitive Attribute that Andrew Greeley denominates as the Preconscious,
or the Preconscious Mind. What happens is that the Frontal Lobe of the
Brain begins to Unconciously think, Analogically, and this becomes the
Preconscious. Now, it is also the case that the Human Mind, or the Human
Brain can begin to function using Quantum Subatomic Particles, not just
Neurons. In fact, it could be argued that a Neuron is a Quantum Subatomic
Particle. As a person begins to engage in a type of Meditation, Quantum
Subatomic Particles, masking themselves as Neurons, begin to actually
function as Quantum Subatomic Particles. Moreover, the Quantum
Subatomic Particles can interface with other Subatomic Particles, non-
locally, and acausally, at a distance, following Bells Theorom. At this point
Intuition can gather information from anywhere in reality, acausally.
Following this theory, Intuition can also develop into telepathy and remote
viewing, that is, clairaudience and clairvoyance. With Quantum Physics
this is all provable scientifically. Obviously, then, Intuiton, telepathy, and
clairvoyance are not a mental illness and are not Satanism, and do not
involve magic. Additionally, analogical logic is a part of Logical
Positivism, and therefore proven, using Logical Positivism, and, Quantum
Physics is also proven using scientific experiments which meet the
requirements of Logical Positivism. Finally, if you attempt to develop
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
20/39
Intuition using Quantum Physics which is non-causal this causes
Schizophrenia. The non-causal mind cannot think logically. The acausal
mind can think logically.
Chapter 11
Logical Positivism Destroys Freud
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar
The founder of Modern Psychiatry, Sigmund Freud, rests his whole
profession position, as a psychitrist, on his concepts of the id and the libido.
Of course, we know that the id and the libido dont really exists. These
ideas are delusional on Freuds part. Logical Positivism tells us that we can
only consider rigorous logical inferences, based upon sense experience.
Obviously, the ridiculous ideas of the id and the libido are barred by Logical
Positivism. And so it is with the rest of Freud. All of Freud is just
fabricated, bullshit. Putting it bluntly, Freud was an idiot and must be
discounted, totally, by anyone who applies rigorous, academic standards.
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
21/39
Chapter 12
Logical Positivism is Fatally Flawed
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Logical Positivism is defined as rigorous logical inferences from
sense experience. Logical Positivism claims to give a more adequate
explanation of reality than anything else. This is absurd. Logical
Positivism cannot explain or deal with Music. Music cannot be logically
analyzed. Music, which is studied, consists of octaves and notes which
involve mathematical relationships and which are set in place by Natural
Law. Natural Law ensures that tonal harmonics exist. Music is just not a
random occurrence. Music can be written using mathematics and a
knowledge of musical notes, octaves, chords, harmonies, etc. Music is a
major discipline. Now, sense experience might somehow assert that we can
hear sounds, and that this is valid, in some way. But, the sensation hearing
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
22/39
does not explain how human beings can hear, and enjoy musical tones, and,
it cannot explain why human beings scream when out of key music is
played. In fact, it has been argued that music which is purposely played out
of key causes mental illness and stomach ulcers. Logical Positivism cannot
begin to explain this.
Chapter 14
Logical Positivism is Trashed
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq.,, Coif
Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Logical Positivism is defined as rigorous logical inferences from sense
experience. A huge hole in this idea of Logical Positivism is that it does not
include mathematics. Everyone knows that 2 plus 2 equals 4, and, this is a
statistically certain result. You can prove this by using stick counting. If
you start with 2 sticks and add two sticks, and combine the two sets of two
sticks, and then count the combined set, you count 4 sticks. Mathematics
produces predictable, consistent results, every time. Two plus two always
equals four, no matter if you are in Prague, or Moscow, or Chicago.
Mathematics is not culturally relative. Since, Logical Positivism does not,
by definition include mathematics, Logical Positivism is fatally flawed.
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
23/39
It is Logically Inconsistent to Follow Ockhams Razor
and be a Atheist Materialist
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Ockhams Razor provides that Ockhams Razor excludes from any
academic or scientific discussion any unnecessary metaphysical or
theological assumptions. Atheist Materialism provides that a person who
believes in Atheist Materialism must deny the Existence of God, and must
believe that the essential nature of the universe or reality is materialism, that
is, that reality is ultimately material. Of course, the problem with Atheist
Materialism is that the material or material is a metaphysical concept
used by Aristotle and Thomas Aquainas. Of course, other metaphysical
concepts which play a similar role are Substance and Matter. In any event,
since Ockhams Razor excludes discussions of metaphysical concepts, an
Atheist Materialist is being irrational to believe that material or the
material is the basis for reality or the universe. And, if one were to
include material or the material in beliefs or discussions, Matter and
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
24/39
Substance would do equally well or better.
The Logic of Aristotle
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Aristotelian Logic is based upon Logical Foundationalism. Logical
Foundationalism proves that Logic is Valid starting with sense experience,
proving that you cannot have (A)pple in your left hand at the same time as
you have not (A)pple in your left hand. By Logical Analogy, then, you
cannot have A at the same time and place that you have not A.
Similarly, if you are not permitted to start with sense experience, then, you
can simply use the idea in your mind or imagination that you cannot have
A and not A at the same time in the same place. In either case, if you
try to assert that you can have A and not A at the same time and in the
same place, this results in a Logical Contradiction which is supposed to be
impossible. Therefore, where a Logical Contradiction is present, it is clear
that a false or fallacious or illogical or irrational or unreasonable manner of
arguing, or making a statement, or presenting a proof, is present.
Once we have shown, and then seen, that a proof, a statement, an
argument, are invalid and or wrong, if a Logical Contradiction is involved,
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
25/39
then, we can use this to prove that certain types of arguments, or proofs, or
statements, are illogical or false or fallacious, and thus cannot be used.
Thus, several logical fallacies are ruled out as illegal arguments: The
Fallacy of Shifting Ground, the Fallacy of Hypocricy, the Fallacy of Lying,
the Fallacy of Assuming the Consequent, the Inductive Fallacy, The Fallacy
of Appealing to an Authority, the Fallacy of Vouching, etc.
Next, logically, we are permitted to use mathematics to derive other
logical principles. Thus, we can prove the Validity of Analogical Logic
using Math Fractions. Thus, A is to B as C is to D or
1 is to 2 as 2 is to 4, and, 2 is to 4 as 4 is to 8 using symbols:
2 : 4 @ 4 : 8, etc.
Next, logically, we are permitted to use mathematics to prove the
Natural Law Principle of Proportionality. Thus, 1 is to 1 as 2 is to 2,
and,
1 : 1 @ 2 : 2, and, 4 : 4 as 8 : 8. All of these Math Equations
demonstrate Perfect Proportionality. Thus, we can also derive,
damages is to damaged as punishment is to harm, as both ethical and
legal principles.
Next, logically, we are permitted to use mathematics to prove the
Natural Law Principle of Reciprocity. Thus, 1 is to 2 as 2 is to 1 and,
1 : 2 @ 2 : 1 and, 2 : 4 @ 4 : 2 and, 4 : 8 @ 8 : 4. From the
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
26/39
foregoing mathematical principle of reciprocity we can derive the ethical
and legal principle of Reciprocity, also known as the Golden Rule, which is,
Treat Another as you would wish to be treated in Similar Circumstances.
Next, we can derive the Principle of Utility, or Maximization of Value.
The Principle of Utility provides that, as a general rule, a rational person
chooses to have more, rather than less, of quality goods or services.
Moreover, as a general rule, a rational person chooses to experience pleasure
rather than pain. Moreover, as a general rule, a rational person chooses to
have meaningful happiness rather than to suffer. The foregoing is logically
and empirically provable by presenting a group of persons with certain
choices, such as, having good food to eat on a regular basis, rather than
starving to death; having a warm home to sleep in, in the winter, rather
than being outside and freezing to death; choosing the good rather than evil;
choosing The Good rather than Evil, etc.
Next, since a logical principle or rule has only reasonable scope and
application, it is logically permitted following the Principle of Equity, to
make a reasonable, or logical, or equitable exception to a rule or principle,
based upon great need, in order to avoid an illogical, unreasonable, or
absurd result, given the foregoing Logical, Ethical, and Legal Principles.
Next, in order to properly evaluate an argument, a proof, or a statement,
often it is required that you make the person who is asserting the argument,
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
27/39
proof, or statement, define the terms or ideas used in a way which is logical.
Remember, once a word or term or idea has been used in a certain way for a
long time, then, it is not logical to change the definition of that word, term,
or idea, without just cause shown. Instead, the person should develop a new
word, or idea, or term, and use it with the new definition.
Given the foregoing, it is thus possible to say that some choices are not
logical or rational, while others are, and, we can prove this using logic and
the Principles and reasoning set forth above.
Six Universal Cross Cultural Natural Law
Principles of Cultural Relativism-
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2010 Anthony J. Fejfar
The notion of Cultural Relativism is that reality is characterized by
moderate relativism, and, that, each person is entitled to choose his or her
own culture, within reason, and cannot be judged by the standards of
another culture, alien, or otherwise. Now, not just any culture qualifies as a
culture for purposes of Cultural Relativism, because, you see, there are
certain Universal Cross Cultural Rules that apply to and in, every culture,
for that culture to be a valid culture. Six Universal Cross Cultural,
Natural Law Rules that apply in every culture, are as follows:
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
28/39
3. Logic
4. Reciprocity
5. Utility
6. Proportionality
7. Equity
8. rational self interest
Logic is Universally, Cross Culturally valid as a Natural Law
Principle, because everyone can start with the notion that you cannot have
an (A)pple in your left hand, at the same time and the same place, as no(t)
(A)pple. Thus, you cannot have a carved wood figure, A in your left hand
at the same time and place as (n)ot A. From this you can also say that you
cannot have A and not A at the same time and place. Thus, any assertion
that you can have A and not A at the same time, in the same place, is invalid
and false. Thus, Logic is defined as that discipline which requires that in
any proof, statement, argument, or factual assertion, you cannot have a
logical contradiction, such as, A and not A, at the same time. From this,
every proof, statement, argument, or factual assertion, can be judged as
logically valid, if no logical contradiction is involved.
Reciprocity is Universally, Cross Culturally valid as a Natural Law
Principle, because you can teach and demonstrate Reciprocity using
Mathematical Fractions, such as:
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
29/39
1 is to 2 as 2 is to 1 1 : 2 @ 2 : 1
2 is to 4 as 4 is to 2 2 : 4 @ 4 : 2
4 is to 8 as 8 is to 4 4 : 8 @ 8 : 4
It is logically and statistically provable that it is in each persons rational self
interest to engage in Legal and Ethical reasoning using the Natural Law
Principle of Reciprocity. Legal and Ethically, the Natural Law Principle of
Reciprocity is stated as: Treat another person as you would wish to be
treated in similar circumstances. The foregoing Natural Law Principle of
Reciprocity is confirmed valid as meeting the universality requirement of
Kants Categorical Imperative.
Proportionality is a Universal, Cross Culturally valid Natural Law
Principle that can be taught and demonstrated with Mathematical Fractions:
1 is to 1 as 2 is to 2 1 : 1 @ 2 : 2
2 is to 2 as 4 is to 4 2 : 2 @ 4 : 4
3 is to 3 as 6 is to 6 3 : 3 @ 6 : 6
From the Mathematical Principle of Proportionality, several Natural Law,
Legal and Ethical Principles can be derived. First, any damage award
should be perfectly proportional, that is equal, to the amount that the person
was damaged. Secondly, any criminal sentence should be perfectly
proportional , that is equal, to the degree that the victim of the crime was
actually injured. Third, since we can prove, and for our purposes here,
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
30/39
assume, that each person has an individual, irrevocable, natural right of
liberty, we can deduce that all persons are Free and Equal, based on Natural
Law. Thus, following the Natural Law Principle of Proportionality, each
person must be treated equally before the law. Thus, each person has a
natural right of equal protection under law.
Utility is a Universal, Cross Culturally valid Natural Law Principle.
Utility carries with is two Ethical or Values Principles:
3. As a general rule, it is better for a person to have more,
rather than less, of any good, property, or service, etc.,
tangible or
intangible.
4. As a general rule, a person is better off if he or she
chooses pleasure over pain.
The foregoing principles of utility can be proven logically and
empirically. If you ask any person if he or she would rather starve or
have enough good food to eat, the vast majority of people will choose
good food rather than starving. Additionally, the vast majority of
people will choose the pleasure of receiving a good back rub over the
pain of being tortured with a cigarette lighter.
Equity is a Universal, Cross Culturally valid Natural Law
Principle. Equity makes an equitable exception from a general rule,
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
31/39
based upon extraordinary need. Also, equity only functions when
there is not adequate remedy at law. The ordinary remedy is to seek to
apply reasonable laws, which have reasonable scope and application.
As both Aristotle, Christopher St. Germain, and Bernard Lonergan
have shown, there are it is impossible to any ethical or legal rules
which apply in every possible situation. Instead, as noted above, laws
only can have reasonable scope and application to be valid, following
Grotius.
Rational Self Interest is a Universally and Cross Culturally valid
Ethical and Legal, Natural Law Principle. You see, rational self
interest, assumes and uses the foregoing Natural Law Principles, and
thus, it is valid for a person to chose rational self interest over altruism
and rational self interest over selfishness. The altruist can in theory be
forced to give away all that he or she has, and then, starve to death.
On the other hand, the selfish person wrongfully ignores or violates the
individual rights of others, and is incapable of following through with
business deal because he or she chooses to irrationally, selfishly, cheat
instead.
In conclusion, every Cultural Relativist is required to follow the
foregoing Natural Law Principles because they are Universally and
Cross Culturally valid, and thus they are valid in every culture, alien,
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
32/39
or otherwise.
Time and Logic
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar
When a Logic Proof or Logic Exercise is used, it is assumed that the
entire logical endeavor is done with Time as a constant, that is, the whole
Proof is assumed to be done with Time standing still. Thus, the fundamental
rule of Logic is that you cannot have, or assert, a logical contradiction in the
same logic proof. Thus, you cannot have A and not A (A and A) at the
same time and in the same place, that is, you cannot have this happen in the
same proof. Thus, you cannot derive a disjunction from a conjunction in a
logic proof. Consider the following:
1. Assume A or B
3. From A or B, derive A and not B (A and B)
4. From A or B you cannot derive B and not a (B and A)
Because, you see, you cannot have A and not A (A and A) in
the same logic proof, nor can you have B and not B (B and B),
since both result in an illegal, logical contradiction.
Thus, you cannot derive A and B from A or B.
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
33/39
However, let us consider the approach which suggests, wrongly, that
you can derive A and B from A or B: (Assume T stand for Time)
T1 Assume A or B
T2 From A or B, derive A and not B (A and B)
T3 From A or B, derive, B and not A (B and A)
T4 From T2 and T3, above, derive A and A, and, B and B
Now, it may appear that the foregoing proof is logically valid, and thus,
that you can prove the existence of a logical contradiction using ordinary
logic rules. However, upon closer inspection, the foregoing proof which
seems to prove two different logical contradictions, is in fact, false or
invalid. Consider the following:
T1 Assume A or B
T2 From A or B at T1, derive A and B (A and not B)
T3 From A or B at T1 you cannot derive
B and A (B and not A) at T1 This would result in an
illegal logical contradiction. At T1 you cannot have both A
and B and B and A at T!.
Now, we can put this another way by doing the logical proof
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
34/39
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
35/39
6. From A is not B, derive B is not A
In addition to the foregoing analytic logic syllogisms, you can also have
analogical logic syllogisms:
1. A is to B as C is to D, From A, B, and D, derive C
2. A is to B as C is to B, From A, B, derive C
3. A is to B as C is to D, From A,B, and C, derive D
3. A is to B as C is to B, From C, B, derive A
Given the foregoing, in terms of Propositional Logic we can now come
up with the following syllogism/proof:
Sensate Logical Positivism (SLP)
Experience Logical Positivism (ELP)
SLP is to valid knowledge as ELP is to valid knowledge
If SLP, then, ELP
SLP therefore ELP
Therefore, Experience Logical Positivism is, or produces, valid knowledge
Thus, we have used an analytic-analogical logic proof to prove that
Experience Logical Positivism produces valid knowledge. Put another way,
logical reasoning from experience produces valid knowledge.
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
36/39
Avoiding the Hermeneutic Circle-
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Emmanuel Kant is credited with destroying empiricism or positivism
based on sense experience by making the phenomenal versus noumenal
distinction. Kant said that the phenomenal world of sense experience
cannot really be known because we use meaning categories to organize and
make sense of, our sense experience. This world of meaning, Kant
denominated the noumenal world. Hans Georg Gadamer says pretty
much the same thing as Kant. Gadamer tells us that we can only really
know the world of hermeutic meaning, and not the world of phenomenon or
sense experience. However, Gadamer asserts that there are forestructures
of knowing which enable us to bypass the logically circular, hermeneutic
circle which results from what Girdeau Spann denominates, analytic spin.
You see, if you push hard enough, you find that all definitions are logically
circular, and, that, if knowledge is only known through conceptual
understanding, then it appears, at first blush, that all logical arguments,
proofs, and statements are ultimately logically circular, and are therefore
invalid. However, following up with Gadamers idea of forestructures of
knowing, it is apparent that a person can bypass the hermeneutic circle using
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
37/39
intuition, rather than just idealist understanding. Intuition functions, in the
first instance, through the use of preconscious, analogical thought processes.
Since analogical logic and analytic logic are not the same type of logical
thought processes, we can see that a third tier of thought which utilizes
analogical thought processes, rather than just analytic ideal thought
processes, and phenomenal sense experience, provides a way out of the
hermeneutic circle. You see, it may be that A is not B, but it may still be
the case that A is like B. Thus, when analogical thought processes are used
in conjunction with analytic thought processes and phenomenal experience,
then we can understand that knowledge involves more than mere sense
experience combined with idealism. Finally, it is also apparent that when
analogical thought processes speed up, they become unconscious, and then
go quantum, utilizing quantum non-locality at a distance (See Nick Herbert,
citing Bell), and achieve a sort of intuitive omniscience. In this way, we can
see that the Zen koan below makes perfect sense:
1. I saw the tree (sense experience)
2. The tree disappeared (metaphorically) (there is no tree
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
38/39
because tree is a logically circular concept)
3. Finally, I knew the tree (I intuitively judge the tree to exist
using analogically and quantum based intuition)
Accordingly, we can see that using analogically and quantum based
intuitive thought processes, the hermeneutic circle is avoided and we
can in fact know probable reality. We can never know any supposed
absolute reality, because unitary reality is really slightly aunitary, or
probable at the most at 99.99999999% real probability.
Logic, Concrete Logic, and Logical Positivism
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Starting with sense experience, you can prove the validity of Logic. Using Concrete Logic, if you place
an (A)pple in your left hand, and then remove that (A)pple, you affirm, using first hand sense experience,
that you cannot have (A)pple and not (A)pple in your left hand, at the same time in the same place.
Similarly, if you put a carved letter A in your left hand, you can affirm, based upon first hand sense
experience that you cannot have A and not A in your left hand at the same time in the same place. Put more
abstractly, you cannot have A and not A at the same time in the same place. The foregoing is the basis for the
idea that it is false or fallacious to have a Logical Contradiction such as asserting both A and not A at the
same time in the same place. The Foundational Rule of Logic is, then, that in order for a Proof, an
Argument, or a Statement to be logically valid, respectively, each such Proof, Argument, or Statement cannot
involve a Logical Contradiction. All Logical Reasoning is based on the foregoing. Given this, we can see
that Logical Positivism, which is defined as, Logical reasoning from sense experience, appears to give us
accurate information about reality and the world around us. However, using the foregoing, it soon becomes
apparent that sense experience is not a sufficient foundation for Logical Positivism. In fact, internal
7/31/2019 Various Essays in Logic and Logical Positivism
39/39
thoughts, feelings, intuition, imagination, and so on, all involve internal experience or intuitive experience
which is relevant to figuring out reality and the world around us, and thus, the idea of Logical Positivism
based upon sense experience, must be broadened as: Logical reasoning from experience. This is consistent
with Bernard Lonergans use of the Cognitional Structure which is: Experience, Understanding, Judgment
and Reflection.
Logical Foundationalism
By
Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif
Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar
Some academics have been arguing for non-foundationalism for quite some time. Non-
foundationalism asserts that something like the hermeneutic circle exists, and thus, there are no arguments
that can be made that have transcendent value. However, I assert that you can make certain arguments
which are based upon Logical Foundationalism which carry a great deal of throw weight. The idea that there
are certain Logical Fallacies which are irrational, unreasonable, and illogical, and thus cannot be used in a
statement, an argument, or a proof, and, that the proof that such fallacies are illegitimate can be proven in a
foundationalist manner starting either with sense experience, or with ideas. The idea is that to be logical,
reasonable, or rational, you cannot make statements, arguments, or proofs which involve a logical
contradiction. A logical contradiction occurs when a person attempts to assert that A and not A can
exist, or be true, at the same time, in the same place. For example, given the foregoing, you can prove,
logically, that Bill cannot be both 6 tall and 5 tall at the same time in the same place. You can also prove
that Front Street is not Market Street, and that the Missouri River and the Ohio River, are not the same river.
Now, the logical foundation for the foregoing is that you cannot have idea A and idea not A be true or
exist, at the same time in the same place. If someone were to object that a person making the foregoing
argument must start with sense experience, then, all you need do is start with the sense experience foundation
that a person cannot have an (A)pple in his left hand at the same time that the person has not (A)pple in
his left hand. Moreover, a person cannot have a carved wood A in his left hand at the same time that he
has not A in his left hand. By logical analogy, then, a person cannot logically assert that A and not A
exist in the same place at the same time. Such an assertion would involve a logical contradiction, and thus
would be illogical, irrational, unreasonable, false, and fallacious. Thus, we can logically reason to the
reasonable conclusion that Logical Foundationalism exists and operates, and is true.