The Vulnerability of Philosophical Logic

The philosophical debate about the laws that govern the reason has always triggered
heated debate among philosophers. The field of logic and the establishment of the first laws of
reason was done by Aristotle. Aristotle established the classical laws of reason in his Book VI,
Metaphysics as follow: the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the law of excluded
middle.1 Shopenhaouer added a fourth law that is Of everything that is, it can be found why it
is.2 The classical laws of reason are considered by Aristotle as self-evident or a priori
knowledge. Yet, can a human being question whether the laws of reason are reasonable?
Questioning axioms can be conceived as an obsolete sterile activity in some fields.
However, in philosophy it is a legitimate philosophical problematic. In order to proceed in such
research question we have first to consider a statement that fits within a priori knowledge and
test this a priori law on itself. A very classical expression by Parmenides is Ex Nihilo nihil fit or
nothing comes from nothing3 . Parmenides found this law in nature. The same principle can
bear a different name causality. Causality is the basis of every phenomenon in nature. Hence,
we shall take it as the first premise.
P1: Causality (Nothing comes from nothing): Every reaction is a result of an action.
P2: The universe is a reaction of an action.
1Aristotles Metaphysics, Book VI, Part 4 (c)- Translated by W.D. Ross
2 Schopenhauer, Manuscript Remains, Vol. 4, "Pandectae II", pp.163
3 Lucretius, Titus; Leonard, William Ellery. "Book I. De Rerum Natura. Internet Classics
Archive. Retrieved

P3: The original action is an entity X behind the reaction/ Universe.

P4: Entity X requires a cause too.
P5: Cause X and Effect Y gets into an infinite regress (loop) of causality.
The infinite regression contradicts with the second law of non-contradiction since
causality has enough physical explanation and is an intuitive knowledge. Aristotle introduced a
concept of the unmoved mover to solve this logical problem behind the original cause of the
universe.4 Yet, Aristotelian argument is mostly used by theists to make an end up to the debate
that revolves around the origin of the universe that implies an existential meaning. And, this
dilemma has not been finalized. After the demonstration of a subtle logical premise that does not
provide the intellect with enough evidence to wrap up an essential existential question, this
problematic can be categorized within the third law of logic which is the law of excluded middle.
The next question that arises revolves around the sources of the laws of reason. The
reasonable and logical thinking is embedded in the scientific method. An inevitable element in
science is falsifiability.5This particular characteristic is mandatory for scientific theories in order
to be testable. Science has always shaped our perception of reality. And it is hard to argue that
this human perception is tied to scientific findings. However, an educated individuals perception
of the universe in the 10th century is definitely different from 21st century intellectual thanks to
scientific progress. Thus, it is more likely that the construction of logic is directly linked to
development of science. But, can human beings blindly rely on scientific findings to construct a
4 Aristotle, Metaphysics XII,pp. 1072
5 Popper, K.R two meanings of falsifiability Mnchen: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
pp. 8285

truthful perception of reality? In order to test this claim, the first premise in this case is science
shapes our perception of reality.

P1: Science shapes individuals perception of reality

P2: science is falsifiable. 6
P3: Logic cannot be absolute.
P4: Logic is changing along with scientific development.
The reliability on science to construct a particular reasonable reality is very relative. It is
true that through rigorous scientific methodology mankind achieved many discoveries. However,
there is an element that makes science a source that is more likely to provide us with pragmatic
solutions and models to problems that has to do with the physical world and the authority and
legitimacy of these models depend on their functionalism. This issue is common in the field of
physics such as Standard Model of Particles Physics where the introduction of elements that
cannot be explained but intuitively included to the theory in order to conform to scientific
criteria. Peter Lipton asserts this idea in his book the why regress argument brings out that
explanations can be chained, and what explains need not itself to be understood.7
Questioning the reasons of law in science may not be the ideal path to take because
science try to decipher the what and how questions to understand the laws of the universe.
6 Ibid.
7 Peter, Lipton. Inference to the Best Explanation. Pp 24

But, a philosophical mind is in the quest of an answer for the why questions concerning human
condition, truth and meaning (if there are any). The only certainty humans can blindly believe in
for the time being is uncertainty regardless of the side effects of such a line of thought. For the
authentic truth, is not necessarily and exclusively meant to bring any comfort or well-being to
anyone.

Works cited:
Aristotle. Metaphysics. W.D. Ross, trans. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908. Reprint. Stillwell, KS:
Digiread, 2006.
Arthur Schopenhauer, Manuscript Remains, Volume IV, Berg Publishers Ltd., ISBN 978-085496-539-7
Aristotle., Metaphysics XII. Translated by Hugh Tredennick. Cambridge, MA, Harvard
University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd. 1933, 1989.
Popper, K. R. "Zwei Bedeutungen von Falsifizierbarkeit [Two meanings of falsifiability]". In
Seiffert, H.; Radnitzky, G. Handlexikon der Wissenschaftstheorie(in German). Mnchen:
Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. pp. 8285. 1994. ISBN 3-423-04586-8.