Quote:
Originally Posted by Do0rDoNot
OrPs contention relies on the assumption that things are distinct from each other. No fallacy of composition is made if everything is ultimately composed of the same thing. It then becomes the logical necessity of composition.
Sure, that's why I said it sounded like Neeeeel's metaphysics. He liked this argument. But if there is really only one thing and all analytical distinctions are meaningless (logically and metaphysically) then you could simplify your argument:
1) reality is self-aware.
Because how can you even talk about human beings (or rocks or chairs...) meaningfully if there are no distinctions between things? And if there
are meaningful distinctions between things then you're back to using some kind of logical framework to analyze those relationships of distinction, and you'll find that it's quite difficult to construct an internally consistent logic which allows for such distinctions and in which your argument is also valid.
And in any case, it seems there are plenty of good reasons to acknowledge that meaningful distinctions do exist and that the basic rules of logic are useful to analyses of those distinctions, despite the general limitations to deductive arguments.
The fact that analytical distinctions do not neatly reduce to ontological distinctions says something about the fact that reality is not
purely logical, but that does not make your logical argument work. I think you might be missing the point that you're making a logical argument. You're relying on the force of logic to persuade the reader that your conclusion is true. You can simply deny the applicability of logic to the question, but that would defeat the purpose of offering an argument in the form that you have.