Realist versus non-realist

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: Realist Definitions

Postby Impenitent » Thu Aug 05, 2004 5:21 am

Philosophic Caveman wrote:Thanks for the responses.

What seems to fly in the face of common sense, is the idea that something does not exist until I discover it? If I don't perceive you, you still exist in reality.

no, I would not exist in your reality prior to your perception, and that's all to which you have access...

Philosophic Caveman wrote: There are gases that cannot be perceived by any of our senses and yet will still kill you. Is this claim is linked to the claim that discovery is an act of creation?

not exactly... but yes, when you discover something you have created it in your sphere of perception...

Philosophic Caveman wrote:For anyone to say confidently that knowledge is not possible seems to lack common sense also. Isn't that very statement a statement of knowledge?

Hume and Nietzsche both did quite well actually... and even Socrates knew that he knew nothing... knowing that one knows nothing is not uncommon at all, just as there are absolutely no absolutes...

Philosophic Caveman wrote: If Nitzsche knew that knowledge was not possible, how did he know it, and isn't he defeating his own arguement by claiming to know that knowledge is not possible? This seems to me to be the sort of negative scepticism that leads one to nihilism.


in fact it was quite the opposite for Nietzsche, he uncovered the nihilism behind the theories of morals and knowledge...

Philosophic Caveman wrote: To deny that knowledge is possible seems to me to be sophistry.


it may appear to be sophistry, but one must affirmitavely answer the question, what and how do you know and can you prove it... the proof is never there except definitionally which really isn't useful knowledge at all...
cogito ergo cogito
sum ergo sum...

Λογοκρισία και σιωπή

What's the difference between a liberal and Al Qaeda?
Oh, you don't know either?

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" -Eco
Impenitent
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:16 pm

Postby Logo » Thu Aug 05, 2004 5:32 am

Impenitent wrote:just as there are absolutely no absolutes...


How does one understand this statement?

Hume and Nietzsche both did quite well actually... and even Socrates knew that he knew nothing... knowing that one knows nothing is not uncommon at all, just as there are absolutely no absolutes...


Hume didn't prove that knowledge was impossible...his project was to redefine knowledge based on empiricist prinicples.

...and Socrates is just using hyperbole.
[It would be] an easy mistake to make, to think that one loved one's country less because it happened to be in the wrong.
-Michael Frayn
Logo
Thinker
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:02 pm
Location: USA - east coast

Postby my real name » Thu Aug 05, 2004 5:44 am

Logo, thanks for the exchange.

So how do Kant-Hume empiricists know essences. Are they nominalists as well? If so there's been a recent thread related to this.

(Excuse my one-sidedness in argument. We mostly did Aristotle in college. Kant and Hume were mere seminar readings.)
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Postby Logo » Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:33 am

Actually Kant wasn't an empiricist...he was an idealist (it's an important distinction when you get to twentieth century figures like Russell). I think that while they would both have embraced a form of nominalism, it was Locke who did most of the work on that subject. Alan Sidelle, who has taken his cue from Locke, has probably written the most recent and important book on nominalism (or anti-realism, as it's often called today).
He asserts that universals are "explained in terms of us, in terms of our carving up of the world, and not in terms of an independently existing modal structure of reality."
[It would be] an easy mistake to make, to think that one loved one's country less because it happened to be in the wrong.
-Michael Frayn
Logo
Thinker
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:02 pm
Location: USA - east coast

as the poet Elliot said...

Postby my real name » Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:34 am

Logo wrote:He asserts that universals are "explained in terms of us, in terms of our carving up of the world, and not in terms of an independently existing modal structure of reality."


Interesting. Seems like that when you regard artifacts, but in natural things there seems to be something further. My cat is not just "rat-killer" (a relation to the human), she has an essence "cat" which goes beyond our ability to fully express -- but we still know it when we see it.

i wonder if maybe nominal names are nominal, and essential understandings realist.
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Postby Impenitent » Thu Aug 05, 2004 2:48 pm

Logo wrote:
Impenitent wrote:just as there are absolutely no absolutes...


How does one understand this statement?


I am not sure... one does or one doesn't... but it is "true," if anything may be considered "true"
Logo wrote:
Impenitent wrote:Hume and Nietzsche both did quite well actually... and even Socrates knew that he knew nothing... knowing that one knows nothing is not uncommon at all, just as there are absolutely no absolutes...


Hume didn't prove that knowledge was impossible...his project was to redefine knowledge based on empiricist prinicples.

...and Socrates is just using hyperbole.


yes, I believe Hume proved the impossibility of knowledge quite well actually, his revelation of the inductive fallacy destroys science... if knowledge is nothing but a language game, it has no value outside of the language game...

no, Socrates was not simply using hyperbole... Socrates argued for the forms and the main part of the forms argument is that knowledge in this existence is illusory but the actual knowledge appears only after death when one can directly experience the forms... this is why Nietzsche calls him the first christian...

-Imp
cogito ergo cogito
sum ergo sum...

Λογοκρισία και σιωπή

What's the difference between a liberal and Al Qaeda?
Oh, you don't know either?

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" -Eco
Impenitent
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:16 pm

Re: as the poet Elliot said...

Postby hermes the thrice great » Thu Aug 05, 2004 4:31 pm

my real name wrote:
Logo wrote:He asserts that universals are "explained in terms of us, in terms of our carving up of the world, and not in terms of an independently existing modal structure of reality."


Interesting. Seems like that when you regard artifacts, but in natural things there seems to be something further. My cat is not just "rat-killer" (a relation to the human), she has an essence "cat" which goes beyond our ability to fully express -- but we still know it when we see it.

i wonder if maybe nominal names are nominal, and essential understandings realist.


Do muscles have An essence? I'm being serious.
User avatar
hermes the thrice great
The Snoop Dogg of Wisdom
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 9:42 pm
Location: New Orleans

Postby Logo » Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:17 pm

Impenitent wrote:I am not sure... one does or one doesn't... but it is "true," if anything may be considered "true"


I don't know what you mean by "true", but the statement is incoherent. That's my problem with it. There is no possible way for one to understand a contradiction like this. If there is one absolute than the statement, "there are no absolutes" is false.

I believe Hume proved the impossibility of knowledge quite well actually


Where does he claim that knowledge is impossible?

his revelation of the inductive fallacy destroys science...


It does? Seems to me science has gotten along quite well in spite of it. What Hume showed is that induction can't be proven to give us knowledge of the world. But the key word is proven; Hume's attack is on certainty, not knowledge in a general sense. Knowledge can proceed, but it proceeds on a set of assumptions that everyone must make. No I can't prove that the sun will come up tomorrow, but I'm wired to assume it will. I can't think otherwise. And inductive inferences made on the basis of such pragmatic presuppositions qualify as knowledge in a post-Humean world. The bottom line is, science works whether or not it gives us certainty.

if knowledge is nothing but a language game, it has no value outside of the language game...


But that's huge. No it doesn't have any value outside of the language game...but that only matters if there is an "outside" to the language game; there isn't. Our knowledge of the world only has value for us, but that's all that matters.

Socrates argued for the forms and the main part of the forms argument is that knowledge in this existence is illusory but the actual knowledge appears only after death when one can directly experience the forms...


Hmm...I think the statement "I know nothing" is more a claim about philosophic methodology than about metaphysics. It's clear from Plato's dialogues that Socrates took himself to know quite a bit. But I suppose what he actually thought is irrelevant. The statement (if read literally) is self-contradictory...and therefore incoherent.
[It would be] an easy mistake to make, to think that one loved one's country less because it happened to be in the wrong.
-Michael Frayn
Logo
Thinker
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:02 pm
Location: USA - east coast

Postby Logo » Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:35 pm

my real name wrote:we still know [the essence of a cat] when we see it.


I for one have never seen an essence.
[It would be] an easy mistake to make, to think that one loved one's country less because it happened to be in the wrong.
-Michael Frayn
Logo
Thinker
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:02 pm
Location: USA - east coast

Postby Impenitent » Thu Aug 05, 2004 11:58 pm

Logo wrote:
Impenitent wrote:I am not sure... one does or one doesn't... but it is "true," if anything may be considered "true"


I don't know what you mean by "true", but the statement is incoherent. That's my problem with it. There is no possible way for one to understand a contradiction like this. If there is one absolute than the statement, "there are no absolutes" is false. {if you would prefer that there are absolutely no absolutes other than this one to be the statement, so be it...]

I believe Hume proved the impossibility of knowledge quite well actually


Where does he claim that knowledge is impossible?
{analytic- definitions which tell us nothing about the world, synthetic-momentary relations between language and perceptions, nonsense- everything else}
http://www.philosophyclassics.com/etexts/776/12491/
his revelation of the inductive fallacy destroys science...


It does? Seems to me science has gotten along quite well in spite of it. What Hume showed is that induction can't be proven to give us knowledge of the world. But the key word is proven; Hume's attack is on certainty, not knowledge in a general sense. {justified true belief, in order to be justified it must be proven, but it cannot be proven ergo, no knowledge} Knowledge can proceed, but it proceeds on a set of assumptions that everyone must make. No I can't prove that the sun will come up tomorrow, but I'm wired to assume it will. {then you don't have knowledge, you have assumptions and assumptions are not knowledge} I can't think otherwise. And inductive inferences made on the basis of such pragmatic presuppositions qualify as knowledge in a post-Humean world. The bottom line is, science works whether or not it gives us certainty. {no, there is no knowledge without proof; science describes instances and then makes an inductive error}

if knowledge is nothing but a language game, it has no value outside of the language game...


But that's huge. No it doesn't have any value outside of the language game...but that only matters if there is an "outside" to the language game; there isn't. {no things in themselves? no, to reduce everything to language reduces it to the error of early wittgenstein} Our knowledge of the world only has value for us, but that's all that matters. {that is agreeable, we are all that matters, but knowledge of the world is impossible}

Socrates argued for the forms and the main part of the forms argument is that knowledge in this existence is illusory but the actual knowledge appears only after death when one can directly experience the forms...


Hmm...I think the statement "I know nothing" is more a claim about philosophic methodology than about metaphysics. {no, there is nothing methodological about it, Socrates argued that knowledge was in the realm of the forms and could not be reached while living} It's clear from Plato's dialogues that Socrates took himself to know quite a bit. {actually, quite the opposite is true. socrates always argued from ignorance and showed that those who proclaimed to know were in error...} But I suppose what he actually thought is irrelevant. The statement (if read literally) is self-contradictory...and therefore incoherent. {not at all, you simply haven't understood socrates' or plato's arguments}


-Imp
cogito ergo cogito
sum ergo sum...

Λογοκρισία και σιωπή

What's the difference between a liberal and Al Qaeda?
Oh, you don't know either?

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" -Eco
Impenitent
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:16 pm

Re: as the poet Elliot said...

Postby my real name » Fri Aug 06, 2004 12:57 am

hermes the thrice great wrote:Do muscles have An essence? I'm being serious.


To Aristotle, i think, muscles are a part of an organism and are defined in relation to it.

Logo wrote:I for one have never seen an essence.


Well, you don't strictly see essences, you know them. And if you know what a cat is, you know an essence. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Postby Logo » Fri Aug 06, 2004 4:11 am

my real name wrote:Well, you don't strictly see essences, you know them.


We know them...how?
Last edited by Logo on Fri Aug 06, 2004 4:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
[It would be] an easy mistake to make, to think that one loved one's country less because it happened to be in the wrong.
-Michael Frayn
Logo
Thinker
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:02 pm
Location: USA - east coast

Postby GateControlTheory » Fri Aug 06, 2004 4:26 am

{if you would prefer that there are absolutely no absolutes other than this one to be the statement, so be it...]


Wouldn't it require an Absolute being (God, for example) to verify that statement? And wouldn't that, in itself, prove it untrue?


Also,
If an absolute can arrive as the result of the negation of an idea, then there must be an absolute for every idea ever thought. Because all that is required to stand as an absolute is the negation. Thus nothing itself is an absolute.

Nothing exists absolutely or Nothing Absolutely exists.


There are absolutely no X's.
There are absolutely no Y's.
etc

lets call the whole thing off.
Kids, don't try this at home.

"You guys just sit here thinking you're so smart, but you merely take a long time to say essentially nothing."

-Ade
User avatar
GateControlTheory
Level 31 Philosopher
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 3:17 am

Postby Impenitent » Fri Aug 06, 2004 4:57 am

GateControlTheory wrote:
{if you would prefer that there are absolutely no absolutes other than this one to be the statement, so be it...]


Wouldn't it require an Absolute being (God, for example) to verify that statement? And wouldn't that, in itself, prove it untrue?
{not really... all it requires is the one making the judgement}

Also,
If an absolute can arrive as the result of the negation of an idea, then there must be an absolute for every idea ever thought. Because all that is required to stand as an absolute is the negation. Thus nothing itself is an absolute.

Nothing exists absolutely or Nothing Absolutely exists.

{yes, nothing absolutely exists}

There are absolutely no X's.
There are absolutely no Y's.
etc

lets call the whole thing off.

ok, it is absolutely called off... or

-Imp
cogito ergo cogito
sum ergo sum...

Λογοκρισία και σιωπή

What's the difference between a liberal and Al Qaeda?
Oh, you don't know either?

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" -Eco
Impenitent
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:16 pm

Postby GateControlTheory » Fri Aug 06, 2004 5:23 am

{not really... all it requires is the one making the judgement}


You make absolutes sound... relative. A neat trick for sure! :D

So if one 'judges' several other things to be absolute, then they are, at least for them?

But even a universe filled with nothing but subjective beings ruled by subjective truths is a universe. The domain of discourse is absolutely what it is, unless you want to argue the extreme idealistic view that what is is the result of your thought, but even then, you must be thinking, and those thoughts comprise your universe.. absolutely. Because if there is any objective truth outside of one's thoughts... then it is true outside of one's thoughts.
And if it is true outside of your thought, then it can be true whether you think of it or not. And if it can be true whether you think of it or not, it can be true absolutely... beyond even our ability to experience, observe or know. Because we cannot know the limit of a thing if we do not know the thing in question. Only an absolute being can know, absolutely, whether or not nothing absolutely exists.

And if this is so, subjective knowledge, or personal judgements, answer nothing... they merely indicate one's personal tastes.
Kids, don't try this at home.

"You guys just sit here thinking you're so smart, but you merely take a long time to say essentially nothing."

-Ade
User avatar
GateControlTheory
Level 31 Philosopher
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 3:17 am

Postby my real name » Fri Aug 06, 2004 8:26 am

Logo wrote:
my real name wrote:Well, you don't strictly see essences, you know them. And if you know what a cat is, you know an essence.


We know them...how?


Well, how does Kant explain it?
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Postby Logo » Fri Aug 06, 2004 9:42 am

Kant? He's a friggin idealist! He doesn't think we can know anything about essences.
[It would be] an easy mistake to make, to think that one loved one's country less because it happened to be in the wrong.
-Michael Frayn
Logo
Thinker
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:02 pm
Location: USA - east coast

Postby Logo » Fri Aug 06, 2004 9:54 am

Impenitent wrote:if you would prefer that there are absolutely no absolutes other than this one to be the statement, so be it...


...which is still contradictory. But I suppose the more interesting question is, how do you know this to be the case?

analytic- definitions which tell us nothing about the world, synthetic-momentary relations between language and perceptions, nonsense- everything else


That doesn't answer my question. Where in the "Treatise" does he specifically say that analytic and synthetic judgements cannot lead to knowledge?

justified true belief, in order to be justified it must be proven


This is far from obvious. Even accepting Plato's definition of knowledge, what serious philosopher in the last hundred years has actually held this view of justification? At the very least you need to give a reason why justification must involve certainty.

No I can't prove that the sun will come up tomorrow, but I'm wired to assume it will.
then you don't have knowledge, you have assumptions and assumptions are not knowledge


No...you have assumptions plus experience plus a well-confirmed scientific theory. That's knowledge...as the term is used in English.

The statement (if read literally) is self-contradictory...and therefore incoherent.
not at all, you simply haven't understood socrates' or plato's arguments


Mmn? Do I really need to step you through it? Okay...

Socrates: I know nothing.

Logo: How do you know?

Socrates: Well, imagine a cave with a fire and shadows...etc, etc

Logo: Well how do you know all THAT? And why the hell am I wasting my time talking to you?

Socrates: Chill out man...I was using hyperbole.
[It would be] an easy mistake to make, to think that one loved one's country less because it happened to be in the wrong.
-Michael Frayn
Logo
Thinker
 
Posts: 505
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:02 pm
Location: USA - east coast

reality vs reality

Postby Jose » Fri Aug 06, 2004 12:44 pm

As a first time poster- am quite bewildered and enchanted by the different posts.

This might sound naive, but isn't reality in the eyes or mind of the beholder? An aborigines' thought has the same value as and Oxfordian with 2 or 3 PHd.
Jose
Jose
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: USA

Postby Impenitent » Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:08 pm

GateControlTheory wrote:
{not really... all it requires is the one making the judgement}


You make absolutes sound... relative. A neat trick for sure! :D

So if one 'judges' several other things to be absolute, then they are, at least for them? {yes, and their perspective is the only thing that exists for them... for them mind you, it doesn't make it an absolute truth about the universe, it only demonstrates the interpretation of what the observer observes}

But even a universe filled with nothing but subjective beings ruled by subjective truths is a universe. The domain of discourse is absolutely what it is, unless you want to argue the extreme idealistic view that what is is the result of your thought, but even then, you must be thinking, and those thoughts comprise your universe.. absolutely. Because if there is any objective truth outside of one's thoughts... then it is true outside of one's thoughts.

{there's the rub, this can never be known... all one has is ones thoughts and perceptions, nothing more...}

And if it is true outside of your thought, then it can be true whether you think of it or not. And if it can be true whether you think of it or not, it can be true absolutely... beyond even our ability to experience, observe or know. Because we cannot know the limit of a thing if we do not know the thing in question.

{again, objective absolute Knowledge is impossible, but personal belief about perceptions that one calls personal "knowledge" appears for sake of convienence... nothing that can be known exists outside of the perceptions of the individual... if, if, if, if... it doesn't mean a thing... }

Only an absolute being can know, absolutely, whether or not nothing absolutely exists.

{no, for the subjective universe is absolutely all one experiences}

And if this is so, subjective knowledge, or personal judgements, answer nothing... they merely indicate one's personal tastes.
{nothing answers anything, there are no answers, no universal truth, no objective reality, no thing in itself, no beyond... there is the perception and the interpretation of the perception and nothing more... ego centric predicament....}

-Imp
cogito ergo cogito
sum ergo sum...

Λογοκρισία και σιωπή

What's the difference between a liberal and Al Qaeda?
Oh, you don't know either?

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" -Eco
Impenitent
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:16 pm

Postby Impenitent » Fri Aug 06, 2004 3:41 pm

Logo wrote:
Impenitent wrote:if you would prefer that there are absolutely no absolutes other than this one to be the statement, so be it...


...which is still contradictory. {actually, it isn't} But I suppose the more interesting question is, how do you know this to be the case? {knowledge is impossible}

analytic- definitions which tell us nothing about the world, synthetic-momentary relations between language and perceptions, nonsense- everything else


That doesn't answer my question. Where in the "Treatise" does he specifically say that analytic and synthetic judgements cannot lead to knowledge?

{from book I part III: Thus not only our reason fails us in the discovery of the ultimate
connexion of causes and effects, but even after experience has informed
us of their constant conjunction, it is impossible for us to satisfy
ourselves by our reason, why we should extend that experience beyond
those particular instances, which have fallen under our observation. We
suppose, but are never able to prove, that there must be a resemblance
betwixt those objects, of which we have had experience, and those which
lie beyond the reach of our discovery.

We have already taken notice of certain relations, which make us pass
from one object to another, even though there be no reason to determine us
to that transition; and this we may establish for a general rule, that
wherever the mind constantly and uniformly makes a transition without any
reason, it is influenced by these relations. Now this is exactly the
present case. Reason can never shew us the connexion of one object with
another, though aided by experience, and the observation of their constant
conjunction in all past instances. When the mind, therefore, passes from
the idea or impression of one object to the idea or belief of another, it
is not determined by reason, but by certain principles, which associate
together the ideas of these objects, and unite them in the imagination.
Had ideas no more union in the fancy than objects seem to have to the
understanding, we coued never draw any inference from causes to effects,
nor repose belief in any matter of fact. The inference, therefore,
depends solely on the union of ideas.....
and from part IX ...Those philosophers, who have divided human reason into knowledge and
probability, and have defined the first to be that evidence, which arises
from the comparison of ideas, are obliged to comprehend all our arguments
from causes or effects under the general term of probability. But though
every one be free to use his terms in what sense he pleases; and
accordingly in the precedent part of this discourse, I have followed this
method of expression; it is however certain, that in common discourse we
readily affirm, that many arguments from causation exceed probability,
and may be received as a superior kind of evidence. One would appear
ridiculous, who would say, that it is only probable the sun will rise
to-morrow, or that all men must dye; though it is plain we have no further
assurance of these facts, than what experience affords us. For this
reason, it would perhaps be more convenient, in order at once to preserve
the common signification of words, and mark the several degrees of
evidence, to distinguish human reason into three kinds, viz. THAT FROM
KNOWLEDGE, FROM PROOFS, AND FROM PROBABILITIES. By knowledge, I mean the
assurance arising from the comparison of ideas. By proofs, those
arguments, which are derived from the relation of cause and effect, and
which are entirely free from doubt and uncertainty. By probability, that
evidence, which is still attended with uncertainty. It is this last
species of reasoning, I proceed to examine.....

analytics (concerning themselves with language/mathematics only aren't knowledge because they don't tell us anything about the world...)
synthetics (cannot be knowledge because they are not entirely free of doubt or uncertainity... you really need to read the whole of part III}



justified true belief, in order to be justified it must be proven


This is far from obvious. Even accepting Plato's definition of knowledge, what serious philosopher in the last hundred years has actually held this view of justification? {stroud, moore, strawson, unger, gettier, klein, harman, nozick, sellars, sosa, pollock, haack, bon jour, quine, putnam, lehrer, plantinga, bender, and kim to name a few of the leading modern epistemologists} At the very least you need to give a reason why justification must involve certainty.

No I can't prove that the sun will come up tomorrow, but I'm wired to assume it will.
then you don't have knowledge, you have assumptions and assumptions are not knowledge


No...you have assumptions plus experience plus a well-confirmed scientific theory. That's knowledge...as the term is used in English.

{but it is not knowledge as the term is used in Philosophy}

The statement (if read literally) is self-contradictory...and therefore incoherent.
not at all, you simply haven't understood socrates' or plato's arguments


Mmn? Do I really need to step you through it? Okay...

Socrates: I know nothing.

Logo: How do you know?

{Socrates: because knowledge can only be had when in direct contact with the forms and the forms can not be contacted in this world. period. read the books}

Socrates: Well, imagine a cave with a fire and shadows...etc, etc

Logo: Well how do you know all THAT? And why the hell am I wasting my time talking to you?

Socrates: Chill out man...I was using hyperbole.


-Imp
cogito ergo cogito
sum ergo sum...

Λογοκρισία και σιωπή

What's the difference between a liberal and Al Qaeda?
Oh, you don't know either?

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" -Eco
Impenitent
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:16 pm

Re: reality vs reality

Postby my real name » Fri Aug 06, 2004 10:30 pm

Jose wrote:As a first time poster- am quite bewildered and enchanted by the different posts.

This might sound naive, but isn't reality in the eyes or mind of the beholder? An aborigines' thought has the same value as and Oxfordian with 2 or 3 PHd.


Welcome, Jose!

I don't know about Oxford, but it does make a difference if the scholar is from Harvard -- in that case, the aborigines' thought has much more value.
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Postby my real name » Fri Aug 06, 2004 10:40 pm

Logo wrote:Kant? He's a friggin idealist! He doesn't think we can know anything about essences.


Oh, I thought you were a Kantian! I just pointed out that we know essences, and Kant did not deal with them. What improvements did he supposedly make over the ancien regime? Guess he should have read up on his Scholasticism, as someone on the board said he hadn't.

Or are you advocating Locke and Sidelle? I thought the argument went for them too.

What non-Realist position were we talking about anyway?
Think deep. Love strong. Create beautily.
User avatar
my real name
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: When midway in our life's journey/I found myself in a dark forest/for the right way was lost.

Postby GateControlTheory » Sat Aug 07, 2004 6:05 am

{there's the rub, this can never be known... all one has is ones thoughts and perceptions, nothing more...}


Well, if it can never be known, how does one verify if it is true or not?

{again, objective absolute Knowledge is impossible, but personal belief about perceptions that one calls personal "knowledge" appears for sake of convienence... nothing that can be known exists outside of the perceptions of the individual... if, if, if, if... it doesn't mean a thing... }

Impossible knowledge is an absolute.. it is the negation of all possible knowledge... to know this as certain requires what you negate.

Only an absolute being can know, absolutely, whether or not nothing absolutely exists.

{no, for the subjective universe is absolutely all one experiences}


It is all the subject experiences, as ultimate objective knowledge requires one to ultimately become the object. But what if the object is the object, there is nothing in our subjective nature that disqualifies the possibility of it knowing itself despite us not knowing.

The universe is the universe.

Nothing is nothing.

A is A.

All these can be true in and of themselves beyond what our experience of them tells us. Our experience is finite.. it must be... if it was infinite then it would be absolute.. so more then one absolute exists per your argument.






{nothing answers anything, there are no answers, no universal truth, no objective reality, no thing in itself, no beyond... there is the perception and the interpretation of the perception and nothing more... ego centric predicament....}


Then 'nothing' itself is an absolute.. that is absolutely all there is.
But 'nothing' negates experience... how am I experiencing anything if there is nothing to experience... hell, how am I even here to experience it.

But wait... maybe Experience is an absolute. Not in its exactitude, but in the process of itself. Ditto perceptions. If these things did not occur, absolutely, then the universe would not exist.
Kids, don't try this at home.

"You guys just sit here thinking you're so smart, but you merely take a long time to say essentially nothing."

-Ade
User avatar
GateControlTheory
Level 31 Philosopher
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 3:17 am

Postby Impenitent » Sat Aug 07, 2004 9:02 pm

GateControlTheory wrote:
{there's the rub, this can never be known... all one has is ones thoughts and perceptions, nothing more...}


Well, if it can never be known, how does one verify if it is true or not?

{it can never be verified}

{again, objective absolute Knowledge is impossible, but personal belief about perceptions that one calls personal "knowledge" appears for sake of convienence... nothing that can be known exists outside of the perceptions of the individual... if, if, if, if... it doesn't mean a thing... }

Impossible knowledge is an absolute.. it is the negation of all possible knowledge... to know this as certain requires what you negate.

{no, I know nothing, any suggestion that something is known can be destroyed... }

Only an absolute being can know, absolutely, whether or not nothing absolutely exists.

{no, for the subjective universe is absolutely all one experiences}


It is all the subject experiences, as ultimate objective knowledge requires one to ultimately become the object.

{there is no objective knowledge}

But what if the object is the object, there is nothing in our subjective nature that disqualifies the possibility of it knowing itself despite us not knowing.

{doesn't matter, it can know all day, but that itself can never be known}

The universe is the universe.

Nothing is nothing.

A is A.

All these can be true in and of themselves beyond what our experience of them tells us.

{no, we can not make that claim... they do not exist beyond our experience...}

Our experience is finite.. it must be...

{really? surely you have met Zeno...}

if it was infinite then it would be absolute.. so more then one absolute exists per your argument.

{no, I don't see it}

{nothing answers anything, there are no answers, no universal truth, no objective reality, no thing in itself, no beyond... there is the perception and the interpretation of the perception and nothing more... ego centric predicament....}


Then 'nothing' itself is an absolute.. that is absolutely all there is.

{exactly}

But 'nothing' negates experience...

{no, it doesn't}

how am I experiencing anything if there is nothing to experience... hell, how am I even here to experience it.

{through an exersize of your will}

But wait... maybe Experience is an absolute. Not in its exactitude, but in the process of itself. Ditto perceptions. If these things did not occur, absolutely, then the universe would not exist.

{but it doesn't exist and it cannot be proven to exist... brains in vats}
cogito ergo cogito
sum ergo sum...

Λογοκρισία και σιωπή

What's the difference between a liberal and Al Qaeda?
Oh, you don't know either?

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" -Eco
Impenitent
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:16 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users