Re: An argument against modus ponens

On Sep 19, 11:04 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Do you think that a 'rejection' of a framework must be made on logical
grounds? Are there meta-frameworks (also known as)?

Well, of course there are meta-frameworks, but obviously, this is a
case
where there is no point in taking even a FIRST step onto the slippery
slope.
IF you rejected a framework on the basis of a meta-framework, then,
precisely
because the meta-framework IS A FRAMEWORK, there would arise the
question
of whether anybody else accpeted THAT framework. If they already
reject your (meta-)
framework in the first place, then, obviously, they will also reject
your rejection (and
anything else) that is dependent on it as a justification.
You wind up with an infinite regress of attempts at meta-
justifications.
THAT IS WHY we HAVE AXIOMS (to AVOID that).

So, NO, you DON'T need a justification for rejecting (or accepting)
ANY framework.
But you and whoever you are in dialogue with DO need to BOTH agree to
accept
SOME SHARED framework IN ORDER to even communicate. You have been
belligerently rejecting very basic aspects of the logical framework in
general
(like "sentences have truth-values").


.