The laws of logic are self-evident.

Thanks for the reply. My opponent puts forth axioms as self-evident building blocks of logic. I would first like to point out that my opponent's source for this claim says nothing to support the claim, listing axioms rarely, and not once calling axioms self-evident. In fact, nothing about self-evidence is mentioned at all. The entire SEP itself has no comprehensive pages on both axioms and self-evidence [1]. There isn't even a page for the law of identity. The source should be dismissed as a trick. However, this isn't necessarily true. An axiom is "a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision" [2]. Now, to consider something to be self-evident does not make it so, so in reality, we just hope that axioms really are self-evident, or provable in some other way, to preserve our logic. My opponent also declares that if axioms are not true, then logic would be irrelevant and useless. However, she dismisses the conclusion as false without proving it to be false, therefore dismissing the premise as false without proof. My opponent uses, as an example, the statement "A finite whole is greater than any of its parts." However, this is not self-evident. When you read that statement, your mind proves it for you. You realize from past experience that a part is less than a whole. You do some simple math, and realize that if any part where equal to a whole, it wouldn't be a part, but a whole, and if a part were greater than a whole, it couldn't be a part, as nothing could be added to the part to reach a whole, and you know from experience that parts can always be added together to make a whole. In conclusion, it seems obviously true because you can prove it to be true in such a simple way. The law of identity is also rather simply proven through experience. You ask yourself, is that lamp a lamp? Yes. Is my watch a watch? Yes. Is this computer a computer? Yes. Is that refrigerator a refrigerator? Yes. Rather quickly, you realize that you cannot even conceive of a situation in which the law of identity could be false. It's somewhat like a proof by exhaustion. And so, the law of identity is not self-evident, but evident through proof. The law of the excluded middle is much the same way. Through a proof by exhaustion, one realizes that he cannot conceive of a single scenario in which something is both A and not A. Additionally, it can be reasoned that double negatives are equal to a positive (-1 * -1 = 1) by the simple definition of "opposite," and therefore... If A, then not not A. If A, then not ~A. Finally, the law of non-contradiction. This is practically the same thing as the law of the excluded middle. It is soon realized through any conceivable example that A iff not ~A, and ~A iff not A. A. Therefore, not ~A. ~A. Therefore, not A. My opponent claims that the law of identity must be assumed because to attempt to disprove it would establish its truth. However, that is merely a proof for the law of identity. It is realized that the law of identity is the law of identity, and so, by examples and truth, and not self-evidence, the law of identity is proven, and therefore not self-evident. In conclusion, the laws of logic are not self-evident, but rather evidenced by rather simple proof. 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...