Master Criteria for Determining Necessary Truth
These are to be used not just for the self—but for all metaphysical, epistemological, moral, or ontological claims.
1. Does it generate internal contradiction?
Does the claim violate the law of non-contradiction (A ≠ A)?
2. Does it lead to logical absurdity or incoherence?
Does the model require something to be both true and false in order to function?
3. Do its conclusions contradict other necessary truths?
Does it cancel or undermine foundational principles like identity, truth, or reason?
4. Does it collapse the ability to reason about itself?
If believed, would this claim make it impossible to justify or think rationally about anything—including itself?
5. Does it lead to infinite regress with no logical base?
Does it require an endless chain of explanations, never arriving at a stable ground?
6. Does it require the existence of a thing it also denies?
e.g., claiming “consciousness is an illusion,” while using consciousness to claim it.
7. Does it destroy the concept of truth itself?
Does it render the idea of true/false meaningless, and therefore invalidate itself?
8. Does it destroy personal identity or agency?
If true, would the claim erase the possibility of a stable subject or self capable of reasoning or choosing?
9. Does it require metaphysical special pleading?
Does the model assume something magical or undefined to patch its internal weakness?
10. Does it multiply entities beyond necessity?
Does it introduce more moving parts than are logically required (violating parsimony)?
11. Does it redefine terms in self-serving or shifting ways?
Does it subtly change the meaning of words like “self,” “real,” or “truth” to survive critique?
12. Is it universally testable by these same criteria?
Can this claim be examined by the same standards it applies to other claims?
13. Does it lead to moral, epistemic, or existential nihilism?
Would believing this model destroy the meaningfulness of ethics, knowledge, or life?
14. Does it depend on unverifiable or unfalsifiable premises?
Is it built on something that cannot be logically tested or challenged?
15. Can it survive full extrapolation to its logical extreme?
If followed all the way down, does it hold up—or fall apart?
16. Does it allow for meaningful distinction between true and false?
If not, then it erases its own ability to be tested or affirmed.
17. Can it be consistently universalized?
If applied to all things, does it still hold—or collapse from scale?
18. Does it require a self-refuting stance to be asserted?
Does the person claiming it have to deny the tools they’re using to claim it?
19. Does it violate the law of the excluded middle?
Does it try to say something is both not-true and not-false—thus escaping truth conditions entirely?
20. Does it permit the existence of coherent dialogue or inquiry?
If it eliminates or invalidates the structure of questioning itself, it cannot be maintained.
21. Does it require circular justification?
Does it assume what it needs to prove, rather than demonstrating it?
22. Does it destroy continuity in identity over time?
If true, would it make it meaningless to say “I was the same person yesterday”?
23. Does it depend on a contradiction of scale (macro vs micro)?
e.g., claiming “no free will” at the individual level while holding others morally responsible socially.
24. Does it redefine foundational concepts into vagueness?
Does it try to survive critique by clouding basic terms instead of defending them?
25. Does it undermine reason’s ability to access reality at all?
If so, it self-destructs—since all models depend on reason to be stated or tested.
26. Does it rely on the invalidation of observer access?
If it claims “you can’t know anything,” it invalidates its own declaration as unknowable.
27. Does it invert necessity and contingency?
e.g., Treating accidental, cultural, or personal elements as universally necessary, or vice versa.
28. Does it require permanent epistemic blindness to sustain itself?
i.e., “You can never know X”—a claim that itself depends on a knowledge claim.
29. Does it allow for the act of negation without destroying itself?
If saying “No” to the model invalidates the model, it fails the test of logical independence.
30. Does it offer explanatory closure without magical residue?
Is there any part of the claim that relies on unexplained gaps, placeholders, or metaphysical fog?
Discover more from Real Philosophy
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
