There are three "Laws of Thought", which are all self-evident logical principles. These laws aren't truly related to thought, as the thought process of many people don't follow these laws. However, these laws are in accordance of the way things behave. The laws are as follows.
The law of identity: Whatever is, is.
The law of contradiction: Nothing can both be and not be.
The law of excluded middle: Everything either is or isn't.
These laws aren't fundamental in themselves, yet, the fact that they represent the way the world behaves, means that we should follow these principles in terms of how we think. Therefore, if our thought processes parallel these laws, we think truly. If these thought principles are followed precisely, it is how one gets closer to truth. We should think as the world to truly understand the world. Kant talks about das ding an sich, which means a thing in itself. He states that we can never know what a thing is in itself, however, these laws contradict this.
If we are to know something, we have acquired knowledge. There are two schools of thought within philosophy, which have differing views on where all true knowledge is best derived from. Empiricists believe that human knowledge is derived from experience, and that there is nothing in the mind but that which originated from experience; rationalists believe that there are certain ideas, as well as what we know by experience, which are innate to man and are not learnt. Humankind has the unique ability to reason and to philosophise, something that no other life form can. All animals experience, only humans philosophise, therefore, we should use this unique ability to progress the amount of certain knowledge we possess.
The three "laws of thought" support the idea of rationalism, as these logical principles are known to us, and the empirical world around us cannot be used to prove or disprove these principles. The fact that this knowledge is innate, and is not acquired as a result of sensory experience goes against the general view of empiricism, that the mind is a blank slate, tabula rasa, before any form of experience. Therefore, innate knowledge does exist, and the debate between rationalists, such as René Descartes, and empiricists, such as David Hume, should cease, due to this strength of rationalism.
However, whilst this knowledge is independent of sense-experience, we become aware of it, and it exists, as a result of experience. Hume claimed that, if we didn't experience consistent phenomena on a day-to-day basis, we would not be aware of the laws which govern the universe and truth itself. It is an absurd statement to make, that newly-born babies are aware of these supposedly "innate" principles that govern the universe. Therefore, surely it would be logical to claim that these principles are learnt, as a result of experiencing the universe from our own point of view. These principles are therefore not innate, and therefore, we should take on the empiricist view of the universe, that everything is learnt as a result of empirical experience.
As well as this, existence itself is experience. Nothing can possibly be known, even if what is known is "innate", if one didn't exist. I may only know what is within me, yet, I know this as a result of my own experience. Descartes', and perhaps philosophy's most famous quote is "I think, therefore I am". Descartes believed that he existed purely by looking within himself, and by doubting everything. He doubted everything that was brought to him as a result of his senses, and therefore he concluded that the only thing that he knew was that he doubted. From this doubted, he concluded that he must think, as one has to have the capacity to think to doubt. Therefore, he must be a thinking thing, and a thinking thing exists, therefore "I think, therefore I am".
However, whilst Descartes was attempting to prove through pure reason that he existed, he did all this whilst existing and experiencing the empirical world around him. For example, I can only know that the Queen exists as a result of being told by what I have seen and heard. However, it is the rationalist view that everything can be known from what must be (the Laws of Thought). It is clear that we cannot know what is from what must be, which is why the empiricist worldview dominates philosophy. The only knowledge which can be acquired from pure, unadulterated rational thinking is hypothetical. They can be implied to the empirical world, however, independent pure rationalists impracticality perhaps leads to one concluding empiricsm is the most viable method for making decisions.
Comments