Epistemology & Coherence

When one is discussing or considering knowledge, what essentially is being discussed or considered is the measure of information that directly relates to a conclusion (or truth).  Epistemology is essential to all forms of philosophical discussions and considerations.  While knowledge may never enjoy the distinction that wisdom commands, it still is a vital component within the world of philosophical progression of reasoning and the human mind.

Once during a lecture a speaker (whom I will leave unnamed) discussed the vitality of a worldview.  More importantly the speaker was discussing to the college audience why simply having a worldview is not enough.  For, in order to justify and sustain a worldview, any worldview for that matter, it must be coherent.  Then the speaker gave a definition of what a worldview was, as well as defined coherence, in doing so establishing his credibility from the theoretical aspect of his philosophical deduction. 

Then suddenly with no forewarning a woman shot up out of her seat, and belted "what do you mean my world view have to be coherent?  Who are you to say that my worldview has to be a certain way?"  The speaker slightly startled responded to the questioner with grace, and stated he was simply quoting Daniel Bell (I believe).  The woman, now frustrated ,continued and in doing so cut the speaker off several times until the speaker knew that she would not stop until her own self defeating philosophy was uncoiled before her.  The speaker finally after several minutes of trying to respond, decided to ask a single question.  "Ma'am I just have one question for you.  Are you rejecting the notion of a coherent worldview?"  "Yes I am" replied the woman, "OK ma'am my question to you is in my reply to your question would you like a coherent answer or an incoherent answer."

The audience burst with laughter.  The woman sat down and listened to the remaining of the lecture.  That night she was saved.

Now while the defined term of Coherence in this instance may slightly be different from this example, the theme is present.  Even if two opposing opinions are coherent, it at least gives a common ground for an argument from both positions to begin.  The notion that we must be justified in order to understand coherence is false.  Coherence is the stronger position because it demands three vital components that may not be left unattended.

Logical Consistency

Empirical Adequacy

Experiential Relevance

Coherence at its very core respects the counter-perspective and in doing so formulates a bases by which we may agree and disagree, or agree to disagree.  Some may consider this a foundation.

Foundationialism I may not argue against, as it has it place and perspective, however it does not welcome a counter-perspective to even qualify itself. 

LWM

"The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy"

Steven B. Cowan & James Spiegel

"The Laws Of Logic"

Within the confounds of reason, on e must possess reasonability.  The authority by which one approaches the means to conclusion is beyond the simplistic notion of yes and no.  Yet, an enduring understanding of yes and no must be maintained for reasonable reasonability. 

When we consider the Law of Non-contradiction, we are at least in theory concluding that something is right and something wrong.  However the L.N.C is not applied in theory.  It is sustained and applied in truth.  Often when arguing from a Christian perspective, there are those whom defend their bases simply by stating how they 'feel'.  This is where this Law of Logic keeps one accountable.  I once heard a speaker say "trying to refute the L.N.C., is the equivalent of attempting to picture a one ended stick in your mind, and repeating it over and over again... it cannot be done."

The "Law of the Excluded Middle" protects, but also defends truth.  For truth is knowable and excludes anything that would challenge its reasonablitity.  In effect, the proposition must and very well can stand alone.

Finally, "The Law of Identity" is perhaps the most essential of propositional perspectives.  What is true is true and it is revealed on the surface of basic philosophical thinking and application. 

For the thinker, these together grant the opportunity for the logical outworking allowing access of the mind that through the work of the Holy Spirit will lead to the heart.  For salvation does not occur by simply being smart or well-educated or even through philosophy.  Philosophy can be quite complicated and at times perhaps discouraging.  I once heard philosophy described as "a blind man, walking into a dark room, looking for a black cat, that isn't there."

I thank God, that my Philosophy allows me to see.

LWM

"A Reasonable Faith"

So it has been almost a year since I have last posted.  It is something that I take responsibility for as I have had a full plate since last year and fell short.  After reading last years post I thought to simplify this posting and all future posting just a bit.  Practicality is just important as application.  The believer should responsibly respond in love for those in search of the truth.  For love if we do not present the gospel and the defense of the gospel in love we should not do it at all.  Today I would like to ask a question.

Despite whatever it is that you believe...

"Why do you believe that which you believe?"  "Where you told something was true?  Was it due to an experience?"  "What is the logical outworking of what it is you believe and how should you present it to others... according to your faith?"

Perhaps, you believe what you believe because you are saturated in your local community with an idea/perspective that dominates the personalities that absorb others which determines your social place in that community.  Maybe you have no idea what you believe.  Share it.  

Please share!  Thanks!!

LWM

THINKING THROUGH LIFE




Today I hope this post finds each of you well!

Today I would like to begin a series of questions formulated in the model of ideas from some very well regarded thinkers who interpreted many aspects of theology through the proponents of theory, factual evidence, and logical outworking.  Ludwig Wittgenstein who penned "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" (which first appeared in 1921 and happened to be the only philosophical work published in his lifetime.)  The book inscription declares that the audience intended where "the Logical Positivists" of the 1920's era mainly but the 30's perhaps benefited from its discourse.  The book deals with the proponents of reality in an attempt to capture a perspective of a world that could maintain a vision of reality through logical relationships, (the later eludes to my interpretation).  Thus we, together, shall examine an excerpt of Mr. Wittgenstein's work here, digesting a portion of it in relation to the philosophical and logical outworking of the modern day reality of vision through (a) or relationship(s).  More specifically, the idea of truth equated through and with the concept of freewill.  Along with Wittgenstein's efforts in effect in writing about the topic.  At the end of the excerpt I will pose a question(s) in reflection of the text.  Please provide feedback and declare your position.  This is not designed nor should your efforts reflect a right or wrong stance, but an independent thoughtful objective that supports what your position would be, should the purpose need for a right or wrong.  Those intentions should be dealt with at the heart level.  

However, should you be inclined to have questions that surface, or stifle you then please do ask.  

Please.. now consider this text below:

"The freedom of the will consists in the possibility of knowing actions that still lie in the future.  We could know them only if causality were an inner necessity like that of logical inference.  The connexion between knowledge and what is known is that of logical necessity.

('A knows that p is the case', has no sense if p is a tautology)

If the truth of a proposition does not follow from the fact that it is self-evident to us, then its self-evidence in no way justifies our belief in its truth.

If one proposition follows from another, then the latter says more than the former, and the former less than the latter.

If p follows from q and q from p, then they are one and the same proposition.

A tautology (saying the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style) follows from all propositions:  it says nothing.

Contradiction is that common factor of propositions which no proposition has in common with another.

Tautology is the common factor of all propositions that have nothing in common with one another.

Contradiciton, one might say, vanishes outside all propositions:  tautology vanishes inside them.

Contradicition is the outer limit of propositions:  tautology is the unsubstantial point at their centre."

My questions is this:

Wittgenstein says that the "freedom of will consist in the possibility of knowing actions that are still in the future," then he says that "the connexion between knowledge and what is known is that of logical necessity."  Therefore my question then is, is it or could it be true that while there is a certain kind of freedom that mankind has and does enjoy does it or is it necessary to be free to enjoy the life that mankind has be given?

Secondly, if there is indeed a connexion between knowledge and the known, to that of logical necessity... must one then forgo their freedom in favor of logic, simply to live a meaningful life of freedom despite what the future holds?

Please post your responses that we all may process this material.  I will responded as quickly as possible.  I will provide my response/position to these questions within 7 days.  

Scripture of the day:

Philippians 3:8-10

More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowingChrist Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, ⁹ and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness whichcomes from God on the basis of faith, ¹⁰ that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death;

LWM

NOTES:

New American Standard Bible

Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus", Humanities Press pg. 39-40

Welcome

Welcome to 'Apologia U'.  This is a place which is designed for much discussion in way of Christian Apologetics, Systematic Theology, Philosophy, and Hermenutics.  The goal is to bring about broad discussion and elaborate on many aspects of the logical outworking of what one believes.  As we examine the culture and scale the city of the modern age, how has faith, literature, and society impacted the position of one's beliefs?  While there are many questions and topics to be discussed may it all be for the Glory of God, else I would in a moment's notice take this blog down.  Please be kind to each other in our evaluations and discussions of comprehensive topics and discussions.  As Christians it is our role in the world to address tough questions, with 'truth' answers and claims.  For Jesus made a most reasonable claim when he declared "I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father unless through me."

It is with my effort in this project of this blog that I hope to help answer some of the fundamental road blocks of not only the unbeliever, but the Christian.  Dr. Norman Geisler once said that many today sit in church with what is called "silent doubt."  Let us ask questions and have our questions answered with the truth.  I cannot guarantee that I can answer every question, but I can guarantee that there is One who claims to be the "truth," and certainly He can.  Thank you for considering this blog and may the Lord be with you as you all continue thinking.

L.W. Mills

"What I believe in my heart, must make sense in my mind"

-unknown