Well, if I think therefor I am fails, then I have to look into the possibility of me not existing. However, that's something I cannot do if I do not exist >_>. Sorta like a lot of the things you've said about logic, you know?
The excerpt I posted doesn't just say that the cogito sum is wrong, but rather explains *why* it is wrong. The potential strength of the assertion lies in its alleged "immediacy": that it cannot be doubted as true. But as Nietzsche explains, there are several hidden claims lying beneath the surface, such as the belief that an "I" exists in the first place, and that this "I" can correctly distinguish between thought and something like feeling or willing.
And doubting the cogito sum, unlike doubting logic (which Touka does), actually isn't circular. One can temporarily posit the existence of a self without needing to stake any metaphysical claims about it. Nothing is contradictory in saying "the self, as I understand it, is in part or in full illusory."
If we have absolutely no way of learning anything about something, it is not relevant, and we cannot know any truth about it.
I'll be coming back to this definition.
Contemplating the universe from a purely logical standpoint is all well and good, but without relying on information gained outside pure logic, logic can only be used to make statements about very specific things, most of which being purely logical in nature.
Regardless of one's stance on the "value" of logical claims, or its place in some hierarchy, we can still know logical truths. According to your definition, we can learn about logic, making it relevant. We can also learn about poetry, making it relevant. And phenomenology. And music. And anything which fits within the framework of the human mind, for that matter.
It's quite a leap to come from "only things we can learn are relevant" to "only quantitative scientific inquiry is relevant."
As for the stuff under the dashed line, those weren't claims, they were assumptions I feel need to be made before any attempt to discover truth is meaningful. Usefulness then would absolutely be disconnected from truth. It's only in an ordered universe that usefulness can be derived from truth.
Then I take it you'd agree that these claims aren't necessarily true, but only useful, yes? In other words: the universe may or may not adhere to strict universal laws, but conceiving of a cosmos in this way can reap practical benefits.
As for your last line, that's just pushing things back a notch. Then you have to explain why god is ordered/exists the way he does,
Hardly. We can turn this into a very simple logical proof:
1. Either the universe is ordered, or it isn't.
[Assumption 1: The universe is ordered.]
2. Either the order is permanent or it is fleeting.
3. For the cosmic order to be permanent, it must either be so randomly or because a God exists.
[Assumption 2: God does not exist.]
4. The cosmic order must be random.
5. A "random order," by definition, is fleeting.
C. The cosmic order is fleeting.
This is a rough way to demonstrate that the claims "There is no God" and "The universe is a permanent order (i.e. cosmos)" are mutually incompatible.
--
Kobe XX
http://tinyurl.com/7n46st9