Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Plump-DJ · 09-20-2002, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Why? It isn't necessarily the case according to ordinary philosophy or positivism.

Well surely the nature of reality as it is in itself will have an effect on what we can know about it and how we know it and wether we can know anything about it at all. Don't you think?

Quote:

Care to elaborate and substantiate that summation? It's more than likely you have not been doing your homework.

Well i think i've done *some* homework and the homework I have done lead me down that path. I guess i'd start out by linking to this article.

<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/knowledge.htm" target="_blank">http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/knowledge.htm</a>

"A Brief History Of Knowledge." Now i'm not so sure i can find myself endorsing his conclusion *but* the overview of the history of epistemology is very nice I think. And if his surmation is true then i think my point stands.

phaedrus · 09-21-2002, 02:01 AM

Hugo

i just read an amazing article in The Philosopher's Magazine entitled "Postmodernism RIP". Unfortunately it isn't available online just yet, but i recommend you take a look at it some time. It purports to show why your comments are mistaken, and boy does it make a mess of it.

Would be great if you could point exactly how my comments are mistaken, instead of quoting an article. Till now all i have seen in the thread are some assertions and thats about

I dont really see how 9/11 has brought an real world into existence. Have all the communities in the world saw the events with the same perspective and concurred on the course of action? (except for the unfortunate demise of innocent civilians)

Hugo Holbling · 09-21-2002, 02:06 AM

Phaedrus said:

Quote:

Would be great if you could point exactly how my comments are mistaken, instead of quoting an article.

Uh - misunderstood me there, i fear. Maybe i should've written "purports". Perhaps my offering it "for your amusement" could've tipped you off? No matter.

Quote:

Till now all i have seen in the thread are some assertions...

That's the point.

Quote:

I dont really see how 9/11 has brought an real world into existence.

But the jackass who wrote it does. Go figure. Apparently he's a "philsopher".

phaedrus · 09-21-2002, 02:27 AM

Hugo

Ahh...apologies then....anyhows the message board of the Philosopers Magazine used to be a great place, before they closed it...

Quote:

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

I believe that you can reach the point where there is no longer any difference between developing the habit of pretending to believe and developing the habit of believing

And we, inhabitants of the great coral of the Cosmos, believe the atom (which still we cannot see) to be full matter, whereas, it too, like everything else, is but an embroidery of voids in the Void, and we give the name of being, dense and even eternal, to that dance of inconsistencies, that infinite extension that is identified with absolute Nothingness and that spins from its own non-being the illusion of everything.
Umberto Eco

Hugo Holbling · 09-21-2002, 02:39 AM

Phaedrus:

No need to apologize. I just hoped to hide my stupidity from you awhile longer.

Are you an Eco fan too?

Primal · 09-21-2002, 02:36 PM

Kinda funny how you postmodernists are so willing to say that the philosopher's comments are off the mark. I mean are they not true because he believes them to be? Or is he mistaken in such a belief?

The depths of such absurdity never cease to amuse me.

Hugo Holbling · 09-21-2002, 03:00 PM

Primal asked:

Quote:

I mean are they not true because he believes them to be? Or is he mistaken in such a belief?

You're kidding, right?

Quote:

The depths of such absurdity never cease to amuse me.

Ah - better keep on laughing, then.

Kantian · 09-21-2002, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Plump: Well surely the nature of reality as it is in itself will have an effect on what we can know about it and how we know it and wether we can know anything about it at all. Don't you think?

I see where you're going, plump, but that little aside into causality won't do. It merely refers to a certain world-view that assumes that some form of metaphysics is the ground of everything, which is quite a metaphysical belief in itself. Positivism, or I should say, in its modern form, naturalism, privileges epistemology by confusing it with ontology and completely disregard metaphysics- just look around you at this forum. As for ordinary language, it bases its ontology on a certain form of logic.

By the way, the nature of reality could be entirely contingent upon how we process it.

Quote:

Plump: Well i think i've done *some* homework and the homework I have done lead me down that path. I guess i'd start out by linking to this article.
<a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/knowledge.htm" target="_blank">http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/knowledge.htm</a> "A Brief History Of Knowledge." Now i'm not so sure i can find myself endorsing his conclusion *but* the overview of the history of epistemology is very nice I think. And if his surmation is true then i think my point stands.

Yes, it's easier to hide behind others than take the brave steps oneself. In addition, perhaps you overlook the ethos of the author, Russ Manion. He's a foundationalist.

[Chorus: NO WONDER!]

~Transcendentalist~

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]</p>

Kantian · 09-21-2002, 10:13 PM

Quote:

primal: As for subjectivity being self-refuting, (I know that the original question was adressed to thr wrong party btw) it is only so if one has already accepted logic. If one abandons logic the very idea of "refutation" loses any meaning.

IF one "accepts" logic, then it is entirely a contingent decision that depends upon one's valuation of systematic thinking. Ergo, it is a subjective act of adopting a rigorous schema, likely for utilitarian purposes.

Quote:

primal: For example: If I was a hard core subjectivist, and you pointed to contradictions in my theory; I could say "well the contradictions establish it".

Perhaps you strawman'd the subjectivist?

Quote:

primal: One has to in the end just state that subjectivity is fundamentally false, like pure skepticism.

Here's your claim (incidentally, I'd like to see how you can argue pure skepticism is false, too). What follow should be the premises, and it is up to me to ID them, determine whether they are relevant to the conclusion, that the warrant is sufficient, and whether the backing holds as well. (Toulmin)

Quote:

primal: Even if one showed that subjectivism was inconsistent, or went against evidence; the subjectivist could merely redefine evidence,logic etc.

Irrelevant. Whether the subjectivist would do in response has no bearing on whether your claim is true, false, or at worst, meaningless.

Quote:

primal: The whole notion is from a logical viewpoint, so fundamentally senseless as to be beyond any sort of common ground.

So you say. Why is it senseless? Moreover, I have a sneaky suspicion that you are abusing the term "logical viewpoint." What do you mean by that?

Quote:

primal: All one can do is first accept logic and then, apply logic to subjectivism to show how absurd the notion is.

Why must one adopt logic in order to see how absurd subjectivism is? Could there be other schema that leads to similar conclusions? Newsflash to the lurkers: primal has yet to list anything remotely resembling a premise or support by way of an argument.

Quote:

primal: Note, that this only works if logic is already accepted. The subjectivist will deny logic itself or attempt to redefine it beyond recognition or come up with the wildest excuses imaginable, no matter how poorly grounded.

Non-sequiturs. The potential endeavors the subjectivist has in order to respond to a "imaginary" proof of self-refutation has nothing to do with whether there are any self-refuting arguments of subjectivism.

Quote:

primal: Here all one has to do is realize that imagination does not make things so.

Imagination is a mental faculty that is a slave of experience, and most resembles the faculty of memory, but this is neither here nor there.

Quote:

primal: And that beliefs stem from subjectivist axioms. Note: The subjectivist can likewise challenge this, saying that subjectivism doesn't rely on axioms, even if it does or by redefining axioms as "special for subjectivism" and "wrong for objectivism".

Perhaps the assumption that everything must fit neatly into a hierarchical system of thought is not necessarily true.

Quote:

primal: All this shows is that once someone has totally abandoned logic, there is really no way out. The subjectivist can makeup any lie, no matter how wrong, once one has already accepted his premises.

Ad hominem. You have yet to show how the subjectivist abandons logic.

Quote:

primal: But what is really going on? In reality the whole position is at odds with logic. A subjectivist will of course deny this, just as a subjectivist in theory can deny the existence of things they see.

It's highly unlikely that a person has access to the subjectivist's sense organs and knows intimately the truth of any claims of experience made by the subjectivist.

Quote:

primal: However, if one does believe in logic, one will realize that no matter how crud the subjectivist makes up he is still wrong. The subjectivist can stop believing in gravity, but if he/she jumps off a cliff they die.

That is an incorrect representation of a subjectivist. Before you answer all the other comments, just exactly what is a subjectivist to you? Define your terms, so I will have a better grasp on whether you know what you are talking about.

Quote:

primal: Again the difference is fundamental, and thus, logic will never be able to refute subjectivism from the subjectivist viewpoint because logic is not established in the subjectivist viewpoint.

So far, your post amounted to little more than ad hominems, non-sequiturs, and is missing an argument on why subjectivism is self-refuting.
~Transcendentalist~

[ September 21, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]</p>

Plump-DJ · 09-21-2002, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Positivism, or I should say, in its modern form, naturalism, privileges epistemology by confusing it with ontology and completely disregard metaphysics- just look around you at this forum. As for ordinary language, it bases its ontology on a certain form of logic.

Right.. so let me see if i have what your saying, straight.

Are you saying we can know about reality (epistemology), we can have a logic about it etc etc before we actually mention what it is about reality that allows us to have a logic about it? Are you saying that we can know stuff about "what is" before stating where the link between the knower and that which he's trying to know is? If we say "We know something about reality" or "that which is" we're going to get hit with those questions. Now however you wish to concieve of the terms of the discussion the answers to thoese qusetions I personaly would term metaphysics They are required "first" before you can start saying things like "I know this about reality and i know that"

Quote:

Yes, it's easier to hide behind others than take the brave steps oneself. In addition, perhaps you overlook the ethos of the author, Russ Manion. He's a foundationalist.

I'm focusing on his recount of the history of epistemology specifialy so his conclusions be dammed.

And how else might i learn about physics other then from a physcist? You will at some stage unless you are at the pinnacle of your field have to "hide behind" someone else. And when all is said and done, the question being asked is "Is Russ Manion correct?" Is his summary of the history of epistemology correct or "close enough"? Are his quotes from various philosophers and epistemologists true or are they taken out of context?

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Plump-DJ ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-21-2002, 02:01 AM	#42
phaedrus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Indus Posts: 1,038	Hugo i just read an amazing article in The Philosopher's Magazine entitled "Postmodernism RIP". Unfortunately it isn't available online just yet, but i recommend you take a look at it some time. It purports to show why your comments are mistaken, and boy does it make a mess of it. Would be great if you could point exactly how my comments are mistaken, instead of quoting an article. Till now all i have seen in the thread are some assertions and thats about I dont really see how 9/11 has brought an real world into existence. Have all the communities in the world saw the events with the same perspective and concurred on the course of action? (except for the unfortunate demise of innocent civilians)

09-21-2002, 02:39 AM	#45
Hugo Holbling Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Self-banned in 2005 Posts: 1,344	Phaedrus: No need to apologize. I just hoped to hide my stupidity from you awhile longer. Are you an Eco fan too?

09-21-2002, 02:36 PM	#46
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	Kinda funny how you postmodernists are so willing to say that the philosopher's comments are off the mark. I mean are they not true because he believes them to be? Or is he mistaken in such a belief? The depths of such absurdity never cease to amuse me.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.