I was a teenage logical positivist

[littlebabyjesus]

but regardless, your point doesn't address what i asked - i.e. what empirical observation could be made which would objectively falsify, not just start to doubt, it

No need. Just starting to doubt it is good enough.

 

[revol68]

Ok, this is a good criticism. Particularly your last sentence. I shall try to address it.


In a sense you are completely right that it is idealism of the highest order as it specifically excludes one particular question from study - taking it as inaccessible to study, in fact. This is my position, pretty much: The fact of existence is not something we can say anything meaningful about - it is simply something we have to accept. But it is the only thing we cannot say anything meaningful about. It is the nature of all complete systems that they cannot completely prove themselves from reference only to themselves. If you want to call that idealism, you are not entirely unjustified. Nonetheless, I think it is provably true.

As for 'knowledge can only arise from acting in the world'. Yes, but I think this is a circular statement. Knowledge and the world coexist. There cannot be one without the other. This is why I said that I consider 'existence is' and 'knowledge is' to be effectively equivalent statements.

if only some smart guy had come up with a name for this seeming contradiction of knowledge being shaped by experience yet on the same time producing experience, it's kind of like some sort of materialist dialectics or something.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

if only some smart guy had come up with a name for this seeming contradiction of knowledge being shaped by the experience yet on the same time producing experience, it's kind of like some sort of materialist dialectics or something.

I don't think it's a contradiction. You'll have to forgive my ignorance of certain philosophical traditions, I'm afraid. I'm sure there are some that I know more about than you too.

 

[revol68]

I don't think it's a contradiction. You'll have to forgive my ignorance of certain philosophical traditions, I'm afraid. I'm sure there are some that I know more about than you too.

i wasn't trying to take the piss.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

i wasn't trying to take the piss.

Oh, ok.

 

[love detective]

No need. Just starting to doubt it is good enough.

i'm starting to doubt knowledge is - as there's always the possibility that it isn't

 

[littlebabyjesus]

i'm starting to doubt knowledge is - as there's always the possibility that it isn't

What grounds are there to doubt it?

 

[love detective]

what grounds are there to doubt that a metaphysical statement is a statement whose truth cannot be tested?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

what grounds are there to doubt that a metaphysical statement is a statement whose truth cannot be tested?

That's a different kind of statement - it is a definition of a word: this word signifies this particular concept.

Knowledge is is a statement that says something about knowledge. It is not a definition of knowledge.

You can rephrase the statement 'A metaphysical statement is a statement whose truth cannot be tested' as 'I am using the term 'metaphysical statement' to mean a statement whose truth cannot be tested'. In fact, this is a fuller explanation of what is happening.

You cannot rephrase 'Knowledge is' in such a way. It is not merely a statement about semantics.

 

[love detective]

do you think a metaphysical statement is a statement whose truth could be tested?

if not then I'm not sure why you are disputing that the statement that i gave you (based on your own definitions) is a meaningful metaphysical statement. After accepting that it is, by all means then change your definitions to get to where you want to go if you want, but don't deny that something that you asked for, based on definitions you supplied, is not what it is

and what exactly does knowledge is say about knowledge that is not already contained within the concept of knowledge? likewise existence is or experience is are in my mind completely analytical a priori statements - not any less definitional than the one i provided

 

[littlebabyjesus]

See my edit. the second formulation of that statement 'I am using term x to signify the concept y' is not a metaphysical statement.

As to what knowledge is says that isn't definitional? Well, it is quite possible to come up with things that are not. Unicorns do not exist as far as we know as real animals. That doesn't stop us being able to define unicorn completely fully. But knowledge isn't just a theoretical concept. Knowledge is is a statement that asserts this. So no, I do not accept that this is not less definitional.

 

[love detective]

also, gonna stop editing your posts after other people have responded to them

 

[love detective]

See my edit. the second formulation of that statement 'I am using term x to signify the concept y' is not a metaphysical statement.

do you think a metaphysical statement is a statement whose truth could be tested?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

also, gonna stop editing your posts after other people have responded to them

I was editing while you were responding. I didn't know you were responding. I edit my posts sometimes. I shall continue to do so.

 

[revol68]

i'm starting to doubt knowledge is - as there's always the possibility that it isn't

 

[love detective]

As to what knowledge is says that isn't definitional? Well, it is quite possible to come up with things that are not. Unicorns do not exist as far as we know as real animals. That doesn't stop us being able to define unicorn completely fully. But knowledge isn't just a theoretical concept. Knowledge is is a statement that asserts this. So no, I do not accept that this is not less definitional.

so positing that existence exists, adds something that is not already contained within the concept of existence?

 

[revol68]

that old Marx quote about philosophy and masturbation comes to mind

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I hope that's sorted the confusion about my original challenge.

 

[love detective]

that old Marx quote about philosophy and masturbation comes to mind

From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need?

 

[love detective]

I hope that's sorted the confusion about my original challenge.

does positing that existence exists, add something that is not already contained within the concept of existence?

 

[revol68]

From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need?

Yeeeooooo!

 

[love detective]

orgasmic composition of capital

 

[nino_savatte]

Greenspan was also a member of Ayn Rand's inner circle.

No. Really? You don't say. Knock me down with a feather and all that stuff.

 

[nino_savatte]

what do you mean by that? if its a reference to the financial crisis, yew got the wrong fella.

Greenspan was the chairman of the Federal Reserve. He is also a logical positivist. I think I've got the right man.

 

[Santino]

A metaphysical statement: Every event has a cause.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A metaphysical statement: Every event has a cause.

This is certainly a meaningful statement, even if its truth can be doubted. 'Every event has a cause' appears to mean one very particular thing for existence, which is that it has to be circular. There cannot be a 'first cause', itself uncaused.

So this is a hypothesis about existence, and theoretically testable, perhaps even knowable if you can come to understand the circular nature of existence that enables it to be true.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I've never understood analytical philosophy, its all form no content, like trying to understand a novel through studying the rules of grammar.

OK time for me to declare my hand, I think.

It seems to me that you miss the point with this statement. The content comes from science. There is as much and as rich a content as you can imagine (literally).

Philosophers, it seems to me, very often mistake scientific questions for philosophical ones. Santino's 'Every event has a cause' is a case in point. This is a scientific question.

If you want to understand the world, you have to study it. Science exists to do that. Here is where the interesting answers are to be found, and engagement with the empirical evidence is the very best way to equip yourself for a proper philosophical understanding of what you are doing. It seems to me that scientists like Richard Feynman were far better philosophers than those who style themselves as 'professional' philosophers.


Existence is. Now get stuck in. Everything else is up for grabs! What could be a richer or more liberating (or truer) philosophy than that?

 

[Santino]

You've just begged the question and defined anything meaningful as science. Metaphysics is just a category of question.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Needless to say, I don't think I have begged the question. I think I've answered it.

 

[Santino]

Some people label certain questions/issues as metaphysical. You say they're scientific. What are they saying about these issues that you disagree with?