Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of the Division of Philosophy
Department of Humanities
College of Arts and Sciences
University of the Philippines Los Baños
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
by
April 2007
2
The Author
…was born four days before the first anniversary of the First People Power
revolution in the Philippines, in a town where Jose Rizal's mother was detained,
in a province famous for Buko pie, kesong puti and uraro; is not the youngest nor
the eldest among one subtracted to four children of the seventh child among
twelve of her parents and of the third child among five of his parents; was
educated in a Catholic school since age four until age 16; was admitted to a state-
subsidized university that is supposed to be a training ground for the future
leaders of the country to join the crowd of bluffers, brainstormers and philosophy-
lovers and…
and…
and…
Preface
If it was Hume who made Kant awakened from the latter's dogmatic slumbers, it
was being bumped on a wall that awakened me from whatever sort of slumber I had
while I was walking. I cannot claim that the slumber I had is a dogmatic one, because I
had such slumber while on a journey. I had a confidence with the ideas that I was then
upholding because I was confident with the path where I was walking. But being bumped
made me ask why I was bumped. Was it because I was having a slumber while walking?
Or because I was mistaken with my manner of walking? Or was it simply because there is
a big wall where I was walking? Is the blame to be rightfully given to the ideas that I had
upheld, the approach that I had taken or the loophole in the ideas and/or theories that I
had observed? I guess I have to blame the three for making me now walk on a different
path and have a new slumber (again) while walking.
I should not be blamed for sleeping while walking (I literally am not). I would
rather sleep or strongly uphold ideas while walking or going on with my life. The
slumber I have is determined by my manner of walking; the ideas that I uphold are
determined by my approach towards different things. Bumping on a wall is indicative of
the fact that I already have to open my eyes and decide whether the wall is too large that
it already means I have reached a dead end. If this means that I have to take a new route,
then I would. But when I walk on my new route, I would again take a slumber. Such is
the rule. I cannot walk without sleeping. I cannot just go on without upholding beliefs
that may serve as burden in knowing whether there is a wall in the road. I have to take the
challenge of walking while sleeping.
What follows is a story of a new journey that I have - a walking while sleeping in a
new route. Along my old journeys, a lot had influenced me with the approaches that I was
taking and had helped me recognize the wall/s in the paths that I was taking. It is of my
pleasure to send them my gratitude.
Though he does not know me, I would like to thank Robert Pirsig for allowing me
to ride in his motorcycle. His "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" is a great
motorcycle ride that made me challenge the way I was taking my old journey. Though I
do not assent to much of his claims, he has influenced my act of recognizing the wall in
my old route. I also thank Mr. John Ian Boongaling for challenging my views. He made
us write a paper about the question "can logical principles be falsified by experience?" for
our PHLO 150 (Epistemology) class. His comments on my paper made me want to write
an enquiry on logic. This thesis is a product of such want. He also served as the critic of
this thesis. Pirsig's book and my short essay on logic for PHLO 150 class are the two
initial influences in my writing of this thesis.
Much gratitude is also given to my adviser, Prof. Arlyn Pinpin-Macapinlac for
patiently scrutinizing my work and for giving my thesis a chance of being scrutinized,
from the content to the technical matters, despite her strict schedule. Her motherly aura
inspires us, her advisees, to work harder (and think harder). I also thank Mr. Robert Bass
of the Coastal Carolina University for answering my questions. He is the only person in
the online community to whom I have sent an e-mail that answered my questions. Prof.
4
Efren Alverio had made comments on the initial draft of my introduction. I thank him for
giving comments even if he does not know me personally.
Of course, I have to express gratitude to Ernesto Macaloi for spending
conversations with me regarding logic. He has also referred my thesis to Prof. Alverio for
the latter's comments. Our conversations had influenced my claims a lot. I also had
conversations with Mickey Nieto and Jouh Pabalate regarding this thesis. Their
comments are very much considered in my creation of arguments.
The philosophy community in UPLB serves as my inspiration for this thesis. I thank
Ms. Aleli Caraan, Ms. Donna Nuguid and Mr. Nicolo Masakayan for giving my brain a
hard time whenever we are given with paper assignments. I also thank Dr. Nicolito
Gianan and Ms. Omega Otinero for being nice to me even though I have never been their
student. I thank them for their continued service to the university despite the problem that
the philosophy program is facing. I thank the UPLB Sophia Circle for its continued act of
promoting philosophy in a science-oriented university. I thank these particular people:
Sandra Panganiban, Amabel Raflores, Andrew Estialbo, Joanna Ebora, Megan Cruz,
Clare Vega, Chinky Cuevas, Katrina Esguerra, Kezia Evangelista, Joanne Aquino, Sairah
Saipudin, Rey Araja and Shiela Abucay. They made my last year in the university
colorful.
And of course, I cannot not thank Florence de Guzman, Karl Christian Abalos and
Franco Azucena. They are my closest friends in the university. Every conversation with
them is a philosophical discussion that sometimes translates to an exchange of corny
jokes. Conversations with Florence whenever we are on a jeepney ride from Los Baños to
Sta. Cruz always give me new insights for my thesis. We share the same view on
"institutionalization." KC and I also had an exchange of ideas regarding our theses. We
actually theorized that Florence's work is a common ground among our theses. Franco
never failed to remind me of how great I am. Thesis writing was made easier because the
four of us are helping each other.
Finally, I thank my family. I thank my mom, Rosemarie, for understanding that I
was so busy with this thesis (which excuses me from household chores). My dad, Jojo,
for telling me to rest even if I did not want to (because I'd rather continue working for
this thesis). Kuya Jomar had read parts of this thesis and made some comments. Jaja for
cheering me up after receiving stresses from this thesis.
To the Grand Perceiver, Unmoved Mover, Uncaused Cause, Allah, Yahweh, God,
Love (because it is said "God is Love") and to whatever else one might call Him or Her,
this is an offering.
Logic is often times used as a tool in reasoning. We are taught of its certainty. But
before we use logic and look at it the way we are taught about it, it is proper to examine it
and the issues underlying it. We do not have to continue this old slumber if it would only
make us bump into a wall. What you will read is a journey. Come, walk with me.
Happy trip!
ABSTRACT
The focal point of investigation of this thesis is the Problem of First Principles of
Logic or the issue on why such principles, if there really are such principles, need not be
proven. The conclusion that was drawn led to refutations of Foundationalism and the
claims - that there is no warrant to argue for the self-evidence of first principles of logic
because there are no such principles and that there is no warrant to argue for the self-
evidence of anything in logic because there is nothing in logic that could be taken as
necessary.
The first claim established the untenability of Foundationalism in logic by arguing for
to axiomatization, argues for a linear justification structure in logic. This thesis had,
however, shown that the justification structure of logic could be described as a mutual
support system where there is no axiom that could serve as the sole starting-point of
derivation and sole end-point of justification. The non-existence of axioms means that
The second claim furthered the refutation on self-evidence by claiming for the
necessity or truthfulness in all possible worlds is the essential condition in order for a
7
logical principle to serve as a proof of its own and be self-evident. Such construal on the
necessity of logic was proven untenable by arguing for the dependence of logic on the
human mind. Logical principles are possible only in a world where there is a rational
mind that is able to recognize and understand the relations among objects in the world.
Logic, though is about the world and/or reality, is not anchored on reality or on what
reality necessarily is but on how the community of rational minds interprets and
understands reality.
8
INTRODUCTION
"Foundationalism does not hold true in logic, and its appeal to self-evidence is warrantless."
One of the most interesting, and perhaps also among the most difficult, problems in
philosophy is the Problem of First Principles or the issue on why first principles need not
be proven. One who wishes to answer the question should also be involved on the issue
on whether there really are first principles. We can look at a first principle in two ways -
first principle serves as the last and ultimate justification or proof of principles, if we
serves as an axiom - a principle not derived from any other principle but serves as the
ultimate principle from which other principles are derived. An essential condition for a
fundamental principles of logic is tantamount to giving them, not only the claim to
certainty, but also the claims to infallibility and incontrovertibility. This is, however,
indicative of the fact, or of the idea if not a fact, that we have reached the limits of
justification. The terms certain, infallible and incontrovertible are often used to describe
self-evident propositions put a stop in every why's or every question for further
philosophical edifices.
9
Where self-evidence merely accounts for the being evident of a proposition in its own
knowledge from the self-evident basic or first principles. Suppose, for example, it is
argued that the uttered proposition "A triangle has three sides" is self-evident. In arguing
for the self-evidence of such proposition, it is not necessarily claimed that other
propositions or knowledge claims must be derived from this proposition, though such
edifices," we are not only taking into consideration the "being true in the absence of
proof" of the proposition in question, but also its axiomatic feature as a considered
philosophical edifice. In this enquiry, the philosophical edifice that is in question is the
notion that there are first principles that serve as the foundation of knowledge.
are also foundationalist arguments regarding other fields in philosophy, particularly in the
field of logic. Just like other foundationalist claims on knowledge, philosophers, which
dates back from Aristotle, followed by Gottlob Frege and later on by Roderick Chisholm,
claimed that there are first or basic principles in logic that are self-evident from which
other principles of logic are derived. This foundationalist stance on logic is similar to
10
axioms wherein other principles of such geometry are derived. We could see from here
our belief or in believing a particular proposition or principle (let's say P1), we ask for its
principle (P2). And again, in order to be warranted in holding P2, we would ask for its
justification, let's say P3 and so on. A foundationalist argues that this could not go on an
infinite regress, which he thinks is vicious. He argues that there must be a point in the
whole process of justification where we have to stop. Such point would be the first
being a starting-point of derivation, are only two ways by which we could look at a self-
evident proposition. They may be necessary features of a self-evident first principle, but
the axioms or the first principles are said to be self-evident. In addition to the self-
evidence of the first principles, foundationalists argue for the self-evidence of rules of
inference - the very rules of deriving other principles of logic from the first principles.
Appeal to self-evidence in logic, then, applies not only to the first principles but also to
the rules of inference. In such a case where there is a distinction between a first principle
and a rule of inference, it could be accounted that the features of being an end-point of
11
Though a chapter would be devoted to the discussion of self-evidence and its very
definition, the author would like to make an initial disambiguation of it and an initial
exposition of the sort of self-evidence that will be examined so as to make clear the scope
of this enquiry. Take note that the examination of first principles of other foundationalist
edifices (as it is in a foundationalist edifice that there are said to be self-evident first
principles) is not within the scope of this enquiry. The focus is on the realm of logic only.
First, self-evidence is previously stated as "being true in the absence of proof." What
this means is that a self-evident thing is not in need of proof. Such a self-evident thing
does not depend on any other thing in order to be true. It carries its own evidence. This
sort of evidence is what will be examined in this enquiry. We must enquire on how the
evidence of a first principle and a rule of inference differ from the evidence of other
principles of logic. If, in natural language, or in the usual application of, the term
"evident," we mean "obvious" and/or "easily noticeable," then an evident thing must be
usually regarded as being unavoidable for any subject (any rational mind) to believe in
worthy of being called self-evident) that is self-evident, once such self-evident thing is
understood. It is commonly argued that the being evident-in-itself (the sense of being
self-evident) produces the property of being evident-to-us (obviousness). In the latter part
of this enquiry, however, it will be shown that self-evidence and obviousness are not the
same, but for now, an analysis of the usual application of the term "evident" will help us.
12
An evident thing must always make itself present, obvious and easily noticeable to a
subject, whether or not this subject notices this evident thing. Hence, this enquiry would
largely deal with our epistemic relation to the so-called first principles of logic and to the
rules of inference.
Second, since self-evidence is being true in the absence of proof, it could be argued
that self-evidence is also applicable to other systems, not only to the system of logic. In
this light, there must be an initial distinction between the realm of logic (the conceptual)
and the realm of the material (the perceptual). Traditionally, logic is taken as that which is
necessary and independent of experience. As E. C. Ewing puts it, "laws of logic must be
known a priori or not at all."1 In this enquiry, the sort of self-evidence that is in question
is that which is attributed to logic. If we are to put it in Gottfried Leibniz terms, there are
two sorts of self-evidence, the evidence of the primary truths of fact, and that of the
primary truths of reason. The primary truths of fact are those that are referred to when
speaking of the material realm (the realm of those that are knowable a posteriori), while
the primary truths of reason are those that are referred to when speaking of logic, and are
the focus of this enquiry. The self-evidence of truths of fact has, certainly, different form
and implications, and hence must not be confused with the object of our enquiry. Though
the main focus of this enquiry is the Problem of First Principles of Logic or the self-
evidence of the first principles or primary truths, the issue of the self-evidence of the
rules of inference will also be touched. It is by virtue of these that other principles of
1
A. C. Ewing, "In Defense of A Priori Knowledge," in The Theory of Knowledge, Classical and
Contemporary Readings, 3d ed., ed. Louis J. Pojman (Canada: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc., 2003),
386.
13
analyticity, or necessity. They are closely connected to each other but it would be
misleading to consider them as synonymous to each other. A priori and its antithesis, a
posteriori are simply about knowledge or about how we acquire knowledge. A prioricity
and a posterioricity, then, are epistemological categories. Analyticity, on the other hand,
is merely about tautology. It, and its antithesis, syntheticity, are semantical categories, or
on how the predicate of a proposition stands in relation to the subject of such proposition.
On the other side, necessity and contingency refer to how a proposition is or might be
Lastly, to speak of the first principles of logic as not self-evident is not tantamount to
saying that they are not true. It simply means that the evidence for their truthfulness is not
a sort of self-evidence. In this enquiry, it would be argued that nothing in logic could be
accounted as self-evident, or a proof of its own, because nothing in logic can be true
independently of a human mind. Logic is simply about how our minds are predisposed to
The first principle is also called first proposition, basic principle, basic proposition,
primary truth, postulate or axiom. Which word or phrase to use is a matter of choice; and
on that account, there must be no confusion whenever they are used interchangeably for
they do mean the same thing. The phrase "first principle" was derived from Aristotle;
"basic principle" was from Tyler Burge's writings about, and translations of, Frege's
works; "primary truth" was from Leibniz; while the terms "postulate" and "axiom" were
14
from mathematics and geometry. All of them are used in foundationalist theories, are
referring to the principle that serves as both the starting-point of derivation and end-point
A self-evident thing, which carries its own evidence, must be necessary. This means
that it must be true, not only in this actual world, but also in all possible worlds.
presupposition, just as mere premise for a conclusion. It is the essential condition for
(as well as rules of inference in) logic could not satisfy the very definition of self-
evidence. Hence, if the non-existence of necessity is proven, then logic could not claim
logic is untenable.
Necessity of logic is premised from the very idea that the logical principles are "out
there." It is their "being out there" or their independence of any human mind that they are
said to be true in all possible worlds, which is discoverable through rational reflection or
a priori insight. A negation of necessity, therefore, would largely affect the notion that the
necessity must lead to a negation of the "being out there" of the truthfulness of logic or of
This enquiry works on a claim that there is no warrant to claim for the self-evidence
of the first principles of logic. As proving such would mean an exploration of the
essential constitution and epistemic status of logic, we would be led to examining also the
15
so-called self-evidence of the rules of inference. Hence, the second claim, which is quite
similar to the first one, which the author would like to prove, is that there is no warrant
to claim for the self-evidence of anything in logic. To prove the claim would mean a
refutation of necessity in logic. Its refutation, however, would mean a refutation of the
"being out there" of logical principles or rules. This enquiry, then, would also have to
outlined as follows:
[i] Deny the existence of synthetic a priori propositions, thereby reducing all
[iii] Prove that all propositions of logic, which are analytic, cannot be taken as
[iv] Prove (iii) by claiming that the so-called primary truths of logic are mere
predispositions of the mind, and hence cannot be thought of as true when there is
no mind; and
[v] Defend the implication of (iv) that the truths of logic are not "out there" or not
This enquiry could also amount to an examination of the general nature of logic, by
examining (as aforesaid) our epistemic relation with the basic principles. The notion of
logic as norms of thought is a corollary of the "being out there" of logic. Logic is
generally thought of as normative; that it is "how we ought to think," because the truths
of logic are already out there - necessary and are discoverable a priori. Defenders of such
16
notion reject the idea that logic is essentially descriptive; they reject that logic is simply
"how we think," because to claim such would reduce logic to mere psychological laws of
thought.
logic that are said to be self-evident. This chapter would discuss not only the appeal to
self-evidence but also the appeal to Foundationalism in the system of logic. Chapter 3 is
logic. This would then deal with the refutation of necessity in logic. And finally, on
Chapter 4, an alternative view on what logic is, as a corollary of the accounts on Chapter
For a more active and less technical discourse, let the author, in the succeeding parts
of this enquiry, use a first person perspective. Let the term "I" be used instead of "the
author."
17
CHAPTER 1
METAPHYSICAL STATUS
that the sense of this "reasoning" is connected to an account on normativity - that logic is
how we ought to reason, as opposed to the view that logic is simply a description of how
we reason.
Logic is a realm of the a priori. This is how logic would most likely be viewed if we
are to preserve the a priori / a posteriori or the truths of reason / truths of fact
truths of fact. In this sense, logical principles have a sort of irrefutability - a sort of
necessary truthfulness.
it is necessary.
The Latin terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" primarily refer to how a thing or a
to distinguish from "from what is posterior," the literal sense of a posteriori. The
distinction between the two coincides with the non-empirical knowledge / empirical
18
knowledge distinction and Leibniz's truths of reason / truths of fact distinction. The
empirical knowledge and truths of fact are the a posteriori while the non-empirical
The terms "a priori" and "a posteriori" are used to signify ways of knowing a
that which is knowable a priori, while an a posteriori argument is that which is knowable
sense experience and whose justification arises from pure thought or reason. This does
not, however, necessarily mean that it is innate, though there are theories such as Plato's
and Leibniz's that take a priori knowledge to be innate. Traditional examples of the a
priori are "All bachelors are unmarried," "5 + 2 = 7" and "If all men are mortal and
from experience, which includes the perceptual, memorial, and beliefs in scientific
claims. Examples of a posteriori propositions are "The cat is on the mat," "It is raining"
and "The color of my blouse is red." We can see from the examples that a posteriori
priori propositions are not. The validity of an a priori proposition, if there really is an a
This process is, as Chisholm puts it, "Intuitive Induction."2 It is different from the
ordinary "induction" in the sense that the ordinary induction is only a sort of
generalization. We take particular events, then generalize from them. The truthfulness of
the generalization or the conclusion is only derived from the particular instances.
Intuitive induction, on the other hand, takes particular instances as mere occasion of
knowing the things that are a priori. They are only incidental to an a priori conclusion and
are our means of knowing the necessity of such conclusion. For example, we may know
from the perception of particular things what it is for a thing to be red and not to be red,
and what it is for a thing to be green and not to be green. Having such knowledge, we are
now able, through rational reflection, to infer that necessarily, "being red excludes being
that is true in all possible worlds, while a contingent proposition is one that is true only
in the actual world. Leibniz spoke of his truths of fact (e.g. I am conscious now) as
contingent.3 It is because they are true only in this world. The truths of reason or the
truths of logic (e.g. A = A), on the other hand, are necessary. They cannot be "not true" in
2
Roderick Chisholm, "Truths of Reason," in The Theory of Knowledge, Classical and Contemporary
Readings, 3d ed., ed. Louis J. Pojman (Canada: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc., 2003), 411.
3
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, New Essays on Human Understanding, ed. and trans., Peter Remnant and
Jonathan Bennett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 362.
20
any possible world. Defenders of the necessity of logic would, in fact, argue that logical
that if a given proposition is necessary then it must be knowable a priori because sense
experience can only tell us about the actual world or what is the case and not about what
This leads us to the traditional claim that logic is about rules or norms on how we
ought to reason since it talks about what is necessarily true - a truthfulness that is not
If we say that logical truths are necessary, that they are laws of truth and/or of reality,
and that how we ought to reason must be parallel to these logical truths, then we cannot
proposition is innate (an issue, which I am agnostic about), it still does not mean that the
just means that the knowledge of it (and of its necessity) is innately known.
logic is innate (such that we re-learn or re-discover it) or discovered, it can still be
inferred, as it is still compatible with these two different claims, that a necessary a priori
If the whole of logic is a priori, and we can observe from it that some of its principles
or propositions are derived from others then we will discover that there are logical
principles that are (considered as) more epistemically privileged than others. These
principles that have epistemic privilege status are the basic (first) principles or axioms
that have epistemic privilege by virtue of being self-evident. An a priori system, then, is
logic, the rules of inference or the rules by which we derive logical principles from
axioms are also said to be self-evident. These axioms and rules of inference are already
there, independent of our minds, and can be immediately known. Hence, even if they are
immediately known to us, we cannot be mistaken about them because they speak of what
necessarily is the case. Their incontrovertibility is reason enough to make them as the
Another dichotomy that is quite related to the issue of a prioricity and a posterioricity
is the analytic / synthetic dichotomy. The dichotomy is semantical, and is about how the
predicate of a proposition stands in relation to the subject of such proposition. The key in
Hence, the principle that governs all analytic judgments is the principle of non-
contradiction. Kant accounted that even when the concepts in an analytic proposition are
empirical, all analytic propositions are a priori. The concepts in analytic propositions are
22
just analyzed.4 Examples of analytic propositions are "[A1] All bachelors are unmarried
males," "[A2] All that are pregnant are women," and "[A3] Everything that is a square is
a rectangle."
contained in the subject but is adding something to it. Examples of such are "[S1] Los
Baños is an hour drive away from Sta. Cruz," "[S2] The Prince of Korea is gorgeous" and
"[S3] Everything that is a square is a thing that has a shape." We can see that being an
hour drive away from Sta. Cruz is not contained in (or is not the very definition of) the
subject, which is Los Baños, but it does tell something about it. The same is true with the
second example; being gorgeous only adds something to the Prince of Korea, but it is not
contained in it. The two examples are a posteriori propositions because they are
The third example (S3), which is one of Chisholm's, is quite difficult to consider as a
synthetic proposition. One may argue that its form is quite the same with A3, which is an
analytic proposition. Chisholm argued that they (S3 and A3) are of different semantical
forms, though he argues that they are both epistemologically a priori - we need not look
at experience to know if they are true. S3, therefore, is an example of a synthetic a priori
proposition. But how are A3 and S3 or analytic propositions and synthetic a priori
It was stated that an analytic proposition has a form of explicit redundancy. This is
usually taken to mean that the subject speaks of itself when it speaks of the predicate -
that it talks about an identity, such that the statement "A bachelor is an unmarried male"
4
Immanuel Kant, "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysic, Section VII.1," in "A Priori Knowledge,"
The Theory of Knowledge, Classical and Contemporary Readings, 3d ed., ed. Louis J. Pojman (Canada:
Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc., 2003), 372.
23
has the form same as "A is A." But in the case of A3, or even in example A2, the
predicate is not actually identical to the subject. Explicit redundancy, then, refers not only
to "identity." Chisholm argues that it refers to the "predicate being analyzed out of the
In the case of "All squares are rectangles," the subject-term is said to be analyzed out
such that it is a conjunction of logically independent terms, one of which is the predicate-
term. To further understand how it happens, consider the proposition below, which is a
a rectangle is a rectangle.
Notice that in the given translation, it was made obvious to us that A3 is analytic.
Though rectangle is not identical with square, square is a conjunction of being equilateral
and being rectangle. We can also do this translation in understanding the analyticity of
A2. We will see that being pregnant is a conjunction of having a child in the womb and
being woman.
In the case of S3 however, the predicate "a thing that has a shape" is not analyzed out
of the subject "everything that is a square." One may argue that "everything that is a
square" is a conjunction of something (let us say, Ф) and "everything that has a shape."
But in such case, we cannot say that "everything that has a shape" is analyzed out of
"everything that is a square" because we do not know yet what Ф stands for, thereby
"everything that is a square" when combined with "everything that has a shape," in order
to analyze out "everything that is a square." Suppose we substitute the phrase "everything
a square." The proposition would be: "Everything that is equilateral and a rectangle
and everything that has a shape is everything that has a shape." This, however, would
produce problems. First, the phrase "everything that has a shape" is not logically
independent of, but is actually logically implied by, "everything that is equilateral and a
of "everything that is a square"; hence, "everything that has a shape" can be considered as
something that is only added to, though logically implied by, "everything that is a
square." Hence, S3 is a synthetic proposition, but a priori, such that it can be known
Other examples of synthetic a priori are "5 + 2 = 7," "Everything red is colored" and
"A thing that is blue all over is not pink." One needs not to refer to experience or sense
Having discussed the notion that there are synthetic a priori propositions, it is
reasonable for us to expect that advocates of such notion argue that logic is not purely
analytic. It may be the case that there are analytic propositions that are presupposed as
first or basic principles, but the rules of inference can be seen as synthetic.
25
Chapter 2
The account that logic is a norm of thought or of correct reasoning is premised from
the very idea that logic speaks as a law of truth or of reality (not of material reality, but of
what necessarily is). This approach to logic is a construal of the idea that the system of
in logic always implies an appeal to a priori insight because mere sense perception can
only give us the knowledge of particular things in the actual world. If an idea of
innateness of knowledge of the necessity of logic is added to the idea of a priori insight,
the knowledge is still described as that which is "discovered" in the sense of being "re-
discovered." In this account, whether or not the knowledge of logical principles is innate,
if logical principles are said to be necessary, the sense of a priori insight is a matter of
discovery (or re-discovery). In such case, logical principles (or logic) are (is) said to be
"out there" - independent of human mind. We must recognize this in our analysis of the
assumes the "being out there" of the said to be self-evident propositions, and hence also
assumes the necessity of self-evident propositions and a priori insight about them.
The "being out there" of a self-evident proposition or principle would mean that such
principle carries its own evidence or justification. It is evident in its own right and owes
because such principle is evident in its own right, not because it is evident by virtue of a
26
rational mind certain of it. A self-evident principle needs not a subject to be true, but the
Self-evidence is a technical term, which makes its definition open to some stipulation.
However, it carries a function specific to it in that which there are many cases of its
"no sane or rational person who understands it can deny it."6 Chisholm holds the same,
fact (or the realm of the a posteriori). In such a manner, let me first distinguish the self-
evident. A thing is evident if such thing is beyond reasonable doubt for a rational mind
and if it is epistemically preferable (it is preferable to believe in it than not believe in it).
The self-presenting truths or propositions in the truths of fact refer to propositions about
someone's (a rational mind's) own state of mind at a time. This includes being in a certain
sensory state.8 Bertrand Russell has a congruent idea about this sort of self-evidence by
Robert Bass. 9 Dec 2006. E-mail to the author. 10 Dec 2006; Robert Bass. 11 Dec 2006. E-mail to the
author. 14 Dec 1006.
7
Roderick Chisholm, "The Problem of Criterion," in The Theory of Knowledge, Classical and
Contemporary Readings, 3d ed., ed. Louis J. Pojman (Canada: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc., 2003),
15.
8
27
example, he stated:
If you slip on a piece of orange peel and hit your head with bump on
the pavement, you will have little sympathy with a philosopher who
tries to persuade you that it is uncertain whether you are hurt. 9
reason or in logic, on the other hand, is that which has, according to Russell, "conceptual
evidence." This conceptual evidence is what Bass refers to when he said that no rational
person would deny a (conceptually) self-evident proposition once it is (or the terms in the
proposition could not be known unless it is evident, and one could not believe it unless he
understands it.
present, we cannot help believing."10 However, such definition applies only to self-
evidence, but not to conceptual self-evidence or self-evidence in the realm of the a priori
system of logic, which is the object of our enquiry. For a complete definition of the 'self-
Tyler Burge outlines the essential components of that which is self-evident. The
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
28
The three capture the essentiality of the 'self-evident'. The first component, which I
aptly call rationality,12 signify that it is reasonable for us (or for any rational mind) to
believe in a proposition that is self-evident. This is what Bass means when he states that
no rational or sane person could deny a self-evident proposition. This is what Chisholm
means when he says that self-evident propositions are epistemically preferable. It is the
case, therefore, that any system that is grounded on self-evident propositions has a
logic is able to gain legitimacy in measuring sanity or rationality. Any rational being must
it. It seems, then, that normativity is implied by inability of a rational mind to deny the
truthfulness of a proposition.
The second component, which I call unprovability, points to the property of being
incapable and being not in need of proof. It is what we mean when we say that a self-
evident thing is a thing that is "an evidence of its own self." A self-evident principle has a
sort of self-justification. It justifies its own self. It carries its own evidence and owes no
evidence to other principles. It is its own evidence for its truth and certainty. Such is the
case because, as Aristotle said, a self-evident principle is "prior" and "better known." 13 It
is by virtue of being unprovable that a basic or first principle can become non-
11
Tyler Burge, "Frege on knowing the foundation," Gottlob Frege, philosophy of mathematics, internet,
available from http://findarticles.com.
12
The term 'rationality', in this sense, is not meant to refer to 'reason' or 'reasoning' but on being
'reasonable'. The use of the term is patterned from how Tyler Burge discusses Frege's accounts on 'self-
evidence'.
13
Aristotle, "Posterior Analytics, 71b - 72a," in Thales to Ockham, ed. Walter Kaufmann, (New Jersey,
USA: Prentice Hall Inc., 1968), 288 - 289.
29
justification. A self-evident principle that justifies its own self does not need any other
understood, a rational mind cannot not believe in it. This might seem that self-evidence
These three properties all point to the unconditional truthfulness or necessity of logical
propositions or principles.
the self-evident, and being evident-to-us, the sense of being obvious to a rational mind.
The evident-in-itself would only imply the being evident-to-us if it is fully understood,
14
Frege as cited by Tyler Burge in Tyler Burge, 'Frege on knowing the foundation', Gottlob Frege,
philosophy of mathematics.
30
hand, would argue that it is always the case that a thing evident-to-us and is not made
points to its self-evidence. As stated in the previous section, Chisholm argued that a self-
evident proposition could not be known unless it is evident. This means that it is not by
virtue of a human mind that a logical principle is said to be self-evident; rather, it must be
capable of serving as evidence of its own self and of its own truthfulness.
It must be further noted that when we speak of a logical principle's self-evidence, and
hence of its being an evidence of its own self and truthfulness, we are referring to the
evidence of both the logical principle itself and its truthfulness. When we speak of self-
evidence, we cannot separate the logical principle from its truthfulness. As a corollary of
what was discussed, a self-evident logical principle would not become self-evident if it
were not true. Hence, it does not make sense to separate the question of a logical
principle to the question of its truthfulness when we say that such logical principle is self-
evident. The proposition "A thing is itself," for example, when construed as a self-evident
logical principle, is the same as saying "It is the case that a thing is itself" or "It is true
that a thing is itself." Corollarily, since this enquiry is about self-evidence of logical
principles, it is inevitable that we also touch the issue on such principles' truthfulness.
Likewise, as Tomas Alvira, Luis Clavell and Tomas Melendo pointed out, a self-
evident logical principle is not a "sort of built-in intellectual framework for understanding
reality."15 Rather, it is "evident by itself to everyone."16 This means that it is not by virtue
15
Tomas Alvira, Luis Clavell, and Tomas Melendo, Metaphysics, trans. Fr. Luis Sapan, ed. Fr. M.
Guzman (Manila: Sinag-tala Publishers, Inc., 1991), 35.
16
Ibid.
31
of our capability to recognize a logical principle that makes it self-evident, but by virtue
out there" is an essential condition for self-evidence in logic. In fact, the three essential
worlds. Unprovability points to the being incapable of, and being not in need of proof of
independent of any demonstration or proof that may be outlined by any rational mind.
Through intuitive induction, it will be realized that a self-evident proposition has a sort of
It is, thus, by virtue of being necessary and "being out there" that a proposition can be
not "out there," then its being evident-to-us is only an evidence-to-us and not an
dependent on us (or on how we are predisposed to think) - an idea that is widely rejected
To say that an edifice is an axiomatic system is to say that such edifice is grounded on
certain foundations from which other parts of such edifice are based. Axiomatization,
therefore, attempts to locate the "axioms" or the foundations of an edifice. The term
"axiom" is derived from the Greek term "axioma," which means "that which is
considered self-evident."17 The modern usage of the term, however, is not anymore
but they are principles or propositions from which the theorems of mathematics are
derived. At any rate, an axiom is that which yields theorems, whether or not such axiom
is self-evident.
to axiomatization that does not necessarily claim that axioms are self-evident) or
foundationalist (appeal to axiomatization that claims that axioms are and must be self-
the axioms or first principles of logic are self-evident - an idea that is a corollary of
foundations - foundations that are self-evident. These foundations are what we call first
17
principles, basic principles or axioms. Other principles in logic follow a priori from
axioms, and hence, it can be argued that not all that are a priori are self-evident. Let me
proposition. Its unprovability points to its being both the starting-point of derivation and
rules that make us infer other principles from the basic ones, are also said to be self-
evident. Other philosophers do not distinguish rules of inference from axioms. For the
purpose of our enquiry, let me initially assume (and later on, try to refute) that they are
different. It is because if they are indeed different, and we have proven that axioms are
not self-evident, it may still be argued that the rules of inference are self-evident, and
hence, there is still self-evidence in logic. Below is an illustration of the analogy between
game. Let all the possible positions in a chess game be the propositions in logic. The
initial position of the chess game would be the axioms, while the rules of the game would
be the rules of inference. The rules of the game allow for moving from the initial
position. All possible positions that are executed from the initial position and are
executed according to the rules are the theorems of logic. We cannot simply move any
34
characters in the chess game (variables in logic) in any way we want; we must follow the
rules in order to play the game right. This shows the normative character of logic.
As noted in the previous chapter, there are axioms (at least some of the axioms of
logic) that are analytic. An example of which is the principle of identity; i.e. A thing is
itself (A → A). Another principle that could be taken as an axiom is the principle of non-
contradiction, i.e. It is not the case that a thing is the not-itself (~ [A • ~A]). This
synthetic.18 It is for the reason that the "not-itself" is not contained in the negation of the
Rules of inference, on the other hand, are generally regarded as synthetic a priori. The
classical example of a valid argument "All men are mortal and Socrates is a man,
therefore Socrates is mortal" is argued as synthetic because at least one of its premises is
synthetic. Even if we say that "All men are mortal" is analytic, "Socrates is a man" is
synthetic, which actually makes its conclusion synthetic. The rule of inference that this
18
Louis J. Pojman, "A Priori Knowledge," in The Theory of Knowledge, Classical and Contemporary
Readings, 3d ed., ed. Louis J. Pojman (Canada: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc., 2003), 368.
35
CHAPTER 3
The two claims that I am working on are as follows: (1) there is no warrant to claim
for the self-evidence of the first principles of logic, and (2) there is no warrant to claim
outlined as follows: [i] deny the existence of synthetic a priori propositions, thereby
reducing all logical propositions to analytic; [ii] deny that a prioricity implies necessity;
[iii] prove that all logical propositions, which are analytic, cannot be taken as necessary
even though a priori; [iv] prove (iii) by claiming that the so-called primary truths of logic
are mere predispositions of the mind, and hence cannot be thought of as true when there
is no mind; and [v] defend the implication of (iv) that the truths of logic are not "out
Denying the existence of synthetic a priori propositions, and hence also denying the
existence of synthetic a priori logical principles or propositions, would mean that logic,
which is a realm of the a priori, is wholly analytic. The idea that all logical principles are
analytic would support the idea that there is no axiomatization in logic, thereby
analyticity would lead us to inferring that logic is a priori because it is wholly analytic,
analyticity and syntheticity, but this does not mean that we have to reject the
problems if it is clear to us how the terms and/or concepts in a proposition are used.
There are cases wherein propositions are clearly analytic and cases wherein propositions
are clearly synthetic. The proposition "A is A," for example, is clearly analytic, as it
clearly shows an explicit redundancy (where the predicate is also the subject and the
subject is also the predicate). "Proxima Centauri is 4.3 light years away from the solar
system" is clearly synthetic. Proxima Centauri will still be Proxima Centauri if it is not
4.3 light years away, and even if it is discovered that it is just a light year away. But in the
case of "A is A," A (the subject) cannot be thought of as not-A (the predicate). The
problem is not with the analytic/synthetic distinction, but with the borderline cases - the
I call synthetic a priori propositions as the borderline cases because they are those that
seem synthetic, and those that seem knowable a priori, which is a property of analytic
propositions.
contained in the subject. What being not conceptually contained means is that a concept
(the subject-term) will still be complete even if we do not attach the predicate-term to it.
Proxima Centauri will still be Proxima Centauri if it is discovered that it is not 4.3 light
37
years away from the solar system. Hence, in knowing the truthfulness of a synthetic
is not 4.3 light years away, the statement "Proxima Centauri is 4.3 light years away from
the solar system" will be not true; but Proxima Centauri will still be itself. Such is also
the case with the examples given in Chapter 1. Los Baños will still be Los Baños if it is
not an hour drive away from Sta. Cruz because the creation of new roads may speed up
the travel time from Sta. Cruz to Los Baños (S1). The Prince of Korea will still be the
does not make him the not-Prince of Korea (S2). The third example (S3), "Everything
that is a square is everything that has a shape," however, is not only epistemically, but is
also semantically different from the previous examples (an idea that is different from that
Having conceptual containment is having explicit redundancy and having the predicate
terms being analyzed out of the subject. Chisholm argues that this conceptual
containment is not only an explication of identity (that the subject and predicate are
identical or equal to each other), an idea that which I assent to. However, his idea that
there is no conceptual containment or explicit redundancy in the case where the predicate
is logically implied by the subject is problematic. Chisholm only argues such to save the
containment must be restricted only with the identicality (being identical) of the predicate
38
with the subject and the characteristic of the subject as the "conjunction of independent
Following Kant's argument that the guiding principle of an analytic proposition is the
the subject would not be itself if its predicate does not define it or if its predicate is not an
essential characteristic of it. Chisholm is right in saying that there would be such a
conceptual containment if the subject is the predicate (e.g. A is A) and if the subject is a
conjunction of logically independent terms, one of which is the predicate (e.g. B is C, iff
with these two, for there will still be conceptual containment even if the subject is a
conjunction of logically dependent terms, one of which is the predicate, or that the
analysis here:
shape.
"everything that is equilateral and rectangle." But it is also a conjunction of hidden terms
/ concepts that are logically dependent of, or logically implied by "everything that is a
square" (or "everything that is equilateral and rectangle"). Examples of such hidden
concepts are, "everything that has a shape," "everything that has four right angles,"
"everything that has at least two pairs of parallel lines," "everything that has at least four
19
perpendicular lines," etc. We will observe that if we negate at least one of these hidden
concepts, we are also negating the subject. It is because these concepts are contained in
the very definition of the subject. Hence, they are not phrases that are simply added to the
subject. Propositions such as this one have conceptual containment / explicit redundancy
Mathematical propositions are argued by Kant as synthetic a priori. The example that
he had given in his Prolegomena is "7 + 5 = 12." I assent to the idea that this proposition
is a priori because we do not need to consult experience to know if such is the case. I do
not, however, assent to the idea that it is synthetic. Kant argues that we must make
that it is analytic, but as he argues, "7 + 5" contains not the number "12," but merely the
union of "7" and "5." If it does contain number “12,” Kant argues, then it must also
contain "9 + 3" and "16 - 4." But Kant argues that "7 + 5" does not contain them and the
It may be argued, however, that "7 + 5" does indeed contain "12" and other possible
Let us see how Leibniz tried to show that two and two make four. I
assume the number one to be defined and also the operation x + 1, -
i.e., the adding of unity to a given number x… I next define the
numbers 2, 3, 4 by the equalities: -
(1) 1 + 1 = 2; (2) 2 + 1 = 3; (3) 3 + 1 = 4, and in (4) the same way I
define the operation x+2 by the relation; (4) x + 2 = (x + 1) + 1.
Given this, we have:
2 + 2 = (2 + 1) + 1 [def.4]
(2 + 1) + 1 = 3 + 1 [def.2]
3 + 1 = 4 [def.3]
40
From the previous passage, by only using the operations "x + 1" and "x + 2," we have
seen how "2 + 2" contains "(2 + 1) + 1," "3 + 1" and hence "4." By substituting "x" in
definition 4 with "2," we could see that definition 2, which is "2 + 1 = 3," is contained in
definition 4 (where "2 + 1" in definition 2 is "x + 1" in definition 4). Definition 3 is seen
as contained in both definitions 2 and 4. "2 + 2 = 4" is, therefore, analytic - one claim of
Leibniz that I do not disagree with. If we are patient enough to do the same
demonstration with "7 + 5," we would say that "7 + 5 = 12" is analytic. If "7 + 5"
contains the union of "7" and "5," it also contains "12" because "12" is the union of "7"
and "5." Likewise, "7 + 5 = 12" passes the test of analyticity - the principle of non-
contradiction. If "7 + 5" is not "12," there would be a contradiction. Arithmetic, then, is
(as Poincaré puts it) a "gigantic tautology." I am not in the position to say that such is the
case for the whole of mathematics; but one of its domains - arithmetic, is hereby shown
as analytic. Since this does not amount to the proof of analyticity of mathematics, I am
leaving the possibility that mathematics (as a whole) may be synthetic, and thus, a
posteriori.
"conceptual containment." We are able to see this containment by simply referring to the
terms of the proposition. Analytic propositions, then, are simply dependent on how the
terms are used (or on the term's meanings). With this, we could deduce that the
proposition "It is raining or it is not raining" (that has the form A v ~ A) is analytic, which
would seem to be neither analytic nor synthetic for Kant because this is not a proposition
20
Henri Poincaré, "Chapter 1, On The Nature of Mathematical Reasoning," in Science and Hypothesis.
41
that has a subject-predicate form. Analyticity, then, is largely dependent on the use of
language.
All that are taken as synthetic a priori have form similar to S3. It is, in fact, the case
that such propositions are a priori, but this a prioricity is due to their being analytic (in the
sense that their predicate is logically implied by the subject). "14" is logically implied by
"7 + 7;" "being not red of an object" is logically implied by "being blue all over" and
"being colored" is logically implied by "being red." This logical implication points to the
analyticity of propositions, as their subjects would not be them if they are also not their
predicates or if they are not their logical implications. It is by virtue of being analytic that
a proposition is known a priori, and not by virtue of being necessary. This will be further
explained later; for the meantime, let us first discuss the implications of this to the formal
system of logic.
One counter-argument against the claim that all propositions of logic are analytic is
by stating that we are in fact using synthetic a priori propositions, (e.g. Ben is tall) in
arguments in logic (e.g. If Ben is not short, Ben is tall. Ben is not short. Therefore, Ben is
tall.) However, such argument misleads us into thinking that propositions of logic are
about any statement that are worthy of being called as proposition (statements that are
capable of truth-value). Logic is not about particular propositions. It is about the form of
propositions. Likewise, it is not about the form of propositions such as "Ben is tall" but
about the form of the propositions that are also arguments, such as "If Ben is not short,
Ben is tall. Ben is not short. Therefore, Ben is tall" and "If all men are mortal, and
42
Socrates is a man, then Socrates is mortal." "Ben is tall" and "Socrates is a man" are
propositions, but they are not included in what I call logical propositions, for they are
Logic is concerned with logical propositions, logical truths or logical propositions (they
are all referring to the same thing), that take the form of what people call valid
arguments. Logical propositions are the forms these valid arguments take. Clearly then,
logic is not about particular propositions and what I call logical propositions do not
include such particular propositions. Particular propositions such as "Ben is tall" (which
used in logic not because of their syntheticity or analyticity, but because they may be
It is, in fact, by virtue of being concerned with the form and not with particular
which other things are said to be based. In such case, logical propositions are also called
viewed as a system of necessary propositions that could serve as justification of their own
selves, these necessary propositions of logic are called principles because their necessary
justification. The notion "principle" is, hence, due to the traditional attribution of
21
necessary truthfulness to logic and its implication - the self-justification of the necessary
truths or propositions. And because logical propositions are traditionally called logical
principles, let me use them synonymously. This act of using them synonymously has no
significant value except for pointing out that I am referring to what people traditionally
claim as logical principles when I speak of logical propositions. This should not be taken
to mean that I intend to give same signification for the terms "proposition" and
made clear, my use of the term "logical principle" to refer to "logical propositions" should
not be taken as a contradictory account when I claim for the non-necessity of logic and
As a corollary of having no synthetic a priori propositions, we can infer that there are
propositions of logic are tautologies."22 With tautology, there is a repetition, such that the
in all combinations in its truth table. Below are examples of tautological propositions (all
PRINCIPLE OF NON-
PRINCIPLE OF IDENTITY CONTRADICTION
A→A ~ ( A • ~A)
A → A ~ (A • ~ A)
T T T T T F F T
F T F T F F T F
22
tautological form. It is, in fact, by virtue of this tautological form that there are logicians
that could infer the idea that logical propositions are unconditionally true. Wittgenstein,
himself has argued for this unconditional truthfulness of tautologies. We must not,
however, be misled into thinking that this unconditional truthfulness points to eternal
tautology. Logical propositions, then, are unconditionally true because they are logical
a proposition, then we are also given all its properties or logical implications, just as we
are given with "everything that has a shape" when given with "everything that is a
We cannot argue that there are logical propositions, which are not about particular
propositions, that are derived from the most basic logical propositions (or axioms). There
is no sense in distinguishing theorems from axioms. Wittgenstein states that "All the
propositions of logic are of equal status: it is not the case that some of them are
essentially derived propositions."23 With not being essentially derived, we mean that there
is no logical proposition that is derived solely from other logical proposition that serve as
its sole starting point of derivation. Axioms and theorems are of equal status; hence, it is
foundations; they are of equal footing. Wittgenstein further argues in his TLP (Tractatus
not make sense, therefore, to argue that one is essentially derived from the other.
One may counter this by pointing to the use of proof in logic; that proofs show that
there are propositions that justify others. I argue, on the other hand, that proofs in logic
Likewise, Axioms / Rules of Inference dichotomy makes no sense. They are of equal
status, of the same form and are pointing to one thing - tautology. A foundationalist
would argue that the rules of inference are indeed not derived from axioms because they
are both said to be self-evident (as we have noted in Chapter 2). I argue that rules of
inference are not essentially derived propositions but I do not assent to the idea that it is
because they are self-evident. When I say that they are not essentially derived, I mean
23
Ibid., 6.127.
24
Ibid., 6.1262.
46
that there is no axiom that could serve as their sole proof or justification. Logical
propositions, which are all tautologies, are of equal status; they are translatable to each
axiom:
A→B
A or [(A → B) • A] → B
—————
Therefore B
[ (A → B) • A ] → B Modus Ponens
[ (~A v B) • A ] → B Implication, antecedent's first conjunct
~ [ (~A v B) • A ] v B Implication
[ ~ (~A v B) v ~A ] v B De Morgan's, first disjunct
[ (~ ~A • ~B) v ~A ] v B De Morgan's, first disjunct's first disjunct
(~ ~A • ~B) v [ ~A v B ] Association of disjunction
[ ~ (~A v B) ] v [ (~A v B) ] De Morgan's, first disjunct
*We are now left with ~ (~A v B) as our first disjunct and (~A v B) as our second
disjunct.
*For our convenience, let us substitute X to (~A v B).
*In substituting X to (~A v B), we will get ~X v X.
Translation of [ ~ (~A v B) ] v [ (~A v B) ]
~XvX by substituting X to (~A v B)
X→X Implication
*We could then see that modus ponens is just the same (and just as tautologous) as
the principle of identity (X → X). And hence, there is no point to make a distinction
between what we call a rule of inference and an axiom.
With the given demonstration, one might argue that this shows that modus ponens is
inferable from the principle of identity. I argue that such is the case. This does not,
however, mean that the principle of identity is the sole justification or proof of modus
ponens (that could make it as the latter's starting-point of derivation). As I have noted,
they are translatable to each other, which means that the principle of identity is also
47
inferable from modus ponens. Below, which is just an inversion of the demonstration
above, shows that the principle of identity is inferable from modus ponens:
We have now seen that both are inferable from each other. Being inferable of one
proposition from the other does not make it essentially inferred or essentially derived
from this other proposition. Such is because they are translatable to each other. With
equivalence between propositions when they have the same logical content. This
sameness in logical content can be seen in their sameness in truth-values in the truth
( ~ A v B ) → ( ~ A v B ) ≡ [ (A → B) • A ] → B
~ A v B → ~ A v B ≡ A → B • A → B
F T T T T F T T T T T T T T T T
F T T F T F T T F T F F F T T F
F F T T T F F T T F T T F F T T
T F F F T T F F F F T F F F T F
*This shows that each proposition is a tautology and that they are logically
equivalent with each other, such that they have the same logical content.
48
If it is true that rules of inference and axioms are self-evident, then they must not be
inferable from each other. We have, however, shown that such is not the case. It could not
also be argued that modus ponens is a theorem that is essentially derived from the
principle of identity because they are logically equivalent and that the principle of
identity is also inferable from modus ponens. This shows that they serve as justification
for each other. There is no logical proposition that is more basic that serves as the
justifies each other, and is derivable or inferable from each other. We can start at any
also a tautology).
It, therefore, makes no sense to speak of first principle, basic principle, primary truth
or axiom in logic except in analyzing whether such exists. It is clear that there is no
axiom from which other logical propositions or principles are derived. Hence, whenever
that are of equal status. We do not anymore specifically refer to axioms or rules of
It may perhaps be argued that "A is A" or the principle of identity is more basic than
"[(A → B) • A] → B" or the modus ponens, in the sense that it deals with only one
variable (A), while the latter deals with two variables (A and B). It may likewise be
argued that "A is A" is axiomatic in system L (logic) such that, though it and the modus
ponens are both tautologies, its dealing with only one variable makes it more obvious,
thereby seemingly putting modus ponens in a second order (in terms of obviousness).
This counter-argument does not, however, refute my claims. First, the apparent
49
obviousness of "A is A" cannot prove its self-evidence as we have previously shown that
self-evidence is not about obviousness but about the capability of a principle to serve as a
proof and/or evidence of its own self. Second, the apparent obviousness of "A is A" is not
a mark of its being axiomatic because the obviousness of a proposition or principle does
obviousness does not make it independent of other principles (independent in the sense
axioms. It is the case, however, that no axiom can be seen in the system of logic. Appeal
inverted pyramid whose foundation serves as the justification of the principles that are on
top of it. This stance on logic sees the justification structure of logic as linear. In the case
is untenable. Those that are commonly taken as axioms are not independent of each other
as each of them implies each other. Negating "A is A" would mean negating "[(A → B) •
A] → B." But this does not mean that it is axiomatic because negating "[(A → B) • A] →
B" would also mean negating "A is A." A logical principle makes sense only if it is in
structure in logic, then, is not linear. It is much like of a web - a mutual support system,
where each logical principle supports each other and the system as well. Likewise, the
system itself serves as the justification of principles. And because the principles are
justified by the system and within the system and are supported by every principle in the
50
system, there are no principles that are basic or that have the paramount certainty by
virtue of being the foundation. All principles of logic are of equal status.
as untenable. This then proves my first claim that there is no warrant to claim for the self-
evidence of first principles in logic, because there are no such principles. They are of
equal footing with other logical principles. However, as I have earlier pointed out, appeal
that there are axioms, first principles, basic principles or primary truths that could serve
justified). This does not, however, destroy the notion of self-evidence - rationality,
unprovability and unavoidability (all of which are pointing to logic's necessity). Hence,
Necessity implies a prioricity because if there is such a thing that is necessary then
such could not be known through sense experience because sense experience can only tell
us about the actual world. If a proposition is true in all possible worlds, it must be known
However, a prioricity does not imply necessity. It does not mean that if a proposition
Intuitive induction (or a priori insight) is argued by Chisholm as the method by which
we do not only know things without referring to experience, but also a method by which
we know the things that are necessary (or necessarily true). Such is because a thing that is
necessarily true implies that it is knowable a priori. However, if there is nothing (no
proposition / principle) in logic that is necessary, it does not follow that logical truths or
propositions are not knowable a priori. I argue that they still are because they are analytic
Saul Kripke has a congruent idea regarding this. He argues that a priori propositions
need not be necessary. A prioricity only means that a proposition can be known
independently of experience; it does not mean that it must be true in all possible worlds.
He gave as an example the proposition "The standard meter bar in Paris is one meter
long." Such proposition is knowable a priori because the bar in question (the bar in Paris)
defines the length of a meter. But Kripke argues that the proposition will not be true in all
possible worlds. The proposition will be false in a world where the bar is subjected to
Step 1 successfully reduced all statements of logic to analytic. And since analyticity
implies a prioricity, we have further supported the idea that logic is the realm of the a
priori. Step 2 successfully discussed that being a priori needs not mean being necessary,
which we could see as not inconsistent with the analysis in Step 1. In proving the non-
25
Saul A. Kripke, "A Priori Knowledge, Necessity and Contingency," in The Theory of Knowledge,
Classical and Contemporary Readings, 3d ed., ed. Louis J. Pojman (Canada: Wadsworth, Thomson
Learning Inc., 2003), 425 – 426.
52
necessity of logic, it must be proven that there is at least one possible world where logical
world where the propositions of logic are not true. Such is premised from the idea that if
logical propositions are not true, then they are false; and from the idea that logical
propositions cannot be false because such is an absurdity.26 I, on the other hand, argue
that we cannot possibly think of a world where the propositions of logic are false because
they show how we think. And as long as they are how we think, they cannot be conceived
as false.
Let this actual world, where we consider propositions of logic as true, be called
World Ω. I do not reject the idea that logical propositions in World Ω are true. What we
have to know is whether their truthfulness is a sort of truthfulness in all possible worlds.
World α is a world where only one object exists. Let this object be called A.
Defenders of the necessity of logic would argue that logical propositions are true in
World α. Such is premised from the idea that A is indeed itself (A → A as necessarily
true). However, in such a world where only A exists, it makes no sense to assert that "a
relation in the form of logical implication (→). In this sense, the relation of A to A is
"equality" or "identity." Even if we can assert that "A is" or "A exists," we still cannot
26
It is commonly argued that if PNC (principle of non-contradiction) is not true, then it is false. But we
cannot argue that it is false, because if we do such, we also affirmed PNC by saying that 'it is true that PNC
is false, hence it is false that PNC is true.'
53
assert that "A is A." "A exists" is an assertion on existence; "A is A" is an assertion on
equality. Equality is manifested only in cases wherein there is something that is not-equal
(just as relation to the self is manifested only in cases wherein there is a relation of the
self to the not-self). There can only be equality, even an equality to the self (or a relation
that could serve as the not-A. Otherwise, only "A exists," which is not a logical
proposition, is true. But even "A exists" is not a necessary truth; it cannot be true in
World Ф where nothing exists. As a corollary of this, the principle of identity is also not
But it is not only the principle of identity that is not necessary. All propositions in
logic are. In World α, there is no not-A that A could have a relation to, and hence ~ (A •
~A) or the principle of non-contradiction is not true (just as A → A is not). But they are
also not false. They cannot be false because there cannot be something that could serve as
~A, and there is no relation with other object/s that could serve as the "•" (and) and even
"→" (a relation in the form of logical implication). Other logical operations (i.e. "v" and
"↔" or "≡") that refer to relations among the concepts/terms/variables in logic could also
not be asserted. The principles of logic simply have no truth-value in this world as well as
in World Ф, where nothing exists. Likewise, we can clearly see that we do not affirm
even the principle of excluded middle (A v ~A, or A is either true or false) because the
logical propositions, including the principle of excluded middle itself are both not true
and not false. Hence, the counter-argument that it is absurd to argue that the principles of
logic (particularly the principles of non-contradiction and identity) are not true does not
54
refute my claim. When I say that these principles are not true, I am not claiming that they
answer to the question 'What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable
object?' His answer would be 'everything,' for it is the case (as many, if not all, logicians
would argue) that 'logical impossibility is impossible.' This sense of impossible means
that logical impossibility is unthinkable. Such is the case why we cannot conceive of a
square circle and/or a five-sided triangle. Logic, hence, sets what is possible.
However, this idea does not actually contradict my point. Logic is how we think, but
this does not mean that we cannot think of a possible world where the logical
propositions are not true. When we say that logical impossibility is unthinkable, we are
saying that we cannot think of a radically different logic. That is why I did not construct
radically different logical propositions when I thought of possible worlds α and Ф. If one
could properly observe, when I think of the possible worlds α and Ф, I am employing
how my mind works and hence the logic that I am subscribed to (the logic that I am
using). This does not however rule out the possibility of construing a world where the
logical propositions in World Ω are not true. Such is because when we say that logical
impossibility is unthinkable, we are supporting the idea that logic is dependent on the
thing that is thinking or the mind and not on what is metaphysically necessary (or on
what the reality, which is outside of us, necessarily is). Hence, in a world where such
thinking thing does not exist, it can be construed that logical propositions are not possible
From the previous arguments, we could see that [1] logic is wholly analytic, and [2]
logic is not necessary. Logic is analytic because it is about tautologies. Its propositions or
principles show the tautological form of what we call valid arguments that are about
not true in all possible worlds. Its non-truthfulness in all possible worlds means that
Logical propositions are about reality. However, they are not anchored on reality, but
on how we think or reason and/or understand reality. Hence, they are primarily about how
we understand or view reality, though the initial concern is to make an account on reality.
tautology in language, and anchored on how we understand reality and not on what
ask when the logic has started. I argue that logical principles started when there is a
rational mind that is already able to recognize his relations with other objects in the
world. The system of logic started when there is a tacit agreement between rational minds
that are able to recognize the relations that there are in the world. These rational minds
have the same background, and hence, same predisposition of the mind when it comes to
Chapter 4
A DEFENSE OF SUCH
Since we have already destroyed the notion of necessity in logic, it seems easy for us
to destroy the notion of self-evidence of logic that which is pointing to logic's necessity.
But let us suppose that there is a very unyielding defender of self-evidence of logic, who
would not give up such notion even if the notion of logic's necessity has collapsed. He
would then argue that logical propositions are self-evident despite of the contingency of
logic. He would argue that even if logical propositions are not true in World α, he would
say that they are true in World Ω. He would not only say that they are true, he would
definitely say that they are self-evident. Suppose this is an acceptable argument, even if
that the necessity of logic is the necessary/essential condition for self-evidence. However,
because this defender is not defending the traditional notion on self-evidence in logic. He
may claim that a proposition may still be evident-in-itself even if contingent. However,
the sense of evident-in-itself is not only about the proposition's being true and the
obviousness of the truth of such proposition. It is also about being independent of other
conditions. This is an idea that is incompatible with the original sense of "self-evidence."
It is clear then that he is applying a new definition to self-evidence, which makes him
57
the same terms differently. What I am refuting is the self-evidence, which goes hand in
Clearly then, I have not only proven, but have also defended my second claim - there
Let us now suppose that this defender is not actually a defender of self-evidence, but
mine could challenge how I view logic by asking whether logic is about how we
understand the world or whether it is about how the world is. Surely then, he would argue
that logic is about how the world is. Arguing such, he may still argue that logic is "out
there" (independent of how we think or how we understand the world). But this "being
out there" of logic is not the one that implies necessity and self-evidence, because we
have already refuted them. The sense of this "being out there" that my imaginary
contingent, but independent of any rational mind. It is contingent because it is not true in
Worlds α and Ф, but he claims that its truth is not due to a rational mind that recognizes
the relations among objects in the world. "A is A" because A is indeed A, he argues.
I, on the other hand, argue that it might be the case that A is indeed A or that the
our intellectual framework or our mind's predisposition? Even if A is indeed A, our act of
knowing it is still based on how our mind works or predisposed to think or to reason or
how our intellectual framework is structured. I consider the predisposition/s of the mind
58
and intellectual framework as synonymous with each other. They are what make us
recognize the relations among objects in the world, and hence make us understand the
world.
Leibniz argues that there are two great principles from which our "reasonings" are
founded on. These are the principles of non-contradiction and of sufficient reason. Then
he proceeds by saying that there are two kinds of truths, that of reason (which he argues
as necessary that is different from my adversary's claim) and that of fact (which he argues
concur. We may have a congruent idea that our reasonings have some structure by which
we understand the world. I do not, however, assent to the idea that there are particular
sufficient reason). I argue that they are / may be parts of our mind's predisposition or
His idea on the two great principles as the foundations of our reasoning is actually
pointing to these two principles as innate in our minds and not as mere predispositions of
our minds as affected by our background. We may question, however, the innateness of
these principles. Suppose that the object A in World α is a rational mind (or a rational
being with a rational mind). Having no relations that exist (relations to other object/s and
to the self), there could be no traces of the two principles. A, as a rational mind, would
reason. Advocates of innateness of principles, such as Leibniz and Plato, would answer
27
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, "The Monadology," in Bacon to Kant, ed. Walter Kaufmann, (New Jersey,
USA: Prentice Hall Inc., 1968), 208.
59
learning"; that we only recollect or re-learn these already known principles once we have
already recognized relations among objects in the world. Such construal that we would
know that we already know of these principles once we are able to recognize relations,
however, does not actually point to the idea that we innately know them. It does not
support, though is compatible with, the idea that we are re-learning these principles.
Rather, it points to the idea that we are learning them once we recognize relations. The
think in accordance to these two principles after recognizing relations is pointing to the
account that our minds have started to be framed or predisposed to think or to reason in
such way.
Such is also the case with Chisholm's "intuitive induction." When we reflect upon
things and say that they are what they are and not what they are not, we do not know that
they are necessarily what they are and necessarily what they are not. We just think and/or
understand that they are, and hence assert that they are. I assent that there is an intuitive
induction that exists, but this sort of induction is not an occasion for knowing what a
thing necessarily is, but an occasion for us to merely think and postulate what a thing
necessarily is.
Likewise, I do not assent to the idea that we can claim how the world is (that there
exist truths of reason whose truthfulness are independent of us) when we claim that our
necessary correspondence between how our minds work and how the world is. I argue
that our minds' predisposition is affected by our background, which we use in our
60
recognition of the relations among objects in the world. But this does not mean that our
minds directly capture how the world is, and/or understand the world as how it really is.
The background that I am talking about refers to the condition of our relations with
other objects or other rational minds in the world.28 Though it may be argued that our
minds already have their own structure that have functions of their own, this background
affects how our minds work. The background or our condition in the world shapes how
the mind thinks or how the intellectual framework works. The structure of the mind
alone, or the mind as not affected by the background, cannot yield belief in logical
propositions. It only provides for the possibility of being molded by the background and
to be predisposed in thinking in a particular manner. The mind alone does not and cannot
capture anything in the world (or the reality that is outside of us). It must have a relation
to the world or to the reality in order to make an account of the world, whether or not
such account is identical with what necessarily is (or what the case in the world indeed
is). This relation of the mind to the world is furnished by the background while the
accounts that the mind makes in his understanding of the world or the reality are
expressed through language. It is by virtue of having a same background that people have
virtue of language that the mind can make an account of the reality and express such
framework, would mean a tacit agreement that embraces between rational minds. This
28
Richard Epstein used the term 'background' almost synonymously with agreement. I, on the other
hand, refer to background as almost synonymous with our 'situatedness' in the world. This 'situatedness' is
that which yields the same intellectual framework and tacit agreement.
61
If all that we have and could claim for are our intellectual frameworks by which we
understand the world, our claim to the truthfulness of logical propositions are only based
on these intellectual frameworks. The logical propositions that we have in logic are mere
predisposed to think. Below is an outline of how the system of logic and logical
system - the system of logic. The logical principles that are abstracted from intellectual
frameworks are expressed in language; hence those that are expressed in language as
analytic are those that the mind has interpreted, understood and posited as tautologies.
I do not reject the normativity of logic, but unlike the traditional claim on logic's
normativity, I argue that logic's normative character is derived from the claimed
objectivity of the abstracted and systematized predispositions of the mind. Unlike the
traditional notion on logic, I do not argue that logic is essentially normative, which is
premised on the notion that logic is about necessary truths. Logic is essentially
having implicit agreements (which shows our background). He states "objectivity arises
62
because we'd all go mad (or be mad) if we didn't act in conformity with some implicit
agreements and rules."29 He gave as an example the game of chess.30 Suppose that my
opponent announced 'Checkmate', and suppose that he really is in the position of saying
such according to the rules of chess. I cannot, of course, just say 'I do not agree.' Epstein
states:
We can make three assertions at this point. First, logic's normative character is due to
its being systematized after we had a tacit agreement (which is due to sameness of our
logic produce objectivity in such system of logic and logical principles. Logical
principles and logic itself are given existence outside of us because they are systematized
after abstracting from how we are predisposed to think or how our intellectual framework
works. This is, however, not similar to claiming that logic is already "out there." Logic is
abstracted from, and hence about, what we are predisposed to think, thereby making it
dependent on us (on rational minds that had a tacit agreement). Because logic is given an
outside existence and objectivity, it can claim a normative character in the sense that it
29
Richard Epstein, The Semantic Foundations of Logic, Propositional Logics, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1995), 402.
30
this chess game example is different from the previous chess game example, which is used to make an
analogy with the traditional conception on the system of logic.
31
tells us that we ought to think in accordance to where our logic is abstracted from, or to
Second, because logic is a product of our background, it may be argued that there is a
sort of relativity in logic because it is not always the case that we share the same
background. For example, those who have the background that holds that a thing that is
true is not false argue for Classical Logic. On the other hand, for those who have a
different background, and who have pondered on paradoxes and examples, from which a
two-valued logic is not applicable, would argue for Many-Valued Logics. For Classical
logicians, the principle of excluded middle is absolutely true; for the proponents of Many-
Valued Logics, such principle is not always the case. Łukasiewicz, for example, argues
that a two-valued logic (a logic that considers only two values - true and false, an
example of which is the Classical Logic) "is incompatible with the view that some
propositions about the future are not predetermined."32 Take as an example the statement
"I will be graduating from college in April of this year (2007)," which we may say as
determined neither positively or negatively (because it is about the future). If we say that
the statement is true, then the possibility that I will not graduate is ruled out (but I am not
an all-knowing being to know that it is impossible that I will not graduate in April). If we
say that it is false, then we rule out the possibility that I will graduate in April even if I
am able to meet all the requirements for graduation (but again, I am not an all-knowing
being). Except that I am not a graduating senior college student, the statement would not
be either true or false. Such statement (and other statements of the same form) and the
consideration of such affect the background of those who argue for Many-Valued logics.
32
Ibid., 318.
64
For those who are not bothered by statements of such form and/or those who deal with
these statements differently, consider other logic (e.g. Classical logic) as more
appropriate. As Epstein puts it, "what one pays attention to in reasoning determines which
logic is appropriate."33
Lastly, I argue that it is not possible for an individual to create his own logic. As
noted, there must be a tacit agreement where the rational minds have the same
background and hence same predisposition of the mind. He may assert that he has
successfully created a new system of logic with new background assumptions, and assert
that he has refuted the background assumptions that logics (systems of logic) have.
However, such would only amount to mere assertion. One cannot just disagree with the
community's language and background assumptions as we have noted in the chess game
example. Even though there is relativity in logic, there is also a unity to it. Its relativity is
manifested on being anchored on our backgrounds, which yields the possibility of various
logics (systems of logic). Its unity is manifested in the common ground or roughly the
same background among different systems of logic (and different backgrounds these
systems are anchored on). The different systems of logic more or less have the same
contradictions within their system. But such fundamental assumption of these systems of
logic is not due to lack of contradiction in the world (which is outside of us), but mainly
due to how our minds conceive the relations among objects in this world. We state that
33
Ibid., Preface.
65
The systematized logical propositions that are abstracted from how we are
predisposed to think are tautologies. What the mind does is to posit tautologies, which
actually makes us think that a thing is itself and cannot be the not itself. Such is what
makes logic a priori. Analyticity of logic is dependent on how we are framed to think and
that we are framed to think that whenever [(A → B) • A], then B. What we determine as
tautologies and express in language as tautologies are what our intellectual framework
In the case of synthetic propositions, therefore, the mind does not posit tautology.
insight occurs.
66
CONCLUSION
In proving the two claims (that there is no warrant to claim for the self-evidence of
first principles of logic and that there is no warrant to claim for the self-evidence of
anything in logic), we started with discussing how we may look at a first principle of
logic. Arguing that there is a first principle or axiom in logic is arguing for axiomatization
in logic, that is, that there are principles, which we call first principles or axioms, that
The notion of being both the starting-point of derivation and end-point of justification
wholly analytic and is simply about tautology, all principles of logic are of equal status.
There are no significant differences among axioms or first principles, theorems or those
that are derived from axioms and rules of inference or those that make us derive from
axioms. These three are equal to each other, translatable to each other, and are pointing to
the same thing - tautology. In such case, we have proven our first claim that there is no
warrant to claim for the self-evidence of first principles of logic, because there are no
such principles. Those that are called first principles are in equal footing with other
principles of logic. The idea that there is no first principle that could justify other
principles does not, however, mean that the principles of logic are not justified. It is just
that all principles in the system of logic justify each other. Logic is a mutual support
system and not an axiomatic system that presupposes axioms that serve as both the
In denying the idea that logic is an axiomatic system, we have also denied
logic. It argues that there are foundations (axioms) that are self-evident. However, our
refutation of Foundationalism that appeals to a self-evident foundation does not refute the
are of equal status, it may be argued that there are no self-evident first principles because
there are no such principles. But it may be argued that there are self-evident principles of
logic; and since they are of equal status, one may argue that they are all self-evident. This
Being necessary means being true in all possible worlds. Those that are arguing for
the necessity of logic argues that logic cannot be thought of as not true in all possible
worlds even in a world where nothing exists. But as we have noted, there is no logic in a
world where only one object exists. There is no logical proposition that could be true
where only one object exists because there is no relation among objects in the world (and
even a relation of the object to itself) that could yield the assertion of logical principles.
Logic, then, is not possible in a world where no relation among objects exists. Likewise,
logical principles are also not possible in a world where there is no rational mind that
could perceive and interpret the relations among objects. A world where there is no
rational mind that has no predisposition (or intellectual framework) that could be used in
interpreting the relations among objects, will only be a world of scattered objects. This
means that logical principles are not evident-in-themselves even if they are evident-to-us.
68
This being evident-to-us of logical principles is not anchored on their being evident-
in-themselves. They are not necessary and hence, their truthfulness is dependent on some
the relations in the world. The system/s of logic that we are studying in school, on the
principles from how we are predisposed to think. We assert "A is A" not because A is
indeed A but because we are framed to think that A is A. Hence, logic is not essentially
normative as traditionally argued. Logic does not speak of how the world (necessarily is)
and thus does not speak that we ought to reason in accordance to how the world
necessarily is (or about how we ought to view reality as how reality necessarily is). Logic
merely shows how we think or reason. But it does not mean that it has no normative
character. It has, but it is due to the objectivity that we give to logic after we have
systematized it. It is normative in the sense that we cannot (or should not) go against it
It may be the case that A is indeed A. But since it transcends our intellectual
framework and our background, we could not know if such is really the case. Our
assertion that "A is A" is only due to the fact that our intellectual framework is framed to
think (or predisposed to think) that A is A. Hence, we could not recognize that the
proposition "A is A" is evident-in-itself. All that we could recognize is that it is evident-
in-us because such is how we think. We have then proven our second claim that there is
This course of enquiry does not only provide proofs for the two claims. It also
absolutely objective, but also as necessary, that is, true in all possible worlds. But we
have shown that it is not necessary, and its objectivity is only caused by its
systematization (which gives logic an outside existence). We have also shown logic's
analyticity and non-necessity. Logic is analytic, but is not necessarily true (true in all
possible worlds). Logic is, therefore, analytic and objective but never necessary. In
addition to this, logic is a priori. But we must qualify its being a priori. It is not a priori in
the sense that we use Chisholm's intuitive induction to know that a logical principle is
necessary because the sort of intuitive induction that occurs is merely an occasion for us
to merely think and postulate what a thing necessarily is. It is a priori because it is wholly
analytic, and is analytic by virtue of the use of language. With a prioricity, we are only
talking about a thing's being known independently of sense experience. Our intellectual
framework works or understands the relations among objects by positing tautologies (we
posit a tautology "A is A" in our understanding of A and its relation to itself and the not-
A's) that we express through language. We do not need to verify through sense perception
that A is indeed A because our minds already works tautologously, which actually makes
us think that A is itself. It is our intellectual framework that yields a priori insight about
logical propositions.
understand the world for the reason that we use our intellectual framework
(predisposition of the mind) to understand the world. As Epstein argues "whether a notion
34
Ibid., 404.
70
abstracted from how) we think and is a product of our background, not because it is
has led to its objectivity, which makes us appear to have a faulty reasoning (if not insane
or mad), not because it is necessarily true and that we ought to reason in accordance to
to-us, not because it is evident-in-itself, which we could not know because this transcends
its necessary truthfulness and evidence-in-itself, but of its dependence on how we think.
We have now thus solved the Problem of First Principles of Logic by arguing that
there are no such first principles. Those that Aristotle calls as prior or better known are
only those with the most obvious tautological form, but are not evident-in-themselves.
Foundationalism does not hold true in logic, and its appeal to self-evidence is
warrantless.
71
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alvira, Tomas, Luis Clavell, and Tomas Melendo, Metaphysics, trans. Fr. Luis
Sapan, ed. Fr. M. Guzman. Manila: Sinag-tala Publishers, Inc., 1991.
Bass, Robert. 11 Dec 2006. E-mail to the author. Accessed 4 Dec 2006.
Bass, Robert. 9 Dec 2006. E-mail to the author. Accessed 10 Dec 2006.
Copi, Irving M. Symbolic Logic, 5th ed. United Stated of America: MacMillan
Publishing Co., Inc., 1979.
Kripke, Saul A. "A Priori Knowledge, Necessity and Contingency." In The Theory of
Knowledge, Classical and Contemporary Readings, 3d ed., ed. Louis J.
Pojman, 422-429. Canada: Wadsworth, Thomson Learning Inc., 2003.
72
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. New Essays on Human Understanding. Ed. and trans.,
Peter Remnant and Jonathan Bennett. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1981.
Pojman, Louis J. "A Priori Knowledge." In The Theory of Knowledge, Classical and
Contemporary Readings, 3d ed., ed. Louis J. Pojman. Canada: Wadsworth,
Thomson Learning Inc., 2003.