tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post711687802070109011..comments2024-03-11T04:11:06.487-04:00Comments on The Smithy: Sokolowski on Necessity and ScotusLee Faberhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00476833516234522602noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2472139466585018053.post-6070264957586829052007-11-16T18:04:00.000-05:002007-11-16T18:04:00.000-05:00It's true that once your reasoning skills are well...It's true that once your reasoning skills are well-honed and the terms of debate well set-up, it does come down to which first principles you accept. The problem is that first principles are not provable by debate or dialectic. At some point one must accept them on other grounds than merely logical consistency or proving the conclusions one wants to hold--whether these grounds are greater consonance with the data of faith, or with empirical experience, or mental intuition, or whatever. I've seen all three appealed to by scholastics.<BR/><BR/>People being unable to reason well, to grasp just what their principles are, or, conversely, where their principles lead, is the most commonly-encountered difficulty in philosophy, especially these days, simply because people do not learn and cultivate the necessary skills. But the other problem, discerning which first principles are true, is the most difficult and, I think, the more interesting part of philosophy. And even if you can satisfy yourself that you've found them, persuading other people committed to contrary principles can be well-nigh impossible.Michael Sullivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11191322302191384384noreply@blogger.com