Here's the question I posted to Mr. Motta, who suggested I ask you.
Hi!
1) Please be gentle: I am not a philosophy student and you could easily bruise my tender brain cells... <smile>
2) I've heard that a certain Christian apologist, Cornelius Van Til, drew on Immanuel Kant for his "presuppositional" method with respect to use of axioms or "pre-suppositions" in his epistemology.
My questions are:
3) I'm interested in tracing the chain of ideas between Kant and Van Til. Are there other philosophers who championed the idea of axiomatic, or pre-suppositional epistemology?
4) What is the most succinct response to the criticism that these so-called pre-suppositions are a form of circular argument?
Thanks in advance for your time!
david
Answer 1. In the western tradition, "axiomatic" epistemology has been the standard from Plato and Aristotle up through Kant, Hegel, et. al. It is when you get to Husserl that a "presuppositionless" approach is adopted in his phenomenology (something influenced by Descartes). Then of course with the post-modern philosophers, epistemology seems to break down altogether.
For a classic example, take a look at Spinoza's Ethics which reads like a Euclidean geometry text.
2. There is, formally, absolutely nothing wrong with an argument being circular. In fact, every proof, and by implication, every valid argument, is by definition a circular argument, i.e., one whose conclusion is already contained in the premise set. Every valid argument,from an Aristotelian syllogism to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, is a circular argument.
Circular arguments, however, become problematic when they become "vicious". When an argument posits as true a premise that is not in fact known true, then the argument becomes vicious and merely asserts its conclusion shrouded under the veil of a purported "proof."
