"You are presuming Classical logic in your argument."

[BenSinner]

This is something I’ve heard people say when you refute them on something.

An example is “There is no absolute truth” and the reply would be “Then that statement is absolutely true”

They will retort by saying “That is circular logic. You are already assuming absolutes exist in order to prove an absolute exists.”

When you continue to debate, they will eventually say something like “You are just using Classical logic. There are other forms of logic that don’t agree with Classical”

Would would be a good rebuttal of this?

 

[johnjacob2004]

Introduce the “law of noncontradiction” that either something “is” or “is not”. Then you can start going into common sense everyday examples of “true” or “false”

 

[johnjacob2004]

For example, for something to exist means that this thing doesn’t not exist… then you can say that this thing absolutely, truly exist…

 

[RandomAlias]

When you continue to debate, they will eventually say something like “You are just using Classical logic. There are other forms of logic that don’t agree with Classical”

Would would be a good rebuttal of this?

Begin by asking them to demonstrate how other forms of logic work.

 

[tstor]

I would respond with something like this.

**

anon: tstor, there is no absolute truth.

tstor: By your affirming that there is no absolute truth, you are denying your own affirmation. That is, the supposed reality of the statement that there is no absolute truth would necessitate at least one absolute truth (i.e., that there are no absolute truths).

anon: That is circular logic. You are already assuming absolutes exist in order to prove an absolute exists.

tstor: Incorrect. It could perhaps be circular logic if you yourself were not operating on the assumption of absolutes existing. That is, the very statement “absolute truths do not exist” is, in fact, an absolute truth by nature. Unless, of course, you desire to change the definition of what an “absolute truth” is. Which you have yet to do.

**

Regarding the statement of “classical logic,” you should inquire about his/her understanding of it. Ask them to define what they mean by “classical logic.” Ask them to define their newer forms of logic. I have attached what may be a useful link for you. It is an entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that deals with classical theories of truth, among other things.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

 

[BenSinner]

“You are assuming that the words and meanings from the skeptic’s statement have the absolute meaning you perceive them to be”

That’s another one.

Basically, they are accusing you of thinking they assumed what they said absolutely, when they didn’t.

When they say ‘There is no absolute truth’. The claim to not presume that their statement is true or false…or perhaps it’s even both.

 

[Peter_M]

Perhaps the best place to start is - when speaking of absolute truth - how does that differ from the un-modified truth? The problem with classical (binary) logic is that it requires there be a binary choice… Truth values cannot be based on that alone, outside of mathematical formulations… 2 + 2 = 4, is true, and there is no other answer.

If I say “I am 181 cm tall”… is the statement is true or false? But how precisely should we be? Perhaps I’m 181.3 cm tall, does that make the statement false? - or - is it “close enough” to be true?

The concept of Absolute Truth seems to imply that there are things that are merely true (to use a semantic argument).

 

[stupidisasstupiddoes]

To be fair there are other forms of logic. I think there are limits to logic because the world is not deterministic. I find in eastern philosophy they are far less concerned with logic and far more concerned with what works. I find that refreshing.

 

[Sergius]

These is an interesting matter. I remember that sometimes I heard to people saying “the truth doesn’t exist”. Although, it is absurd because if them are sure of that, is because they implicitly are saying that such statement is the truth.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

You’re likely arguing with a modernist who engages in inter-sectional ideology where there are no truths, no absolutes, because everything is “relative” to each persons own emotions and experiences.

 

[on_the_hill]

It depends on what the meaning of the word is is.

 

[Arkansan]

Would would be a good rebuttal of this?

If someone rejects the law of non-contradiction, the only rebuttal is a commitment proceeding.

Once cannot reason with one who has renounced reason.