64

OverviewVersionsHelp

Facsimile

Transcription

Status: Complete

Logic 64

thinker is under complusion so to think is he not applying that Criterion of Inconceivability against which we have heard him fulminate in his finest style?
It is true that Mill does not say that is no other reason in support of the conclusion but only that there is no other reason why the reasoner ought to accept the conclusion.
But this makes no pertinent difference the arguments against The Criterion apply equally in this case.
As before we areto distingiush to between an absolute definitive complusion of thought and a limited complusion.
To say that that the reason would if he reflected sufficiently be under an absolute definitive complusion to hold a certain opinion is as was shown in the discussion of the criterion neither more nor less than to assert that the opinion is true.
Now to say that a reasoner ought to believe something for no other reason than that it is true is to say that there is no reason at all why he ought to

Notes and Questions

Nobody has written a note for this page yet

Please sign in to write a note for this page