Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Epistemology

bluestreak said:
Yes, but it's not right. It's not that NOTHING matter, it's that it doesn't matter whether we can truly know anything. While it MAY be that every experience of either of ours is an illusion, we may just be part of the matrix or whatever, the simple truth is that, to all intents and purposes the illusion is real. Assuming that there is no knowledge except the bits we decide are facts is shoddy thinking. You, me, everyone else in this world are either living a real life or sharing a mass illusion. The effects are the same. Stuff really does matter. It matters tor a number of reasons:

1. You're a brain in a jar and everyone else's consciousness is an illusion, so your actions only truly impact on your own psyche. Result - you still need to live with yourself.

2. There is a divine controller of some sort who will call you to account once this physical life is over. Therefore your actions need to be considered in light of their auditing process.

3. There is no shared illusion, we are all independent agencies to the degree our society and upbringing allows us and our action impact on each other. Therefore stuff matters because of the sanctions our community and society and indeed our own flesh and bone can put on us.

There are more but those are the important ones.
Click to expand...
*applauds*

An agent, a Dasein, is of the world and shapes the world, acting upon it in various ways. As potters know their craft of shaping clay, so agencies know their craft of changing their world.

But that of course is to start with one's being-in-the-world. Another possible place to start is with Radical Doubt. One's assuming a different kind of metaphysic, that's all.
 
...but there is a devastating existential implication to this, which is why noone wants to admit it (i suspect)
Click to expand...
Certainly is. But one continues living right way through an existential crisis, to emerge as a being-in-the-world.

And people have conceded far more than you allow. One can certainly be mistaken about any particular of the world; but one cannot say one knows nothing. It's just unsayable. That's not exactly useful, but it's not trivial either. Language is important, and we are talking in terms of information, of having information about the world, a world in which we are intimately engaged, and in which we act. One might even know things; but if so it's likely we can't be sure what.

None of this is a remedy for for the devastating existential implications of radical doubt, for all of the preceding paragraph also applies to Descartes' line on dreams and madness. But an existential crisis doesn't last for ever, so who cares? :)
 
I definitely feel my own 'existential crisis' (urgh) has passed.

Jonti, you put it better than I ever can. I agree with what you are saying here.
 
Jonti said:
Certainly is. But one continues living right way through an existential crisis, to emerge as a being-in-the-world.
Click to expand...

Beautiful :)

And people have conceded far more than you allow. One can certainly be mistaken about any particular of the world; but one cannot say one knows nothing. It's just unsayable. That's not exactly useful, but it's not trivial either. Language is important, and we are talking in terms of information, of having information about the world, a world in which we are intimately engaged, and in which we act. One might even know things; but if so it's likely we can't be sure what.

None of this is a remedy for for the devastating existential implications of radical doubt, for all of the preceding paragraph also applies to Descartes' line on dreams and madness. But an existential crisis doesn't last for ever, so who cares? :)
Click to expand...


Yeah who cares?


i suppose my point was, the existential crisis is actually true, knowledge really is impossible

but we arent going to get to the bottom of that here...........
 
I can offer you a "some things are unsayable, and the existential crisis is temporary" in exchange.

Best I can do!
 
Serious question Max: do you distinguish between the non-knowledge belief I have that I live in Flat no.5, and the non-knowledge belief that the Holocaust didn't happen? (I'm not trying to say that if you don't believe in knowledge then you're a Nazi, by the way.)

And, to go back to the earlier argument: I only believe knowledge is possible when it is the particular *knowledge I have previously defined (i.e. is not certain). The knowledge that you are railing against is not some pre-existing phenemonon that we are trying to determine the nature of, it is entirely a human construct. You haven't discovered something about the world, you have just analysed a word in such a way as to make it an empty concept. With a more nuanced and, in my case, contingent definition we can come up with a rich and useful description of *knowledge, a part of which can be a discussion about how we should form beliefs about religion, politics, social science, New Age beliefs, jurisprudence and so on. Are you really arguing that we shouldn't distinguish between good and bad justification for belief?
 
bluestreak said:
Yes, but it's not right. It's not that NOTHING matter, it's that it doesn't matter whether we can truly know anything.
Click to expand...

Depends. It doesn't matter for you personally if you don't want to think further about its implications. It doesn't affect your daily life or your approach to the world then.
On the other hand you have people convinced they have knowledge and convinced they have to push that self-suggestion onto others. You find them in all sorts, shdaes and grades. I oppose them for as long as I can remember being able to think.

I'm not talking about illusions, Im' talking about knowledge. You switch the subject to an entirely different issue. (suggestion and self-suggestion of having knowledge is not illusion, in any case not in the interpretation you gave it)

salaam.
 
I'm not sure I get what you mean? you mean the peddling of lies and propaganda etc?
 
bluestreak said:
I'm not sure I get what you mean? you mean the peddling of lies and propaganda etc?
Click to expand...

No, those ware willingly created distortions only affecting the gullible or those too lazy to think for themselves.
I mean people who are really convinced they and they alone have knowledge (of what is the truth, for example). You can't debate with such people about their conviction (unless you have arguments that knock them off their feet from the very start) and most of te time they want everyone to think like they do. Sometimes by all means possible.

Knowledge is not an illusion because somewhere it resides, out of reach for the human mind. That is the only problem :)

salaam.
 
Alex B said:
Are you really arguing that we shouldn't distinguish between good and bad justification for belief?
Click to expand...

yes!! they are only good and bad according to that particular justification. anything could be true.

on the surface you can still go about making your laws and adjusting them, but be aware you cant truely justify yourself, because:

you can never know the results of your actions
you have no absolute knowledge
and all you have are your beliefs

now this doesnt mean that you stop making laws, just that you feel a bit less self righteous about them, and more humble and open to critisism. and i dont think thats a bad thing!

so my answer is- you can continue to superficially distinguish good and bad justification of belief (whatever is meant by that)- but i would prefer the laws of my country to be laid down by someone who doesnt take these good and bad justifications so deep into their heart that they become less compassionate.
 
Jonti said:
*applauds*

An agent, a Dasein, is of the world and shapes the world, acting upon it in various ways. As potters know their craft of shaping clay, so agencies know their craft of changing their world.
QUOTE]

the knowledge of a potter about his clay is not the sort that can taught purely by description.

working with clay is a very subtle art, it takes direct experience to become skilled at it. you have to feel your way. you use an almost trance-like concentration to create professional pottery. the 'knowledge' aquired by a potter is held in the unconcious mind. no matter how much i listened to my pottery teacher, and read books about pottery i could not aquire this subtle knowledge without directly experiencing it. bit like the mystical experience.
Click to expand...
 
Jonti said:
Certainly is. But one continues living right way through an existential crisis, to emerge as a being-in-the-world.
Click to expand...

I never had an existential crisis and most possibly I shall never encounter one as long as I am in full possion ofmy brain functions.
It can only happen if for some reason you develop a fear and next allow that to become totally overwhelming your psyche.
Take some prozac, I would say :) :)

salaam.
 
i-am-your-idea said:
now this doesnt mean that you stop making laws, just that you feel a bit less self righteous about them, and more humble and open to critisism. and i dont think thats a bad thing!
Click to expand...
But - and I really hate to do this - your justification for this belief is entirely at odds with your own soi-disant relativism about justification and is, by your own argument, EXACTLY as valid as a belief that the Holocaust did not happen or that the moon is made of green cheese.
 
Aldebaran said:
No, those ware willingly created distortions only affecting the gullible or those too lazy to think for themselves.
I mean people who are really convinced they and they alone have knowledge (of what is the truth, for example). You can't debate with such people about their conviction (unless you have arguments that knock them off their feet from the very start) and most of te time they want everyone to think like they do. Sometimes by all means possible.

Knowledge is not an illusion because somewhere it resides, out of reach for the human mind. That is the only problem :)

salaam.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, I think I see what you mean. It was the semi-mystic stuff that confused me.

All I can really say is "yes, if you like" to that post, I guess. It doesn't really seem to be a measured response to my argument, more a casual addendum. I can't really tell if you're agreeing with me that we should assume that reality is not an illusion, or if you're disagreeing with my assertion that stuff matters.
 
Alex B said:
But - and I really hate to do this - your justification for this belief is entirely at odds with your own soi-disant relativism about justification and is, by your own argument, EXACTLY as valid as a belief that the Holocaust did not happen or that the moon is made of green cheese.
Click to expand...

what justification? :confused:
 
bluestreak said:
Ah, yes, I think I see what you mean. It was the semi-mystic stuff that confused me.

All I can really say is "yes, if you like" to that post, I guess. It doesn't really seem to be a measured response to my argument, more a casual addendum. I can't really tell if you're agreeing with me that we should assume that reality is not an illusion, or if you're disagreeing with my assertion that stuff matters.
Click to expand...

There is nothing mystical about my arguments, it is pure logical reasoning.

Stuff matters if you want it to matter and most of the time that is even a necessity caused by your confrontation with it.
That doesn't mean that your reality is the reality of others. You only approach it as if it is (because you are forced to live it,we can't escape what we shape as our reality) while the approach of the others is always different than yours, subtle as that sometimes may be.

salaam.
 
bluestreak said:
This so-called intuition is a type of knowledge FFS... *weeps*
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Knowledge is an eternal absolute, a beginning and endmark, unchangeable. That is why it is out of reach for the human mind and hence should be treated as non-existent.

salaam.
 
Aldebaran said:
I never had an existential crisis and most possibly I shall never encounter one as long as I am in full possession of my brain functions ...
Click to expand...
It's surprisingly common (if also something of an affectation) among young philosophy students who experience the full force of the radical doubt perspective (coming at things from a Cartesian angle, you understand).

I'm looking forward to your assessment of Where Descartes Went Wrong -- no hurry of course. This is the philosophy forum :D
 
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