I have, of late, gotten into several discussions with some less absolutist based minds. Therefore, it seems fitting that I should generate a list of some of the self-evident axioms of logical argument in order that the dividing line between it and relativism might be made more clear. I will provide no support for these statements for they are rooted well in the bowels of the mind and therefore, though they are hard to argue about one way or the other, are intuitively understood even beyond all the flashy rhetoric that they might be wrapped in. I will likely add to and revise this list as time goes on. I would much appreciate comments if anyone has a suggestion of any sort.
Logic must be accepted in order to accept any of the human faculties.
It is illogical, or perhaps more accurately, it goes against the fundamental principles of the acts of thinking and believing, to not believe in absolute truth.
It is illogical to believe logic to be incapable of discovering truth. This also may be restated, “the act of belief requires logic.”
Reality may only exist one way or another, not multiple ways, and therefore there is no such thing as metaphysical chance.
The root cause of reality, or reality itself (if it is its own root cause, this is only a matter of wording) is limitless and Absolute (this is somewhat of an extension of the second item).
One may not acquire and drop metaphysical assertions, like causality, at the convenience of forming a single metaphysical model.
Causality is a necessary factor in metaphysics just as it is so in formal logic. That is, we cannot believe in a chain of reasoning without believing in cause and effect.
I would also like to clear up a list of common misunderstandings:
Reason does not require the visible patterns in nature to have metaphysical significance, it only requires that there be such thing as reality.
Logic is intuitive, not rhetorical nor provable.
Logic could not have arisen by chance because there is no such thing as metaphysical chance (see above).
Logic could not have arisen from an arbitrary cause because if such a cause were to cause logic, then it could not be called arbitrary, by very definition, but would too be logical.