Logic

Preface:

Before we delve into this topic, it would be wise to acnowledge the limitation of human logic, i.e., the fundamental limitation of our reasoning powers. This limitation is the reason that the entirety of epistemology as we know it is based on assumptions. At the foundation of all human knowledge and reasoning are axioms, statement[s] that [are] taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments I briefly mentioned in Elements of Thought that I believe the three options of the Münchhausen trilemma essentially devolve to the axiomatic argument, and this is because the circular argument and the regressive have a basis somewhere - in both cases, you will eventually run into an assumption.

One may argue that experimentation and direct observation dispells assumptions, but relying on one's very limited and subjective senses, and falling on one's equally limited and subjective powers of interpretation does not help us to escape our assumptions. Take at hazard our senses of sight, sound and smell. We know just by observing other animals that our senses are very limited compared to, say a dog or a cat. With the experience of being around other animals we often realize that they sense much more than us. We are practically blind, deaf and anosmic. What is visible light to humans is just a tiny sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum. The same goes for the rest of our senses. We can only sense a tiny fraction of our immediate environment, and yet we would hang all of our understanding on our senses, as if they were the be-all and end-all of existence.

There is a fundamental reason we cannot overcome this limitation of relying on assumptions, and it is this: we have a beginning, and we have an end. We assume what came before us, and we will not know what comes after us. Only a being that truly has permanence can overcome the reliance on assumptions, one that alway was, and always will be - one that is self-defining. As for us, we must rely on axioms outside of ourselves in order to have a foundation to stand on, on which we can then build thoughts, ideas, concepts.

So what is the point of logic, if in the end definitive proofs and absolute truths elude us? Why build up our reasoning skills if we rely on faith, no matter how much we may deny it? We are impermanent and subjective to the core of our existence, but at our best we grasp for the universal and eternal. In the grand scheme of things, against the vast universe, humanity is given an inch. This inch is the choices we make, and though at times free will seems illusory (we are born into circumstances outside of our control, we eat, sleep, breathe, then die), every moment that we think we are making choices. You can even choose to abrogate what little power of choice you have onto outside forces, and though afterward you will be at their mercy, even under the constraints of these forces you will still have choices to make. Logic is a tool gifted to humanity. It can help you to make the best-informed choices. But so can other tools available to humans, such as instincts, greed, altruism, love, hate, etc. But logic, I find, helps me to choose wisely.