The only true statement I can make: Philosophy Forums

Forums Links Articles Gallery Chat

Members Calendar New Posts Chat Help

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » The only true statement I can make » The only true statement I can make

The only true statement I can make

print

Print

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

The only true statement I can make

Brad
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 29, 2002
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 882

Posted 05/12/03 - 09:30 PM:	#21
I think Jon is right here. Doubt isn't something that shows us that most of our beliefs are false, it is the ability to doubt that gives us a way to check and show that most of our beliefs are true. We aren't trapped in a language, language enables us to see the world as world.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 05/12/03 - 10:08 PM:	#22
Originally posted by Brad I think Jon is right here. Doubt isn't something that shows us that most of our beliefs are false, it is the ability to doubt that gives us a way to check and show that most of our beliefs are true. We aren't trapped in a language, language enables us to see the world as world. ___________________________________ As the American philosopher, C.S. Pierce pointed out, if the doubt is to be serious doubt, and not just "paper doubt" there has to be a positive reason for the doubt. To repeat, serious doubt does not consist in simply uttering or thinking the words, "I (hereby) doubt" Then, again, doubt is supposed to be contrasted with belief. A person who claims to doubt that there is a table or a book, and then places the book on the table , is hard to take seriously. What sort of doubt is it that has no implications for anything that you do? Again, is it just uttering or thinking the words, "I doubt?" Philosophical skepticism is not a matter of doubting that there are tables and chairs whatever that may come to. It is a matter of doubting something different, namely that we _know_ that there are tables and chairs. Thus, philosophical skepticism is consistent with believing that there are tables and chairs and, so, laying a book on a table.

Little_Timmy
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 08, 2003
Location: round on the ends, hi in the middle
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 103

Posted 05/12/03 - 11:26 PM:	#23
Jon1667, So basically you're saying the nature of the material world, and indeed all external existence is unknowable* and in fact irrelevant to epistemological inquiry? Only our internal conceptions of table and book, for example have any meaning/importance to the philosophical mind? Thus, philosophical skepticism is consistent with believing that there are tables and chairs and, so, laying a book on a table. but, that same skepticism is also consistent with believing that there is no external material reality, right? *if it's not unknowable, how does one come to knowledge (not beliefs) if we are to doubt that we can know such a thing? doubtfully, -LT p.s. i'll look at your 'philo-doubt' post tomorrow, good night.

truce_m3
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2003
Location: maryland
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 40

Posted 05/13/03 - 08:39 AM:	#24
Jon: Because doing none of the above would prove you are not living a dream; that what you percieve to be real is not (dillusions); that you are not living in a computer world; etc. All your encyclopedias, atlases (atlasi?) and plane trips would not prove that this city you call "Paris" exists outside of the sensory experience of your own mind, and therefore, can't be proven to exist. "I think, therefore I am": the only thing we can be sure of in this reality we call "life" is that the self exists; no other definitive statement on existance can be made, save that I am in "a" reality, the conditions and specifics of which I can make no claims on. What if tomorrow the veil of reality was ripped from you, and you found you weren't actually who, what or where you thought you were, and this "Paris" actually didn't exist. First of all, yes I do think I can doubt something just by uttering "I doubt it," but I don't think that's what you meant. Do I think I can cast doubt on something just by uttering these words? When it comes to the factual existence of soemthing outside the realm of my, your or his mind, then the answer is yes. The nature of "reality" is unknowable and cannot be, definitely, known. All we can say is that "a" reality exists.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 05/13/03 - 09:30 AM:	#25
Originally posted by Little_Timmy Jon1667, So basically you're saying the nature of the material world, and indeed all external existence is unknowable* and in fact irrelevant to epistemological inquiry? Only our internal conceptions of table and book, for example have any meaning/importance to the philosophical mind? but, that same skepticism is also consistent with believing that there is no external material reality, right? *if it's not unknowable, how does one come to knowledge (not beliefs) if we are to doubt that we can know such a thing? doubtfully, -LT p.s. i'll look at your 'philo-doubt' post tomorrow, good night.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 05/13/03 - 09:39 AM:	#26
Jon1667, So basically you're saying the nature of the material world, and indeed all external existence is unknowable* and in fact irrelevant to epistemological inquiry? Only our internal conceptions of table and book, for example have any meaning/importance to the philosophical mind? but, that same skepticism is also consistent with believing that there is no external material reality, right? *if it's not unknowable, how does one come to knowledge (not beliefs) if we are to doubt that we can know such a thing? doubtfully, -LT p.s. i'll look at your 'philo-doubt' post tomorrow, good night. ________________________________________ I hope I am not saying that. One reason is that I am not clear what "external reality" is supposed to be. No, I was only distinguishing between two kinds of skepticism, but endorsing neither kind. I am not, myself, any kind of skeptic, except, perhaps in Hume's very attenuted sense of "modest skepticism." which is to say, I don't think we can be infallible about anything. But, I do think we can, and do know a lot of things, and that we knew more fifty years ago than we did fifty years before, and that we know more now than we knew fifty years ago, mostly thanks to science. In fact, I begin with that premise, and try to explain its truth in terms of some epistemology. That is why I think it is a mistake to identify knowledge with certainty.

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 05/13/03 - 09:52 AM:	#27
Originally posted by truce_m3 Jon: Because doing none of the above would prove you are not living a dream; that what you percieve to be real is not (dillusions); that you are not living in a computer world; etc. All your encyclopedias, atlases (atlasi?) and plane trips would not prove that this city you call "Paris" exists outside of the sensory experience of your own mind, and therefore, can't be proven to exist. "I think, therefore I am": the only thing we can be sure of in this reality we call "life" is that the self exists; no other definitive statement on existance can be made, save that I am in "a" reality, the conditions and specifics of which I can make no claims on. What if tomorrow the veil of reality was ripped from you, and you found you weren't actually who, what or where you thought you were, and this "Paris" actually didn't exist. First of all, yes I do think I can doubt something just by uttering "I doubt it," but I don't think that's what you meant. Do I think I can cast doubt on something just by uttering these words? When it comes to the factual existence of soemthing outside the realm of my, your or his mind, then the answer is yes. The nature of "reality" is unknowable and cannot be, definitely, known. All we can say is that "a" reality exists. ____________________________________ I don't think it is up to me to prove I am not "living in a dream" whatever that might mean. And if I tried to do so (like pinching myself) you would not accept my evidence anyway, would you? So it would be difficult if I knew in advance that nothing I did would be accepted by you. So what would be the point? But all that would mean is that I could not convince you that I was not dreaming, not that pinching myself would not prove it. But, after all, why is the burden of proof on me. You are the one who is asserting I am living in a dream. You come up with an argument. I am waiting. You think you can doubt something by just uttering or thinking the words "I doubt." I wonder why. After all, your words don't have the consequences of doubt. You think you can doubt that there is a table and a book and then lay the book on the table, and still doubt there is a book and a table? My response would be that either you are joking, or that you don't know what it means to say that you doubt something. For you are certainly acting in the way that someone would act who believes there is a book and there is a table. What makes you think you are doubting there is a book and a table? That is not how the word "doubt" is used in English (or any translation of it is used in any other language.) So if you utter the words "I doubt there is a book and a table" and you nevertheless place the book on the table, I would simply deny that you are doubting what you say you are doubting. Perhaps you are joking; perhaps you are being insincere; or perhaps you do not know what the word "doubt" means. "Doubt" is not, as you seem to think, the name of a feeling of hesitancy. In fact, it is not the name of a feeling at all. "Actions speak louder than words." You've heard that.

truce_m3
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2003
Location: maryland
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 40

Posted 05/14/03 - 07:52 AM:	#28
I believe it is time to agree that we disagaree. Beautiful, isn't it? P.S. "Paris" ... that's a good one!

Gassendi1
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 10, 2003
Total Topics: 152
Total Posts: 11022

Posted 05/14/03 - 03:42 PM:	#29
What is "beautiful?" and why is "'Paris' a good one." Do you think that "philosophy" is synonomous with "obscurity" which is, in turn, synonomous with "profundity?"

truce_m3
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2003
Location: maryland
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 40

Posted 05/14/03 - 05:11 PM:	#30
whoah, you took that way too seriously!!! It is beautiful that we disagree. It's what makes the world go 'round. The Paris line was a joke in reference to the fact that I keep referring to Paris as "this 'Paris' of which you speak," playing on the fact that I claim it can't be proven to exist. There was no deeper meaning intended at all with that last post ... just trying to be light-hearted ... calm down ... Really, I was just trying to end the dialogue, because it has become obvious we have exhausted our respective arguments, and were getting nowhere.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.

26 total queries
This page was created in 0.68 seconds
Memory used: 11429984 bytes
Server Status: time since last reboot is 11 days, 6:35, load average: 1.02, 0.90, 0.79