John Page

...and that meaning is? (Without any meaning I don't see how your claim that "I exist" is an absolute truth). Is it not self-evident that a "self-evident" truth is subjective and therefore not absolute?

Cheers, John

Primal

That "I" (who I am or what I am) "exist" (am real).

I don't know how many ways you can say it John or make that any more clear. And I don't see why you have to express the claim in more then one way to make it clear. Do you really not know what I mean by either the word "I" or "exist"?

John Page

Thank you for attempting to make your meaning clear. Your claim for an absolute truth, however, falls short. It seems we are all trapped in our own subjective worlds, for otherwise, we should not be able to disagree on the plain facts .

If you wish to make "I exist" an axiom of your philosophy that's fine by me, however, I suggest you consider that this philosophy will die with you, since you will no longer exist.

Cheers, John

Primal

Well then it seems that I am correct when I state that you have failed to prove subjectivism to be correct and have instead assumed it to be correct from the get-go. In which case you can hardly criticize foundationalists for doing the same. Likewise your own position mirrors foundationalism in its own way. I as a foundationalist simply assume my axioms are self-evident from the get-go, whereas you assume yours are subjective i.e. in a way then you assume your own subjectivism is "self-evident" though not in so many words.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Ahh, the subjectivists continue to crack me up.

Keith.

Hugo Holbling

When you've finished laughing, Keith, perhaps you'd care to take on Kantian's and my arguments that denying the possibility of knowledge/truth does not constitute a knowledge/truth claim, particularly in the correspondence formulation? While you're at it, why not explain how all the antifoundationalists that agree have it so wrong? For my part, i promise to send your demonstration to Rorty, Putnam, and Derrida at the very least.

John Page

Correct? Relativism is only a viewpoint, as is "absolutism". IMO, one cannot prove that either is "correct" without applying criteria for correctness. But which are the "correct" criteria? I remain a relativist because the tenets of relativism result in a more coherent and consistent view than "absolutism".

In this sense, neither of us are correct. We both hold different (but subjective) viewpoints about truth etc. which is more consistent with relativism.

Not so, quite the opposite for the reasons given above.

Cheers, John

Primal

Because saying "I believe X but it isn't true." is contradictory.


You mean the same group of people who are anti-science, and have been found I believe to get basic scientific facts wrong? One would think that the Sokhel hoax showed how the entire movement lacked any sense of self-correction.

Primal

But that would merely result in circular reasoning i.e. using established standards to validate what establishes them. Likewise you are limiting the options again to relativism and absolutism, when there are objectivist theories which are neither: in which case you not only have to show relativism more consistent or coherent then absolutism(which is itself questionable as you have failed to prove this) but also that it is more coherent/consistent then objectivist alternatives as well.

U was hoping you wouldn't honestly try to sneak that one in. Basically all I said was there is no way for us, given our premises to validly start at one of our viewpoints and get to the other: that doesn't mean the viewpoints are on equal ground though.

There are two parts to a strong or sound argument: 1) Validity and 2) True premises. The problem with your is your most basic premises are untrue: in which case their is no room for correction within your system. I merely have to assume your system is in the wrong from the get-go. An assumption which I think is warranted by certain self-evident truths and principles.

An example of someone similiar would be a person who believes it self-evident or absolute truth that he or she does not exist....what can you say to such a person at this point? Nothing really, perhaps that they contradict themselves but what if they reject logic or that they have stated anything? Well then not a whole lot except just reject their claim from the start as fundamentally absurd.



It still does as you assume the process of circularity provides justification from the get go: hence you adhere to an axiom concerning circularity itself.

Is that really your alternative to foundationalist reasoning....circular reasoning? If that's the case I fail to see how such a model is either more consistent or coherent at all, as circular reasoning is fallacious and allows a person to make-up just about anything.

John Page

People do actually make these kind of statements quite sincerely. I can quote a friend of the catholic faith who has told me "I believe in the primacy of the pope, but I know it isn't true". Do you believe a person can be "in two minds" about something? If so, which of their minds is telling the truth and how does the person know? In this way, I can argue that (seemingly) contradictory statements can be true.

Cheers, John