Logical Foundationalism

Logical Foundationalism is a halfway house between place logic and scholastic logic (Walter Ong). Logical Foundationalism utilizes ideal rules as well as rules derived from concrete logic. So, Logic starts by asserting the ideal rule that you cannot have (A) and (not A) in the same logical proof, because this results in a logical contradiction or fallacy or fraud. You see, starting with Concrete Logic, you cannot have a toy wooden letter (A) in your left hand, and no toy wooden letter (A) in your left hand, at the same time, in the same place. So, from the point of view of empiricism or sense experience, on the one hand, or from the point of view a the imagination or ideal or ideas, on the other hand, it is illogical, or fallacious, or fraud, or illegal to asset (A and not A) in the same logical proof. Thus, Logical Foundationalism starts with the following proved assumptions: It is logically valid to assert (A or not A), but, it fallacious or illegal, or illogical to assert (A and not A). Thus, the proved definition of Logic, is that Logic is defined as that which is not Illogical. And, that which is Illogical is defined as that proof, statement, assertion, argument, or action which involves a logical contradiction, such as asserting (A and not A) in the same time and in the same place. Thus, we can see that Richard Rorty's anti-foundationalist stance, and that of others, is in fact, ridiculous. Logical Foundationism gives us much more than simply the Coherence Theory of Quine and Michael Perry. Moreover, since Logical Foundationalism is cross-cultural, the culturally relativist, "Ethic of Community Culture" of Tom Shaffer is rendered absurd. As Tom would see, eventually, I am sure, since logic is trans-cultural, every culture can be critiqued for engaging in fallacious, sophistic, illogical, argument, statements, assertions, and actions. In this way, both Michael Perry and Tom Shaffer are rescued from living in nazi germany where they could easily end up in a death camp. And, of course, Sheriff's Law, the Law of Logic, is Univerally Binding International Law and Natural Law. (C)Perpetual Copyright (2011) by Anthony Fejfar, Anthony Faber, and Neothomism, P.C. (PA)

Five Proofs Regarding God

(C)Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Who is a Sarphaedic Jew?

A Sarphaedic Jew is a Caananite Greek, or Acacaen, who holds of the House of Seth, also known as the House of Greece. Seth son of Adam son of God. Seth is the only surviving son of Adam and Eve. It is said that Seth was born in the Garden of Eden after Eve had taken the Fall into Original Sin after being tempted by the Serpent, or Satan. but, before Adam had taken the Fall. Thus, Seth was conceived and born in the Garden of Eden by his Father Adam who did not have Original Sin, and by his mother Eve, who did have Original Sin. Thus, Seth was born with modified original sin such that Seth could only commit a venial or minor sin and not a mortal sin, and not a cardinal sin. Thus, Seth, and those following of him in the House of Seth, have Wisdom, Intuition, and Reason, which are good and not evil. Thus, Sethians are know as Sarphaedic Jews, Greek Jews, Pagan Jews, Canaanite Greeks, Sauducee Greeks, Suaducee Jews, Druid Greeks, and Waziri. Sarphaedic Jews, also known as Sauducee Greeks or Sauducee Jews, are not bound by Jewish Law, and thus are not bound by the Law of Moses and are not bound by the Law of Abraham. Instead, Sarphaedic Jews, also known as Sauducee Jews or Sauducee Greeks, are bound by Sheriff's Law, the Law of Logic, also known as Greek Law or natural law, and thus are bound by the rule that they are not to engage in sophistry, that is, actions or statements or arguments which involve a logical fallacy, where, a logical fallacy occurs where a logical contradiction is involved, such as, A and not A, existing in the same time and in the same place.

(C)Perpetual Copyright (2011) By Aristotle and Neothomism, P.C. (PA)

Cultural Relativism is Incoherent

Cultural Relativism is an incoherent ethic and epistemology. You see, there are cross cultural logic rules that apply in every culture. These rules are the basis for the natural law of Sheriff's Law, also known as the Law of Logic. You can prove, cross culturally, the validity of logic starting either with ideas, or with sense experience. Either you can say, in the abstract, that it is impossible for A and not A to exist in the same time and the same place in some ideal or hypothetical world, or, in the alternative, you can say that, in the concrete, it is impossible to have a physical (A)pple and no physical (A)pple in your left hand, at the same time in the same place in the material universe. Thus, both in the abstract, and in the concrete, we can see that it is factually and logically impossible for A and not A to exist, or be asserted, in the same time and the same place. Moreover, that which is logical is defined as that which does not involve a logical contradiction. In other words, as long as you do not assert that some statement or argument (A) pertains, and the same time in the same place that you are asserting that (not A) pertains, then you are making a logical statement or argument. Logical statements or arguments are permitted and are considered valid, while illogical or logically contradictory arguments are not permitted and are not considered valid. Given the foregoing, there a number logical fallacies which cannot be permitted, and which are invalid. These logical fallacies include: 1. The fallacy of appealing to an authority; 2. The fallacy of hypocrisy;
3. The fallacy of shifting ground; 4. The fallacy of appealing to conventional morality;
5. The fallacy of appealing to the mob; 6. The fallacy of asserting the validity of the precedent by affirming the consequent; 7. The fallacy of deriving a conjunction from a disjunction;
8. The fallacy of lying; and the fallacy; and the fallacy of making a personal or ad hominem attack. Accordingly, we can say that while the idea of cultural relativism is incoherent, the idea of moderate relativism is not. Moderate relativism allows for a reasonable range of statements or argumentation which do not involve logical fallacies or sophistry. Finally, another reason that logic, logical reasoning, and logical principles are cross culturally valid, is that you can teach the typical 5 year old in any culture, the use and principles of logic in about one hour. Thus, it is possible for any person to engage in deconstruction activities using logic.

(C)Perpetual Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar, B.A., J.D., Coif, and Neothomism, P.C. (PA)

Lonergan and Logical Positivism

Bernard Lonergan describes the Epistemology of the Cogntional Structure, which is that, reality is best known through the interrellated cognitive activities of: Experience, Understanding, Judgment and Reflection. On the other hand, Logical Positivism is an Epistemology which assertst that reality is best known through the cognitive activities of: logical reasoning from experience. In an attempt to reconcile these two positions, the Epistemology of Logical Positivism can be stated as: experience and logical reasoning in relation thereto
This logical positivist formulation is close to Lonergan because in addition to experience, logical reasoning requires a type of understanding which uses logical consistency as a requirement.

(C)Perpetual Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar and Neothomism, P.C.

Another Proof for God's Existence

(C)Copyright By Anthony J. Fejfar and Neothomism, P.C.

Sheriff's Law is the Law of Logic

Ancient Law, including ancient Greece, Rome, China, Japan, Korea, Palestine, Egypt, Carthage, Nubia, Moria, all followed Sheriff's Law, which is, The Law of Logic. Aristotelian Logic was recorded by the philosopher Aristotle over 80,000 years ago, and is based upon the bedrock principle, that, in order for a statement, law, argument, or proof to be considered Logical, it must have not have involved a logical contradiction. Thus, under the Law of Logic, you cannot, for example, have (A and not A) (A and -A) at the same time, in the same place. The corallary of the above logical requirement is that certain Logical Fallacies, all of which involve a logical contradiction of some type, are absolutely prohibited by the Law of Logic and Sheriff's Law, as illegal, immoral, unethical, Sophistry. Thus, under Sheriff's Law, one can assert that a person, organization, or governmental official, is guilty of Treason under Sheriff's Law for commtting the Crime of Sophistry, also known as the Crime of Penury. In fact, it is possible to assert Sheriff's Law from a County Jurisdiction outside of another County by asserting Treason on the Assizes, from two or more other Counties. Logical Fallacies to be avoided are:
The Fallacy of Shifting Ground, The Fallacy of affirming the antecedent by affirming the consequent. The Fallacy of Hypocrisy. The Fallacy of Lying. The Fallacy of an Appeal to an Authority. The Fallacy of making an Ad Hominem Personal attack on another person (name calling).

(C)Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Fejfar on Nuisance Law

FEJFAR ON NUISANCE LAW

Nuisance Law is a hybrid of Property Law and Tort Law. The general idea of nuisance law is that a neighboring landowner can bring an action in tort for nuisance against an adjoining landowner who is using his or property in a way which unreasonably harms the person, financial interests, or property of the harmed adjoining landowner. Thus, there is the Latin phrase, "Sic Utere Tuo ut Alienum non Laedas," which means, "You cannot unreasonably use your property in such a way that it unreasonably harms another." In this sense, we can see that Private Property rights are not absolute, and instead, any property interest must be interpreted in light of The Rule of Reason. (See Grotius, Natural Rights and Natural Law 1625 A.D.) Thus, it is not an Unconstitutional Taking of Property for Purposes of the 5th or 14 Amendments, when property or a business is subject to reasonable business regulation. See generally, Justice Holmes' Judicial Opinion, in the case of Pennsylvania Coal Co. vs. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) (Any governmental regulation of business and or property is valid if it is reasonable and is rationally related to a legitimate state interest, however, if a regulation goes too far by being unreasonable, then this constitutes an unconstitutional taking of property for purposes of the Takings and Substantive Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14 Amendments to the United States Constitution. And, Reason is defined, using cognitive of faculty psychology as a composite of love, logic, and intuition, where "love' is defined as a positive feeling flowing outward, and where "logic" is defined as a statement, proof, or argument which does not involve a logical contradiction such as (A and not A), in the same time and in the same place, and, where, "intuition" is defined as that cognitive faculty which involves the use or high speed preconscious or unconscious analogical thought processes.

Using Lonergan and Logic to Avoid the Hermeneutic Circle

Philosopher, Hans Georg Gadamer has pointed out that a person can only know reality through the use of sense experience, mediated by meaning. Thus, what we know is both limited, and made possible through the cognitive use of meaning categories. Gadamer points out, however, that if it were not for certain, "forestructures of knowing," that we would be caught in a type of "analytic spin" (Spann), were we can not really know anything objectively because there is no objective way of grounding our meaning categories, other than other meaning categories, which of course would involve an invalid, logically circular way of knowing.
I have found two diferrent ways of using "forestructures of knowing" which provide a way out of the analytic spin of the hermeneutic circle of logic circularity. First, you can use sense experience and concrete logic to ground logic itself, and then use logic as a way of critiquing meaning categories. Thus, any meaning framework that is used must not involve a logical contradiction. Additionally, a modified form of the Lonerganian Cogntional Structure can be used as well. Thus, the following cognitive approach can be used: Experience, Analytical Logic Understanding, and then Analogical Logic Understanding or Reflection. Ordinarily, a person might find that analytic logic at Level 2 of Understanding might involve some logical circularity or analytic spin. However, since a person can take the ideas of analytic logic and then use them with analogical logic (intuition), analytic spin is avoided, and a form of authentic subjectivity or objectivity is achieved. With analytic logic, one might assert that A is not B, or that the Apple is not a Banana, however, with analogical logic, one might assert that A is not like B, or that an Apple is not like a Banana. However, one migh also say that an Apple is like a Banana, since they are both pieces or fruit. In any event, the foregoing meets the requirements of Logical Positivism, since analytic logic and analogical logic, while different, are analogous, and are equally valid.

(C)Copyright 2011 by Anthony J. Fejfar

Anthony Fejfar Article Logic and Mathematics

Sense Experience and Science

Some scientists, and logical positivists, claim wrongly, that reality is best known by simply starting with sense experience and working from there. In fact, sense experience is homeostatic. That is, to some degree, sense experience is affected by the environment in which it operates. Thus, a person's hand feels cold when it is place in tepid water after having been placed in a bucket of hot water. Similarly, a person coming out of a dark room into sunlight will have to adjust his or her vision in a way that would not happen if the person had entered a dimly lit room. The taste of some food tastes different when another food is eaten first, such as a food which is either sweet or sour. Also, with respect to hearing, it is clear that human hearing does not cover the full range of sound that is being produced in the outside environment. Thus, a dog can hear a dog whistle, but a human being cannot. Finally, there are optical illusions which can only be explained throught the use of human understanding, such as, why it is that a straight dowel looks crooked when place in a glass tank of water, and then is observed from the side of the tank.

The Scientific Explanation for Intuition as a Cognitve Faculty

The operation and existence of the Cognitive Faculty of Intuition can be explained scientifically. Ordinary, left hemisphere thinking is logical and sequential. Thus, the left hemisphere uses the Causal Syllogism, "If A, then B, A, therefore B." Information is analyzed logically and is stored hierarchically. On the other hand, ordinary right hemisphere thinking is analogical. For example, one analogy that is used is "1 is to 2, as, 2 is to 4." Another analogy is "apple is to oranage, as, banana is to grapefruit." Now, you can see that there is a certain logic to analogical reasoning and analogical thought processes. You see, while straight logic uses the notion, A is B, or, A is not B, analogical logic uses the notion A is like B, or, A is not like B. This type of analogical reasoning is used on a regular basis by lawyers, law professors, and judges, who use analogical thinking when using the "case method" of legal analysis. Thus, lawyers will say, since Case B is analogous to Case A, the legal rule in case A should be applied in Case B. Now, intution is an advanced form of analogical thinking. Intuition involves high speed, preconscious or unconscious, analogical thought processes. In other words, the preconscious or unconscious mind plays with analogies all the time. Thus, you could say that the analogical mind plays and dances. Moreover, when the speed of analogical thougth processes reach a certain level, the right hemisphere, analogical mind goes "Quantum," and begins to function using Quanta, subatomic particles to think, analogically, where such Quanta subatomic particles are really Energized Probability Fields. At this point, the Quantum Mind developes and the person's Intuition goes non-local at a distance, as confirmed by Bell's non-locality theorom. Thus, the intutive mind begins to gather information which is outside of the human body, with quantum processes which operate non-locally at a distance. The Quantum Intuitive Mind is then quite capable of gathering information forward or backwards in time, and, also can gather information from a physical place 1,000 miles away, or even a trillion miles away, non-locally at a distance. At this point, it is even possible that the Quantum Intuitive Mind could communicate with other minds. This is known as telepathy.
Finally, there is a great deal of scientific research which has been done to prove the existence and validity of intuition. My article, here, sets forth the scientific hypothesis as to how and why intuition exists and operates, and the Doctoral dissertation of Tony Bastick, entitled, "Intuition," confirms my hypothesis as scientifically proven. Thus, it is not logical to say that intution is "magic" or nonexistent. Intuition is a scientifically proven Cognitive Faculty that many human beings have. In fact, there are numerous psychological tests which test for intuition as a cognitive facult in a given person, such as the Myers Briggs temperament test, which is based upon the psychological theory of Carl Jung. See, Carl Jung, Psychological Types.
(C) Copyright 2010 by Anthony J. Fejfar

The Only Valid Authority is a Reasonable Authority

Following Aristotelian Logic, it is a fallacious or false way of arguing to appeal to an authority, as such. You see, there is nothing to guarantee that a particular authority is telling you anything that is logically valid or reasonable. Thus, the only valid authority is a reasonable authority, and, you must determine in each individual case whether or not the authority is being reasonable or not. The foregoing is consistent with the Natural Law tradition descried by Grotius, and which is affirmed by the Pope, and the Catholic King, King Louis of France, and the Lutheran protestant King, King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. As Grotius tells us, every person, without exception, has a Natural Right, based on Natural Law, of Liberty and Property. This parallels the Philosopher John Locke, who stated that every person, without exception, has a Natural Right of Life, Liberty, and Property, and is also consitent with the Declaration of Independence with states that every person, without exception, has a Natural Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Given, the foregoing, it is clear that as a matter of Natural Right, each person can never be required to follow an unreasonable authority.