If I follow the logic principles which Aristotle suggested, I find it quite easy to perceive the universe having an actual existence, perhaps too easy, which is where doubt sets in and the problems begin. Simply put, the laws of logic proposed by Aristotle are as followed. The first principle Aristotle proposed is the law of identity, meaning whatever is, is itself. We may not know exactly, in great detail, what an object is, but our knowledge of any object must yield to what that particular object actually is. It is the basic definition of a falsehood to claim an object to be whatever we maintain it in our minds to be, without any justification or evidence whatsoever as to what an object is in itself. The second principle is the law of non-contradiction, which basically states that no object can both be and not be in the same space at the same time. This principle is logic’s most basic guard against absurdity, in my opinion, as we may imagine an object flickering in and out of existence in our minds, but can not say the object is maintaining an existence that both is existence and is not existence at the same time in the same space. The final principle is the law of excluded middle, which basically means all knowledge should be pushed to its utmost limit. When defining what a man is, we should include every single characteristic that makes up a man, in particular or in general(which is just another characteristic of that particular piece of knowledge). As every piece of knowledge is of something, the law of excluded middle needs only two objects, that which knows of a thing and the thing known, knowledge is a correlation between the actual object and the notion of the object in the knower’s mind. But, it seems impossible for there not to be a middle point, as we know of objects through our senses, and understand their significance through the use of language or mental images.
These principles are said to be the laws of thought, but whether they pertain only to thought, or to reality itself, seems to me to be a trivial matter, as I can not think past my own thoughts. Is it possible to know anything without it passing through one’s thoughts? Even our subconscious presents itself to us from time to time, in dreams or moments of enlightenment. All knowledge must be that of actual objects, or ideas in one’s mind.
These laws have left me with this argument concerning the universe, or the extent as to what our minds are able to comprehend.
1. Non-existence can not exist.
2. Non-existence contradicts existence.
3. Everything in existence, and everything in our minds, existence in some space at some time.
4. Non-existence doesn’t existence in any space nor in any time.
5. Therefore non-existence can not exist.
In my mind there could never be such a object or presence as absolute nothing. A thing may be able to not exist in a certain place or in a certain time, but there is something in every point of existence. I think people throw the term “nothing” around very often, and it does serve a utility, but we should never us the term “nothing” when speaking general and intelligibly about the universe, where it is impossible that nothing should ever exist in its absolute form(complete non-existence).
(Footnotes: These thoughts are definitely in need of more evidence and more proofs. But as far as logic is concerned, I perceive such principles to be a adequate start.)
No comments:
Post a Comment