A question

He believes that the laws of logic can't be justified because you have to use the laws of logic.  Under my worldview, logic justifying itself is just self evidence. 

Well if you believe in axioms then our beliefs would already be pretty close to each other.  My belief is basically foundationalism where a person justifies the axiom.  I don't use the term axiom because it necessarily implies that the belief is not justified and I think it is justified.  

The other issue this would cause for us is we might disagree about how much we can know. 

I think we can know any specific belief to a metaphysical degree and some we can't. 

How about you? 

then why leave it unjustified?

The problem is that if you are allowed to presuppose axioms, then anybody can presuppose anything. 

What if all of your arguments come from bad axioms?

What if you think you're mostly logical, but you're actually illogical in some places and you can't tell because you didn't bother to justify your beliefs.

That's not the same as your reality being you.  If you were reality, then you should be able to control external things because they're just part of your brain.  But you can't. 

You should be able to use those tools to get you to external.

pragmatism

foundationalism

coherentism

infinitism

platonism. 

Also.  I'm not arguing in bad faith just because I don't take axioms.  If I presupposed, then I'd be arguing in bad faith.  I have a standard and I am yet to have my standard disproven by anyone so that's good faith arguing in my opinion. 

My answer would be because we both speak it

I wouldn't truly know if what I am doing is correct

So in that example you gave, you just used self evidence without realizing it. 

But obviously we want that system to be good right?

then why not just say I don't know?  Presupposing something you don't know is exactly how you end up at theism. 

"How does lightning happen?  I don't know, let's presuppose it was Zeus"  Case and point. 

But not knowing why the proof works doesn't change the fact that it works.  

"How does lightning happen?  I don't know, but it does" Case and point. 

But if you assume your foundation then doesn't that mean you can't give a strong opinion about anything?  

Okay, the person talks about the axioms and agrees with you.  Does that make them true?

I suppose this would get you through the debate, but what about life? 

because what we do know is still true and it works for us and every claim we make about what we do know will still be true.

but you can't deny the fact that it's an atom and you can't deny that it works the way we see it. 

Okay, so you've said this a few times.  What makes something correct?  If I am hungry and I want to stop being hungry and I eat a cracker, how is that not correct?  I fed myself didn't I?  Does it matter what the cracker is made of?  It feeds me right? I had no problem picking it up right?  It's useful, our senses don't care about being "right" or "wrong" about things.  They just are. 

That's exactly what self evidence is except self evidence takes the extra step of adding impossibility of the contrary. 

Sure, it's a value statement.  Do you want your logic to be wrong?

Assuming and presupposing are the same in this case.  a presupposition is an assumption without evidence.  to "assume" is to just act in the role of something.  If I "assume" ownership of someone's car.  I'm acting as if the car belongs to me.  If I'm making that assumption without evidence.  Then I'm presupposing that I own the car. 

  You're trying to tell me I can't know what lightning is unless I know it down to the last atom. 

 If you're going to ask for evidence that you saw something then you're being foolish. Even if the thing you saw was wrong, you still saw it.

Just because a person shares your presupposition doesn't make it true.  That's an ad populum argument and it's not justified in this case.

You can critique my self evidence all day but at least my beliefs don't open up room for things like unicorns.  

Any statement can be an axiom.  I could invent a philosophy right now called axiomism and say that you just believe everything axiomatically.  and you would end up believing contradictory things. 

You might feel justified to go try flying and then get killed. 

So it would work better for us if it wasn't true, but it is so we deal with it. 

No, you think you don't have the knowledge.

Senses aren't "correct" or "incorrect"  They just are.

 So you can't just say "is it correct" and then turn around and say "we can't know the standard"  You're contradicting yourself. 

I am saying without knowing everything about it you wouldn't know the most important thing to acknowledge with your system in mind.

I would ask for evidence if I didn't see. If I did see it I don't require evidence

The first thing I would do is have a discussion on what ought I value for my axioms then we can have a talk about other things.

A unicorn is a pink horse with a horn on his/her head.

Okay then I will be making axioms based on what I value and that is not contradictory.

I will use axioms that are also reasonable.

So it is a fact that a blind person has senses but it doesn't matter about the value statement?

What if I actually don't have the knowledge?

So when you have a standard you would be able to know if something is wrong or right? 

Philosophically speaking.  Egoism would likely lead to a pretty crappy world.

However, most claims with more than two options can also be reduced to more simple self evident claims and this could sometimes allow you to eliminate the possibilities on an individual level to make the bigger possibility easier to discover. 

You're doing what's called a whole of the part fallacy (not the part of the whole.  that's a different fallacy)  where you say that the whole is unknown without considering that we can still know the parts. 

Then you just accepted an identity truth based on self evidence.

it doesn't push the axiom in to the infinite regress. 

then it's just an abstract fantasy and it's true under your worldview which is problematic for you. 

If you don't have the knowledge than you don't. 

You could say it's right or wrong in respect to the standard yes.  There is no intrinsic right or wrong.  "right" means that it fits a given standard and "wrong" means it doesn't.  This applies to all words that assess values in a binary way. It's like Boolean logic that computers use.

If we all say something like I would care for if I have something back isn't that egoism?

So basically when there is more than two options. You focus on one and when you are done with that prove or disprove the others individually?

I am not saying what you do know you can make it go through your standards but do you agree you do not know everything about lighting to say this is the final time I will be applying lightning to my standards if that knowledge was available and you lived to see it as well so basically you are immortal only to know all about lightning?

Why do you call it self-evidence? Is that the only kind of reasonable foundation?

If you're saying you would do a good deed naturally expecting that you might get something back in the future and that was you sole motivation for doing it, then yes, then would be egoism. It's what most people do intuitively. It's true that the person might never reciprocate.  But if they didn't, they could never get a favor from you in the future, so it feeds into itself.  Person A wants a future favor and gives a favor. Person B realizes they get can favors from Person A, so they give a favor back to Person A knowing that Person A has a history of giving favors and that raises their confidence level in getting back a favor.  After exchanging enough favors.  Both people have confidence they will get something in return and have no problem giving favors because there has been a precedent established. 

If by focus, you mean isolate, then yes.

I could know everything about the composition of lightning, but that I can't know about every interaction because it would have to interact with things that I don't know fully. 

Well you're saying A because A.

Look up "Agrippa's Trilemma" 

which is to say you take the absolute minimum amount of axioms that you have to and that makes it as true as possible. 

This would be the norm if we all agree to help each other if they help us. Guess we can have a court of favours. Where if they don't commit to favours then they will be punished in order to keep the balance of favours.

Isn't it because of what A means? A because of what A means.

That's an interesting thought experiment and very similar to civil court.  I would use civil court as your model for that. I'm not sure if it would be the ideal system, but it could have benefits. 

Well X means itself obviously.

It would be nice if laws worked that way.  But we have to share space with everybody's ideas unfortunately.  It's like a necessary evil, figuratively speaking.  

You should look into this guy name Alex Malpass on youtube.  he did a discussion with Matt slick and Matt D and there's not a lot of stuff about him but he has some interesting ideas about philosophy.  I think he's a Platonist. 

Evidence is meant to be given to the perception.  The perception itself is not part of the proof.  it's a tool. 

Not sure. 

Well modern Platonists don't ALWAYS say they're real.  But he might say that we can't know they're not real.  He might think it's like a physical property. I"m not sure because he's ambiguous as to his specific beliefs. 

I agree I think saying things like shapes being real is strange.

I would ask you why you think sound exist.

Yes.  Not sure I suggested otherwise. Not sure what is more correct way of stating my below.

You're basically just a theist who worships shapes.