Skip to main content


Here is my postcard to you from Amsterdam, as promised. Wish I could move here.


Cole said…
Hey exapologist,

I hope you are having a good time there in Amsterdam.

Hey, I had a question I wanted to ask you. I recently got into a discussion about the laws of logic with a theist and I tried explaining to him how they exist necessarily and therefore don't require an outside explanation for their existence. His response was that the laws of logic have to refer to something. So, he couldntt see how they could exist on their own. What he told me was that before anything existed, it's not like the laws of logic were sitting around going, "something cannot be north and south of a person at the same time." With nothing to refer to, they are themselves illogical. In other words they have to refer to something to be logical. How would you respond to this?

I told him that maybe there is an eternal universe outside ours that gave birth to this one and the laws of logic have always refered to something.

Sorry if I'm bothering you but I couldn't think of anything else to say to him and thought that I would ask you about it.
exapologist said…
Hey Cole,

Thanks! I'm actually back now, but it was a nice trip!

About your question: there are different views about this, but my own view is that logical truths are grounded in inclusion, preclusion, and compatibility relations among property structures. So, for example, it's a necessary truth that whatever's blue is colored. Why? Because being blue includes being colored. That is, the property, BEING COLORED, is a sub-complex of the property, BEING BLUE.

For the details about this account, see Tony Roy's online paper, "Making Sense of Relevant Semantics" (you can google it to find it). The philosopher Michael Jubien has a similar view.



Popular posts from this blog

Epicurean Cosmological Arguments for Matter's Necessity

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing, matter is eternal and uncreated, and is therefore at least a factually necessary being. 
A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning here is that being uncreated is an essential property of matter, and thus that the matter at the actual world is essentially uncreated.
Yet stronger versions of the argument could go on from there by appealing to the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal and essentially uncreated does not vary from world to world, and thus that matter is a metaphysically necessary being.
It seems to me that this broadly Epicurean line of reasoning is a co…

CfP: Inquiry: New Work on the Existence of God

In recent years, methods and concepts in logic, metaphysics and epistemology have become more and more sophisticated. For example, much new, subtle and interesting work has been done on modality, grounding, explanation and infinity, in both logic, metaphysics as well as epistemology. The three classical arguments for the existence of God – ontological arguments, cosmological arguments and fine-tuning arguments – all turn on issues of modality, grounding, explanation and infinity. In light of recent work, these arguments can - and to some extent have - become more sophisticated as well. Inquiry hereby calls for new and original papers in the intersection of recent work in logic, metaphysics and epistemology and the three main types of arguments for the existence of God. 

The deadline is 31 January 2017. Direct queries to einar.d.bohn at

Andrew Moon's New Paper on Recent Work in Reformed Epistemology... the latest issue of Philosophy Compass. Here's the abstract:
Reformed epistemology, roughly, is the thesis that religious belief can be rational without argument. After providing some background, I present Plantinga's defense of reformed epistemology and its influence on religious debunking arguments. I then discuss three objections to Plantinga's arguments that arise from the following topics: skeptical theism, cognitive science of religion, and basicality. I then show how reformed epistemology has recently been undergirded by a number of epistemological theories, including phenomenal conservatism and virtue epistemology. I end by noting that a good objection to reformed epistemology must criticize either a substantive epistemological theory or the application of that theory to religious belief; I also show that the famous Great Pumpkin Objection is an example of the former. And if a copy should make its way to my inbox...

UPDATE: Thanks!