Sie sind auf Seite 1von 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

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

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. the Modified Cognitional Structure is as follows: Thus,

Level One

## Level Three Intuitive Judgment and Reflection

Chapter 3 Illogical Thinking is Schizophrenia By Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif

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. 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. If

Chapter 4 Logical Positivism, Ockhams Razor, and Satan By Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif

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.

Chapter 5 Logical Positivism, Sense Experience, and Phenomenology By Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif

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

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,

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.

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

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 Right). (Orange Left or Orange

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.

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

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

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 selfactualize (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

## 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

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.

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

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, nonlocally, 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

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.

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

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.

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

## 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,

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, 1 is to 2 as 2 is to 4, and, 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 A is to B as C is to D or 2 is to 4 as 4 is to 8 using symbols:

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,

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 RelativismBy 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:

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

## Logic Reciprocity Utility Proportionality Equity 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:

1 is to 2

as 2 is to 1

## @ 2:1 @ 4:2 @ 8:4

2 is to 4 as 4 is to 2 4 is to 8 as 8 is to 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 2 is to 2 as 4 is to 4 3 is to 3 as 6 is to 6 1:1 @ 2:2 2:2 @ 4:4 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,

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,

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,

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. 4. From A or B, derive A and not B (A and B) 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.

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 T2 T3 T4 Assume A or B From A or B, derive A and not B (A and B) From A or B, derive, B and not A (B and A) 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 T3 From A or B at T1, derive A and B From A or B at T1 you cannot derive B and A (B and not A) at T1 This would result in an (A and not B)

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

horizontally: T1 Assume A or B, and derive from A or B, A and B, and from A or B, attempt to derive B and A, but you cannot do this logically, because the illegal logical contradiction of A and A, and the illegal contradiction of B and B, result. Given the foregoing, it is clear that all logic proofs, and logical analysis of a statement or argument are made non-temporally, that is, are made with the rational assumption that the entire proof, statement, or argument, all take place at the same time.

Using Analogical Logic in a Symbolic Logic Proof By Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Esq., Coif Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

A typical analytic logic syllogisms are: 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. If A, then B, A, therefore B From A and B, derive A and derive B From A or B, derive A and not B, or, derive B and not A A and not A is a false syllogism From A or not A, derive A or derive not A

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. 2. 3. 3. A is to B as C is to D, From A, B, and D, derive C A is to B as C is to B, From A, B, derive C A is to B as C is to D, From A,B, and C, derive D 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.

Avoiding the Hermeneutic CircleBy 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

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. 2.

I saw the tree (sense experience) The tree disappeared (metaphorically) (there is no tree

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

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. Nonfoundationalism 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.