Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Epistemology

"By way of clarification, Huxley states, "In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable" (Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889). While A. W. Momerie has noted that this is nothing but a definition of honesty, Huxley's usual definition goes beyond mere honesty to insist that these metaphysical issues are fundamentally unknowable"
 
Max - I am sorry to pester you about more philosophers, but have you ever read any Saul Kripke? He is quite up to date (last 20 years or so).

He is famous for a series of lectures he gave called Naming and Necessity.

I probably wont be able to give a great summary of it. But it is one of the most brilliant papers I have read. I have used it in almost every philosophy essay I have wrote, in some way or another.

He argues for a causal theory of reference, which gives us rigid designators which are named objects across all possible worlds in which the object exists.

He also uses the idea a posteriori necessity: in all possible worlds h2o will always be h20, even if water is called something else. These are facts that are necessarily true.

He then argues against identity materialism in the philosophy of mind, that every mental fact is identified with a material fact

(roughly paraphrased from wikipedia as I am a bit hungry and distracted)
 
yes i read naming and necessity, i studied it in a course on naming and reference, and some other important papers in that area from russell and Quine
 
Recommend any?

I think naming and necessity is some of the best more recent philosophy I can think of.

I love its almost mystical conclusions!
 
Alex B said:
the very notion of a dream comes from recognising that it isn't reality, and is qualitatively distinct from the rest of our experience.
Click to expand...

you never recognize that a dream isnt reality (except very rarely in lucid dreams)

a dream remains entirely convincing, until you wake up, and it is qualitatively identical to real life, for example, a dream dog may look identical to a waking dog

this could therefore apply to your belief in 'dogs', you cannot be certain that they really exist
 
max_freakout said:
you never recognize that a dream isnt reality (except very rarely in lucid dreams)

a dream remains entirely convincing, until you wake up, and it is qualitatively identical to real life, for example, a dream dog may look identical to a waking dog

this could therefore apply to your belief in 'dogs', you cannot be certain that they really exist
Click to expand...

I think we kind of know that it's a dream; that's why we resist or whatever when a good one is ending.

We don't resist when going from reality into a dream state, because we know we'll return to reality.
 
max_freakout said:
you never recognize that a dream isnt reality (except very rarely in lucid dreams)

a dream remains entirely convincing, until you wake up, and it is qualitatively identical to real life, for example, a dream dog may look identical to a waking dog

this could therefore apply to your belief in 'dogs', you cannot be certain that they really exist
Click to expand...
Dreams are qualitatively very different from real life, but many of our brain functions are effectively incapacitated in them, which is why we don't get upset when people suddenly turn into other people or we find ourselves back at school or something. Additionally, and more obviously, dreams are disconnected and short, whereas real life is consistent and stable.
 
Alex B said:
Dreams are qualitatively very different from real life, but many of our brain functions are effectively incapacitated in them, which is why we don't get upset when people suddenly turn into other people or we find ourselves back at school or something. Additionally, and more obviously, dreams are disconnected and short, whereas real life is consistent and stable.
Click to expand...

a dream dog could be completely identical to a real dog

i am basically using Descartes' argument, doubt from dreaming
 
max_freakout said:
a dream dog could be completely identical to a real dog

i am basically using Descartes' argument, doubt from dreaming
Click to expand...
Appeal to Descartes all you like, dream dogs are qualitatively distinct from real dogs. Dream dogs do not persist through time, and the memory of them can fade very quickly (due to the huge difference in nature of real experiences and dream experiences). Dogs exist.
 
Alex B said:
Appeal to Descartes all you like, dream dogs are qualitatively distinct from real dogs. Dream dogs do not persist through time, and the memory of them can fade very quickly (due to the huge difference in nature of real experiences and dream experiences). Dogs exist.
Click to expand...



you could see a dog in a dream, which looked identical to a real dog (ie 4 legs, fur, bark etc) and never suspect that it was a dream

therefore, there is no difference between a dream dog, and a real dog

you could have a really long and engaging dream about a dog, and you can have a dream about a dog which you remember forever after waking up (some people keep dream diaries)
 
Max, you've got nothing but what ifs and maybes. Provide either a good solid argument or actual evidence please.
 
To experience a dog in a dream you would need a causal reference from real life.

Dogs are a bit vague in this example.

Why not use the example of water?
 
max_freakout said:
actual evidence for what?
Click to expand...

Are you beling deliberately dense I wonder?

Am I being trolled?

Could this whole thing just be a great big wind up?

Or are you really this dim?

Either way I'm thinking this thread has run its course for me.
 
It had run its course a long time ago for me.

Its not going to go anywhere. that is the point. There is nowhere and nothing. This is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Literally.
 
All max has is clever little word games, without realizing the game he is even playing.

I think Socrates would have called him a sophist.
 
You've all missed the point. Someone who is allowed to walk the streets, to vote and to own property, is trying to convince us that dogs don't exist.
 
I think max is trying to say that because it is possible that dogs might not exist, then they actually don't, or something or other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Zizek’s positivist epistemology
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
7K
Knotted
K
inflatable jesus
Epistemology question
Replies
3
Views
717
bhamgeezer
B
ItWillNeverWork
Epistemological Holism and The Incompleteness Theorem
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
littlebabyjesus
littlebabyjesus
Back
Top Bottom