To Say Human Logic Is Limited Makes No Sense

Thanks Pro.Positive CaseAnalytic vs. Synthetic KnowledgeImmanuel Kant argues at length Thor the distinction between what is known a priori, of which constructs such as mathematics and logic fall withing, and what is know a posterori, which is what existential claims, and inductive claims regarding the physical world fall within.The argument is, even if we have absolute certainty of our logical constructs, and know they are perfectly internally consistent, then we are still limited. This is because there is no a priori justifiable way to know things a posterori (synthetic). All a posterori claims are necessarily experienced via. the senses, and thus are fallible. This is widely recognised in philosophy because philosophies such as naive realism, the notion that we see reality as it really is, has been widely discredited. Other ontologies such as model-dependant realism, the notion that we construct an approximate model of reality in our minds, is significantly more sound.This is further underlined by Heidegger in Being & Time, where we simply do not have an a priori understanding what it means "to be", logic is simply incapable of bridging the gap between conceptualising ideas, and conceptualising existance. At best we can only give a model, or approximation, such as in dasein ("to be there").Thus to summarise, human logic is at the very least, limited in it's application, and scope. This is cogent without being internally contradictory either, there is a reason why philosophical problems such as David Hume's Problem of Induction stand the test of time.Rebuttals There are at least two ways one can argue against "human logic": 1. By attacking it's cognitivism 2. By attacking it's internal consistency Internal Consistency To affirm the latter, IF we assume the position that Human logic is valid, then it follows that contradictions are impossible. If they were possible then the system would essentially be rendered be meaningless to us. An example argument one can give is: A: Human logic is correct (Assumption for reducio ad absurdum) 1. If human logic is correct, then A is true 2. If human logic is correct, then A is false 3. Both A and not A (from A&1, and A&2) 4. A entails a contradiction, therefore A is false Note that the conclusion and entire argument was made by assuming the antithesis (human logic is correct), thus we have demonstrated that human logic is internally incoherent. Thus in a fundemental level, is meaningless to humans. This is only a problem IF one maintains the assumption that human logic is correct, but that's exactly the thing that these types of arguments are holding in dispute. Cognitivism This is probably the wrong word, but epistemological nihilism is a well-known position, which holds there are no truths. One argument for this is that we simply do not have direct access to 'objective truth', and nothing objective to ground the definition of what 'true' and 'false' are into. Thus the objective notion of true and false is rejected on the grounds that there are no 'truth conditions' for something to be 'true', it is simply non-cognitive. One *could* utilise a subjective epistemology,and ground truth in properly basic things, such as incorrigable mental states, etc. This would be an internally coherent way of arguing that an objective 'human logic' is not sustainable.