"Its investigations are based upon rational thinking, striving to make no unexamined
assumptions and no leaps based on faith or pure analogy."
Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their
essential natures (metaphysics); what counts as genuine knowledge (epistemology); and what are the correct principles of reasoning (logic).
The word itself is of Greek origin: (philosophía), a compound of (phílos: friend, or lover) and (sophía: wisdom).
Though no single definition of philosophy is uncontroversial, and the field has historically expanded and changed depending upon what
kinds of questions were interesting or relevant in a given era, it is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set
of claims, propositions, or theories. Its investigations are based upon rational thinking, striving to make no unexamined assumptions
and no leaps based on faith or pure analogy.
Different philosophers have had varied ideas about the nature of reason, and there is also disagreement about the subject matter of
philosophy. Some think that philosophy examines the process of inquiry itself. Others, that there are essentially philosophical propositions
which it is the task of philosophy to prove.
Logical Logic, Reasons for Reason, and Rationale for Rationality
Logic, Reason, and Rationality
When discussing matters of a philosophical nature, there are certain "Laws of Logic" or "Rules of Reason", so to
speak, that must be maintained. If we are to be engaged in any rational discussion, we must adhere to the ground rules of reason, lest
our discussion be guilty of making no sense at all. I would like to briefly look at two such rules of reason or philosophical premises;
"The Law of Non-Contradiction
" and "The Law of Causality
Law of Non-Contradiction
This law of reason states that nothing can "Be
" and "Not Be
" at the same time and in the same relationship.
It states that nothing can be "True
" and "False
" at the same time and in the same relationship.
To violate the "Law of Non-Contradiction
" is to flee from rationality and violate reason itself.
Law of Causality
This law of reason states that "Every effect must have an antecedent cause.
" This law is defined as a formal and analytical
truth. Uncaused effects are not recognized as valid philosophical reasoning because you cannot have a cause without an effect or an effect
without a cause without violating the law of non-contradiction. The God we claim exists is not an effect; He is uncaused. Thus, He does
not require a cause. Therefore, infinite regress does not occur.
Mystery and Paradox
It should be understood that a "Contradiction
" is not the same as a "Mystery
" or a "Paradox
Neither a mystery
or a paradox
violates any philosophical laws of reason, nor are they self-contradictory
A mystery is something that has a valid and rational explanation, but is not yet explainable due to the lack of data or understanding.
A paradox is something that seems self-contradictory or absurd, but in reality expresses a possible truth in a way that can create circular
Some presuppositions of logic are required if we want to make any rational sense of something; The presuppositions of reason
, and of causality
are all necessary presuppositions required to make sense of anything. Beyond
these presuppositions, we should avoid presupposing anything until validated rationally.
To Tell The Truth
Truth (Part I) — Relative or Absolute?
It may be argued by some, that "truth
" is only "relative
" and not "absolute
in accounting for what is
. Those who are persuaded in the "relative" position regarding truth, would argue that "there
is no absolute truth
". In other words, they would argue that truth can be different for one person than for another. It is
a philosophical system of belief that nothing is or can be absolute and that everything is only relative to one's perspective.
If you were to ask someone who prescribes to the view that there is no absolute truth, if this is absolutely true
, then they
would have to respond by either saying no (contradicting themselves about no absolute truth) demonstrated that there own argument cannot
be a valid one based on their own definition of truth that lacks any absoluteness, or they would have to answer yes (contradicting themselves)
by declaring that the nonexistence of absolute truth is absolute. Either way, it's nonsense (violating the law of non-contradiction
which lends no solution to any real reasoning.
Truth (Part II) — Absolutely No Absolutes? - A Verbal Contradiction
If truth is only relative and not absolute, then the truth of this philosophy is not absolute and therefore subject to suspicion. Therefore,
absolute truth is indeed possible, since relative truth cannot be absolute. But how can there be absolute truth if nothing is absolute?
And how can there be relative truth absolutely, if nothing is absolute? So, if nothing is absolute, then there can be no relative or
absolute truth absolutely. But if nothing is absolute, then this cannot be true either because nothing is absolute! As you can see, a
philosophy of relative truth stops us cold at reasoning at all. Nothing creative or constructive regarding intellectual debate can ever
be accomplished with a relative-truth
mind set. What would be the point engaging in any debate without absolutes?
Truth (Part III) — Is Relative Truth Absolute? - Another Verbal Contradiction
In reality, a philosophy of relative truth
is a philosophy of self—contradiction
. To reason that "relative
" is a contradiction in terms and therefore an argument against itself. Something cannot be "true
and "not true
" at the same time and in the same relationship as this violates the philosophical "Law of Non-Contradiction
as explained earlier. If truth is defined as something that "may
", or "may not
" be, then the word
has been stripped of any meaning or relevancy in even using the word to describe anything that is
, or is
True or False? — But not Both!
I have not even mentioned the word "False
" here, and will not belabor the point much further other than to say that
if truth is absolute, then falsification is absolute. Something is either true
, but not both at the same time
and in the same relationship. If something is true
, then it cannot be false
; If something is false
, then it
cannot be true
. Otherwise, these words have no meaning, or inverse relationship with one another, and again, debating anything
would be a fools game without absolutes. Promoting the idea that something can be both true and false at the same time and in the same
relationship is to violate the philosophical law of non-contradiction
and of reason. So, accepting that truth and error are
absolute and the antithesis of each other, we can continue to reason together with meaning and purpose.
What Jesus Says About Truth
Jesus declares in John 8:32 that "the truth will set you free
", which suggests that without
truth, we are not free. We have to be willing to accept truth in order to be free or perhaps we must be made free in order to accept
truth! Jesus exclusively declares in John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
to the Father except through me
". If Jesus was telling us the truth here, then He is the ONLY
way to the Father
and to salvation - not Islam, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, and certainly not Atheism. If Jesus was telling us an untruth, then He cannot
possibly be a way at all, since He would have been telling us a lie. Truth sets us free, and being free enables us to understand truth.
This may be considered a paradox or circular logic, but seems to be the case either way. I think Jesus simply meant that because He is
", He can "set us free
Here's Thinking of You
I Think I Can Think, I Think
Some may find it a little unsettling to have someone else make suggestions on how to properly think. After all, what could be more simple
than thinking and why should someone else tell us how to do it? But let me point out that reckless thought or self-seeking logic can
be devastating to anyone honestly seeking truth or eliminating error in their quest to discover "what is and what is not".
We all get philosophical at times, whether we realize it or not, and are capable of some degree of independent thought. However, this
does not mean that we are all good philosophers. Sometimes, it is good to get some direction in organized thinking, lest we become overly
biased in our own subjective opinions without considering the bigger picture. I would never want to be accused of telling anyone "what
to think. However, I feel no guilt about suggesting "how
" to think, in a manner consistent with true philosophical
systems of reason and rationality. If truth is absolute, then our system of rationale must also be absolute. If truth is only "relative",
then any system of rational thought would be without rules, leading to a reckless, self-serving, and meaningless conclusion!
"Free Thinkers" Are Not As Free In Their Thinking As They Think
Some have declared themselves as being "Free Thinkers
" because they have rebuked theological viewpoints regarding
the nature and origins of the universe or, have formed their opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority or tradition.
The problem arises however when considering what bias or presuppositions our reasoning is tainted with. Can anyone of us truly be "Free
in our thinking, without all of the presuppositions and bias that have been installed in us by our circumstances, acquaintances, media
exposure, institutional teachings, traditions, and last but not least, pride? We cannot be absolutely free
in our thinking because
we are not absolutely free
in our being.
We have many limitations and obstacles to being free in our thought processes. Unfortunately, we are more biased than we would like to
admit, so being free in our rationale is more about wishful thinking than a reality, unless we have been made free through the power
of God's provision of grace. Some of our presuppositions and bias can be put in check if we can be honest and careful in our thinking,
especially if we are willing to admit that perhaps we have been wrong in assuming certain things that we have believed in the past. Plato
and Socrates understood this as well and spent their lives trying to liberate themselves from personal bias using systems of logic and
rationality. I believe that Christians have an advantage here because the power of God's Spirit reveals truth to His subjects, transcendent
to any system of mere human logic that attempts to deduce truth. God's Spirit has a way of divorcing us from our former way of thinking
to a new way of thinking that is more honest and unbiased. As stated earlier, Jesus declares in John 8:32 that "the
truth will set you free
", and in John 14:6 "I am the way and the truth...
Therefore, the only way to be free in our thinking is to "be made free in Christ". "So if the
Son sets you free, you will be free indeed
". John 8:36
Re-examine Your Thinking And Why You Believe What You Believe
Logic, by means of abstract or deductive reasoning, will never solve all the mysteries of the universe, but it can be very beneficial,
at least, in eliminating some of the common misconceptions about certain ideas that we have maintained and taken for granted, with closer
examination. At some point in our lives, I think it prudent to re-examine what we believe about anything and re-discover why we believe
it. It is reassuring to know that our coveted conclusions about truth can be proofed-out rationally, whether its source is Scriptural,
truly scientific, etc., instead of based on what someone else smarter than us told us is truth according to their presuppositions and
bias. Question and test everything, including what I am writing!!