Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Epistemology

That seems to be what we find, emprically. The answer seems to be "by enabling an inner voice".

But do empirical results have anything to offer in this context, a context of Pure Philosophy? That would be to assume knowledge; but we are trying to decide whether the very idea is coherent, not do some kind of scientific investigation.

I'm happy to do natural philosophy myself; and am also fascinated by the philosophy of science. So I'm happy to look at how things are. To look and see what is the fate of a human, if that person has never had the opportunity to develop language.
 
death and dying would seem like things you can be sure you know of.

but after you have told yourself 'i am dead' and believed this to be certain, and THEN still been alive, then you know you can never be certain of anything again. :)
 
Can we also clarfiy whether it is 'feelage' or 'feel-edge', as they appear to be interchangable terms and I'm not really comfortable as I'm not sure that the linguistic roots of -age and -edge allow it to be interchangeable.
 
I don't doubt I exist. I don't doubt I feel hunger.

I don't really think I can doubt these things.
 
Incidentally, fact fans*, the very word 'philosophy' means love of knowledge. How ironic then, that max self-identifies as a philosopher and yet rejects the possibility of knowledge.


*I know, I know, there are no facts to be a fan of, I merely believe the etymology of this word to be this when it could in fact mean abolutely anything else. In fact, if I wasn't standing in the dark I'd be aware that philosophy actually means philo "feel" and sophy "age".
 
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

- An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, by David Hume.
 
i-am-your-idea is being a bit naughty; feelage would be an OK term; just treat feel-edge as a poetical device.

We see (experience) boundaries and change, because of the way our bodies work. The flat unchanging expanses between are insignificant in our minds. We feel the edges, so to speak. The pun makes that point and the obvious; that direct experience cannot be doubted.
 
What about matrix theory and all them fellas that suggest that experience can be doubted? brain inna jar and all that?

Personally I subscribe to the notion that if we really are all wired into the matrix then the illusion IS reality and should be treated as such.
 
that's just the interpretation; the direct bit -- that there is experience -- cannot be doubted. Meditation One, I think; or did he psyche himself up first ... :hmm:
 
Oh, I take the view that there is such a thing as reality. Just that the depths of illusion and "madness" cannot be doubted. A person who learns to remember their dreams (by keeping a bed side dream diary and using it immediately on waking) can discover this for themself. Or read your Oliver Sacks (spelt correctly this time :oops:).
 
What about matrix theory and all them fellas that suggest that experience can be doubted? brain inna jar and all that?

Personally I subscribe to the notion that if we really are all wired into the matrix then the illusion IS reality and should be treated as such.

illusion is reality. that sounds like a paradox to me! :hmm:

:)
 
You can play with language; or tell me what you cannot doubt.

there is nothing that isnt open to doubt.

i can doubt everything. we cannot know the nature of reality.

its a matter of faith and what you believe in. during my everyday life i take reality as it appears to me, my personal experience of it. but philosophically speaking the only thing i know about it, is that i know nothing about it.

i could be a brain in a jar, but i have faith that i am not.
 
You haven't answered.

I think it is unwise to draw strong conclusions from any area of science, its interpretations are always open to revision. So of course I wouldn't want to draw any strong conclusions from the results of psychopathology. The pure philosopical doubt tends to zero in the face of the results of natural philosophy and science (in its broadest sense of evidenced rational discouse).
 
"we cannot know the nature of reality."

Are you saying that to have knowledge we have to know the nature of reality? That's a pretty high bar you've set there!
 
I suspect that max and i_am-max's_ideas are confusing philosophy with theosophy at times. There is a lot of their stuff that tends towards the latter I think. I'm no expert though, thoughts anyone?
 
that's just the interpretation; the direct bit -- that there is experience -- cannot be doubted. Meditation One, I think; or did he psyche himself up first ... :hmm:

Meditation One? Sorry I don't get the reference, I'm afraid my philosophy is a bit hands on rather than academic. I certainly agree with the statement "that there is experience cannot be doubted".
 
Personally I subscribe to the notion that if we really are all wired into the matrix then the illusion IS reality and should be treated as such.

Innit, also having seen the number of philosophy students who go doolaly I recomend not thinking about these things too hard!
 
Back
Top Bottom