Synaesthesia

Naturalism: The doctrine that there is no first philosophy.

Kantian

Quick summary of dialogue up to this point:
Plump: "Metaphysics determines one's epistemology."
Kant: "Not all enterprises in philosophy are equal."
Plump: "Is so! Any philosophy must have a metaphysical ground."
Kant: "Xism, Yism, and Zism do not."
Plump: "Knowledge depends on metaphysics!"
Kant: "What about Xism, Yism, and Zism?"
Plump: "So? Knowledge is dependent of metaphysical position!"
And so on. Hopefully, there will be progress beyond this holding pattern…
Whether there are ad homs or whether my post sounds arrogant is an obvious ploy to divert the conversation from whether you are willing to address why some philosophical movements lack your presuppositions in demanding a grounding of metaphysics to the sensitive nature of your feelings.
Where is the confusion? So far, you refuse to address my points by demanding that a few traditional methods of metaphysics ought be accounted for.
The way I like responses is to take my questions or hopefully salient points seriously. Nevertheless, for some reason you have no intention in doing so and demand that a certain line of questioning necessarily be the be-all and end-all for epistemic foundations.
This is what happens when you don't address me directly.
This statement presupposes a certain dualism in between the knower and the known, which is itself a highly questionable bifurcation, at least according to phenomenology. It is true that the "idea of knowledge" and "theory of knowledge" are metaphysical commitments- but when they become speculative excess and historically degenerate, metaphysics turns bad.
Then you have most certainly not been doing your homework.
The question of the nature of reality itself is imported as answered (taken for granted) in your questions about the correlation between the external world and the subject. Why?
Why would they assume as much about some "objective world" before answering your questions?
There is a significant reason why metaphysics has been on the outs ever since language philosophy has taken center stage.

I see metaphysical questions falling into two camps- the rejectionists and those who engage in metaphysics. Rejectionists (positivists and Ordinary Language thinkers) will declare that the questions of metaphysics are illegitimate, improper, and meaningless. Those in the other camp break up into smaller groups- the mystification answer, the non-rational answer (the universe is a brute fact), the theological answer (you all love this one), the necessitarian answer, and the nomological answer.
~Transcendentalist~

John Page

Nice thread - anyone care to have a stab at an epistomology that explains why we are able to have the debate we're having?

The very existence of the debate argues strongly for truth being subjective, an artefact of our mind's states. Logic, for example, is not the "truth about truth" but an (internally consistent) system of analysis that can be derived from certain assumptions about the nature of truth. Knowledge itself, IMO, comes from the ability to detect persistent/consistent patterns in cause and effect. Truth might thus be considered as the "quantum" of knowledge.

This would be consistent with Synathesia's succinct observation that under naturalism there is no "first philosophy". I guess this amounts to a universe consisting of "stuff", some of which thinks.

Cheers, John

Plump-DJ

Immanual.

I'm aware when writing to you that i have *presupps* that you may not share. I assumed that like most people you did share them and believed in the existence of an external reality beyond our senses (ie trees exist when no one is looking at them or thinking about them) and that we can know sometihng about it.

To me it seems pretty simple. If they think they know something about an external reality which exists beyond our sense (even when no one is there to look) then we can have a chat. That was (as far as i'm aware) the traditional view of knowledge and is the view held by most (lay)people i would dare to say. So the problem of knowledge doesn't even exist from their perspective if they deny that. They simply abadonen the traditional (i suppose it's the classical realist position) ideas and guess what?They don't have to deal with such yucky questions.

So in regards to my homework i am aware that there are other positions (i have heard of all the positions you mention) *but* that's irrelevant to the key point i'm making. If those who endorse those positions or whatever positon you wish to mention do believe in an objective reality beyond the senses (one which exists and goes about it's business for the most part regardless of whose there looking) and believe they can know anything at all about an objective reality then they have to deal with those points. If not, then good for them. I have no problem with that.

Kantian

Plump
For your information, I went over the link you gave me. It's written by an amateur- a second rate hack. The article is rife with typos and poor mischaracterizations (Hume as an out and out skeptic instead of a naturalist), and numerous strawmen. The historical movement of epistemology isn't adequately represented in that article, since it overlooks a lot of 19th (German idealism, French vitalism, etc) and 20th century developments- no mention of ordinary language, neo-positivism, structuralism, phenomenology, existentialism, hermeneutics, and a host of other fragmented schools. I'd suggest you to get up to date material, something more comprehensive and academic (the writing did not seem of scholar quality material). It became apparent once Van Til's name popped up. The kiss of death of any article on epistemology is the mention of the sultan of sophistry.
Are you unwilling to analyze your "presupps"? I'm fairly positive that we share the same set of presuppositions, but you choose to regard them as immune for some reason.
In practical matters, that's a fair supposition, but a bad one when we're doing philosophy. The existence of an external reality beyond our senses is a whole miasma of concepts that may or may not function under a certain framework of one's invention. Is yours that of a presuppositionalist?
Best of luck talking to those who do not question their assumptions.
The honest philosopher discerns from the lay person by virtue of a powerful philosophical impulse- and that spells skepticism.
which hearkens to an old proverb, possibly of Indian origins: the believer is happy while the doubter, wise.
The key point you originally made was that a metaphysical position must be presupposed in order to engage in epistemology. Now it's about an objective reality? I can't keep up.
The question of an objective reality just might be a boogeyman, a derivative of the structure of our language. In fact, as far as I am concerned, metaphysics is simply the division of the world into two. The unity of the mythical pre-philosophical experience is fragmented into "being" ( or in your words, 'objective reality') and "becoming." It is entertaining to notice that once we realize that through the categories in which we attempt to define reality (external world, objective reality, universe, whatever mythopoetic phrase you feel most comfortable with) are meaningless- not that the universe is meaningless- but that simple faith in the categories of reason results in nihilism. That thee Kantian critique of metaphysics is the first step to nihilism is a never ending source of hilarity, personally. Happy reconfirming your assumptions.
~Transcendentalist~

phaedrus

hugo

Are you an Eco fan too?

Yup like his verbal calisthenics inspite of the translation bit

Galt

If all you are saying here is that I have learned a lot of what I know from the society in which I have grown up, you are right

Good, so your truths are in someway connected to the societal ones

Please explain what you mean when you say that there could be 'umpteen number of interpretations'. Do you mean that some other city could have been made the Capital of France? This is true, but it doesn't change the fact that Paris is really the Capital of France, now.

That statement was generic in nature pointing out to the subjectivity part.

When you say that 'truth is a "practical" concept, it is not sitting out there waiting for us to discover, it is made through the process of communicative rationality', do you mean that it wasn't discovered that the atmosphere of Earth consists of, among other things, oxygen? IF this is not what you mean, will you please rephrase your remarks.

Ahh...comprehension levels....How was it discovered that our atmosphere consists of oxygen? Ask yourself that question and you will be able to comprehend what i meant.

Beyond these questions, I am curious about what you might say about your own belief that 'truth is a "practical" concept, it is not sitting out there waiting for us to discover, it is made through the process of communicative rationality'. Is this belief true because truth is a practical concept that is not sitting out there waiting for us to discover' or is it true because of something else.

How do you hold somethings to be true or subscribe to certain beliefs? The same applies to everyone.

JP

John Galt, Jr.

Phaedrus,

I am still confused and it may be that I originally chose an example that is not the best. It will be helpful if we can try a different example.

Does what you said in your original post in this thread mean that my belief that dinosaurs once lived on Earth is a true belief not because dinosaurs once really did live on Earth(not because of the objective fact that dinosaurs lived on earth), but because of something else?

John Galt, Jr.

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>

Keith Russell

Starboy:

I've been away for a while; I wasn't ignoring your question, I had some other things which required my attention.

I'm not a mathematician, so I cannot address your question directly, since I (frankly) do not understand it.

But, I can say something about matehematics in general, even though I cannot address your example equation specifically.

Numbers are a recognition of a fact of reality. When one sees two apples and two people, one recognizes that the quantity (of apples and people) is the same, even though the individual objects may have no actual characteristics in common.

So, if a mathematical equation is true, it can be applied to a certain quantity of any specific, real objects.

Mathematics is a science abstracted from reality--but it is certainly not completely separate from it.

Keith.

phaedrus

Galt

Would appreciate that you go through the OP again....there is no "something else", "shared understanding" arrived through free exchange of ideas and thoughts is the basis of ours and the society's knowledge base. All our web-of-beliefs do not exist in isolation, they are interconnected so that this base is dynamic nature. At the same time there are individuals whose web-of-belief is static since they refuse to accept new inputs. The belief in the existence of dinosaurs is also a result of this interaction and shared understanding by the scientific community. We as a society have accepted that dinosaurs had existed in the past, based on what we agreed to be sufficient evidence and plausbile theories. We made/discovered the truth based on our current understanding, if tomorrow there comes new evidence or new theories and everyone subscribes to it, we will change our beliefs.

jp

Keith Russell

Phaedrus:

'We' didn't discover the evidence of dinosaurs, specific individuals did. Most of us believe in dinosaurs solely because we know of the work done by these few men and women.

If new evidence is discovered tomorrow, that proves that our understanding of dinosaurs is greatly flawed, 'we' won't change our beliefs about dinosaurs for quite a while.

Some may not change their beliefs at all.

(There are people now who claim that the dinosaur bones were put into the earth by Satan, to confuse people about the true age of the earth.)

Not everyone is rational; there is no 'we'.

Keith.