This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.

Welcome to Our Community

Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.

Free will?

Discussion in 'The Philosopher' started by Opethian666, Jul 22, 2006.

?

Do you believe in free will?

  1. Yes, I believe in free will, and in the supernatural

    18.2%
  2. Yes, I believe in free will, but not in the supernatural

    22.7%
  3. No, I don't believe in free will, but I do believe in the supernatural

    4.5%
  4. No, I don't believe in free will, and I don't believe in the supernatural

    36.4%
  5. Other

    18.2%
  1. Demiurge

    Demiurge This user has no title

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,520
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    lunar stonehenge
    I want to clarify my thoughts on basic belief. Specifically, that its intuitive nature is problematic. When I consider the statement that you mentioned(all triangles are three-sided), its truth strikes me immediately, since I grasp the definitions. Admittedly, I am unable to tell you why exactly it may be false. However, nothing justifies my intuition. Propositions may strike me as self-evident even though they are false. Your argument is that a self-evident proposition is true because by understanding it, it is affirmed. That is sheer dogmatism. How do I know that my intuition that a proposition in which the predicate adds nothing to the subject is true? How do I know that the basic rules of logical thought that govern my rational processes do not mislead me?

    My conclusion is that rational intuition cannot be justified.
     
  2. judas69

    judas69 god is in the radio

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I brought up intuition and from glancing over what he wrote, he isn't really going that far.

    What I think he's saying is that to be a hard determinist as you are and I was for a long time, is to be caught in the middle of the process only caring to explain relating events. That's not to say determinism is false, but causality implies an infinity of caused causes and as far as the human mind goes, and as far as what determinism is grounded on, we understand things only in terms of beginnings and ends (by linear means) and such considerations thus are self-evident and undeniable by the human determinist, when this dichotomy is at the heart of its function.

    Either there is no uncaused caused, or there is. If we aren't seeing the process correctly (the forest through the trees ..ie, its a parallel-bidirectional-time issue over say, a linear-unidirectional-time issue) then determinism is no better grounded than any other belief system.

    As far as intuition goes, it works on a parallel level and not in terms of linear bits. There are certain things I know by intuition and experience there of, that can never be completely understood or represented by linear, bit by bit analysis, when the true power of our nervous system is parallel in nature. We actually make a world that works on a parallel grid more complex by chopping it up and trying to understandnig it apart from the whole. Again, it's like trying to understand the forest by looking at trees; you never will unless you see it all at once via that unconscious, intuitive part of your mind.
     
  3. judas69

    judas69 god is in the radio

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I should also mention that I've become a soft determinism, even though for a longtime I've considered it a contradictory position (I felt it had to be one way or the other). I now deny (and incorporate) them both, understanding that neither side is complete on it's own and there are parts of each that are necessary for the other.
     
  4. Demiurge

    Demiurge This user has no title

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,520
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    lunar stonehenge
    There is a problem with appealing to intuitions to justify intuitions. If I understand with my intuitive, unconscious mind, then what is to justify its intuitions? More intuitions? Attempts to establish certain knowledge appear hopelessly doomed.

    P.S. Not that it really matters, but fallibilism is standard in contemporary epistemology. Few philosophers still believe we can know infallibly.
     
  5. judas69

    judas69 god is in the radio

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The problem here is, the world is neither all black, nor all white, as is fundamental to your science and conventinal thinking. There is a relationship between all seemingly contradictory extremes to the point of which you can't explain, define or know from a black or white perspective alone especially without full consideration of the other side. Kurt Godel proved that in every logical system there is a premise that cannot be defined without contradicting itself.

    To continue, you're intentially or unintentially, misrepresenting this arguement or just not getting it, but let's look at what you're saying.

    You're blindly adhereing to the system of causality at the very start of your reasoning, and then suddenly, find that you're trapped in ad infinitum when trying to understand another point of view; ultimately concluding everyone else must therefore be wrong. Why not instead first consider causuality and its own issues?

    Remember, if there is one single cause that was not caused, determinism is false or incomplete. Either everything has been going on for infinity and is somehow beyond our cognitive scope, or determinism has some big issues all the same.

    As far as intuition goes for myself, and what I personally have said aside from what anyone else may have mentioned or implied, we again do not live in a world painted completely in black and white. It only becomes black or white, good or bad, when we apply our restricted one-way-or-the-other linear thinking to it, and that's when we get into trouble. This is why people are running around calling this evil, and that good, when in reality it is to not understand the flawed nature of the way we think and understand the world in the first place. As I mentioned in a previous thread, as soon as you start thinking conventionally and abstractly, you split up the truth, you divide understanding.

    True, intuitive thought, is not mindful of imposed dichotomy and thus, is beyond such distinction and cannot be categorized in any ridgid form.
     
  6. Dominick_7

    Dominick_7 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Jo mamas' land..
    If you don't know if He exists for sure, doesn't that mean His existence is possible? And doesn't youre attempt to put God into the category of something you know as pretty likely to be not actual shows that you know God is in a different category than the mere imaginary? Why do you put him into that category when you said you don't know for sure He exists? In other words why put an additional tag of a synical "imaginary" on TOP on you knowing youre not sure He exists?


    Eastern thinking, or more so the mind itself, and reason, is usually seen as itself the obsticle. Eastern philosophy, of the patheistic sort, sees the mind as the source of illusions about reality. It takes the more consistent route in undermining their own thinking about reality than does demiurge. Demiurges philosophy denigrates any reliabillity in reason, while at the same time seeming pretty sure and certain all thought isnt really certain at all. So why dichotomize that with scientific thinking? While I agree that mere probabillity conclusions have no weight unless theyre grounded in actually necessary knowledge, for else its not neceessarily true that even probabillities apply to reality, why go along with Demiurge and denegrate that possibility...while on the other side of your mouth act like reason makes a difference? I say this because you actually say it certainly fails in many accounts. Since a pantheist would say all is ultimate, how would that not mean that all thinking fails since it attempts to abstract and make distinctions about reality when they simultaneously believe no real distinctions exist?



    WHy buy into the enlightements false dichotomy between faith and reason when the distinction doesnt exist? I agree that all other views can be based on blind faith, but one out of all of them must not be, but rather be based in solid actual objective truth. ALl can be wrong, but not all can be right. And that is eastern, and new age, whether you want to call it that or not.
     
  7. Demiurge

    Demiurge This user has no title

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,520
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    lunar stonehenge
    You are mistaken. I am applying Hans Albert's Munchausen Trilemma. If knowledge is purported to be infallibly justified, then the means of justification itself must be justified, ad infinitum. Dominick's response falls into the second horn of the Trilemma. He is a proponent of classical foundationalism. He says that there are basic beliefs which are infallibly justified. However, this does not meet the challenge, it ignores it. The philosopher Laurence Bonjour wrote "it is common to refer to the intellectual act in which the necessity of an analytic proposition is seen or grasped or apprehended is an act of...rational intuition." In other words, such a proposition seems necessary to our rational faculties, but we cannot go further than that. We are reliant upon our rational intuitions not misleading us. There is no way to prove that they are infallible. This problem(and others) has persuaded philosophers to reject classical foundationalism and accept a modest foundationalism which does not necessitate that basic beliefs are infallible. This is my clearest explanation and I do not know of how I could clarify further.

    Like I said to Dominick when I entered this thread: the heavy lifting in this argument is to demonstrate that the element of the self responsible for human agency is free from causality, and I don't see that anywhere in the thread. If determinism is true, then there is no libertarian free will, obviously. Philosophers and physicists have made arguments based on quantum indeterminacy against determinism. However, randomness does not preserve free will of the type that libertarian free willists want. Dominick appreciated the conundrum and appealed to dualism. That is how we got on the subject of the mind-body problem for part of the exchange. He needed an entity that is free from causal constraint as we understand it and has the power of self-direction, but substance dualism is a tenuous position, at best. I hope that the matter is transparent to you now.

    Edit: I did not mean to imply that there are no strong foundationalists whatsoever because there are still a few. I realize my post had the potential to mislead readers.
     
  8. Dominick_7

    Dominick_7 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Jo mamas' land..
    If your cognative process cannot be justified why believe it? If theres really not enough there to help you adjudicate between two truth claims, why do you go and play ouiiji board with it? I think youre confusing logical possibility with actuality. While its logically concievable you could be wrong about your own existence for example, its nevertheless actually undeniable. Why do you denigrate actual undeniabillity, where you must actually imply youe existence not prior to thinking about it, not after you state, ask, or deny you exist, but while being in the very process of thinking, asking or denying you exist. Thats just it, logical principles are true absractly, but rational principles are true actually. Theres a difference between reason and logic which you dont seem to agree with. Its not that you cant think of ways to deny them, you can deny them all day long, you just cant meaningfully deny them without your denial implying its true, invalidating your denial as false at the same time. Besides if you could be wrong about actuality, that means you should be open to seeing the evidence of self evidence and undeniaillity..but not surprisingly youre not..your Kantian approach disables you from doing so, because that approach is self negating.


    Its actually inescapable no matter which way you go. If you say you cant know anyTHING about phenomena, you must know something about it to say that, which shows its false to say you cant and dont know anyTHING about phenomena, thus true you know something about phenomena. The only way you can identify something as being determined in the mind is if you knew something contrary or idependant of the mind by which to differentiate it. Likewise its contradictory and impossible to meaningfully think or state "I cannot know actuality in itself as it is" for that implies knowledge of it to be able to identify it and enable youreself to know what it is youre denying vs another thing.



    This is a bad argument. The reason why something is true is if its corresponds to what its reffering to. When the meaning of the symbol used matches what its reffering to its true. Morning star and evening start do not have the same refferent because the meanings of each, as commonly understood, mean different things even while they formally use the same term in each. Just because two opposing statements use the same term doesnt mean they have the same context nor same meaning. Context determines meaning and intent of the author of a statement or claim. Since youre ignoring context and thus meaning, and only showing asuperficial similarily between the two statements, you havent in any way established the truth of your argument. WHat should be stated is that the meaning of the term or whole claim must be identical to or reducible to its subject. That is it doesnt matter what the symbol one uses, as long as the meaning that is contextually assigned to the claim is one that conveys something that matches its refferent. Its not stating that as long as you use symbols that match its refferent its true. Thats a gross misunderstanding and strawman.


    Youre erroneously reducining formal terms with meanings when meanings assigned to certain words change through time. It doesnt matter what the term is, it could be x, as long as one understands what the term or symbol means, according to the context it is in (perhaps an explanation of what meaning is being assigned to the term or symbol) and that it matches its refferent it is true. Youre offering one strawman after another perhaps from some secularistically biased philosophy text book or website.


    This is lame and it perhaps shows you really dont want to have an actual discussion. You seem to pretend youre open minded, but your philosophy, even if you really mean youre open minded because arent sure, doesnt allow you to really be. It seems to provide you with the feeling of saftey from truth, and thus responsibillity, as well as freedom (ironically), while at the same time temporarily satsifying your need for truth with partial truth. Why substitute real intellectual nourishment on par with organic vegetation with a level of menatl nourishment than is on the level of mcdonalds? This is yet another strawman of correspondance theory of truth. The claim "bachelor contains fewer than 9 letters" is completely dependant on the specific term bachelor, and becomes a completely different truth claim when using another synonymous word. While its the same meaning of the term shared between two different words, theyre not the same words. Just because they share the same menaing doesnt mean theyre fomally the same or use the same amount of number of letters in them...Lame.


    I wished you would move forward into the 16th century so that you could escape the muddled self undermining thinking you have seemed to hardily embrace. How post modern of you to do all the work of underming youre own argument for me. Again, while words or symbols change their meanings over time, in other words, while meanings may cease being assigned to a speicific word through time (the term leasing used to mean falsehood, now it probebly just reffers to a way of living in a particular real estate) the meanings do not. When I say "I exist" or when you say "I exist" the meaning is always the same, though the terms that represent the meaning may change through time. You could say that in another language and it will use diferent words to say the same thing, so the issue isnt the terms used, but whether in context the term(s) means something and that that particular meaning of the word/term corresponds to reality. Youre relavistic arguments make no sense and completely miss the point..then again that may be your point and intension so thats your preogative and choice to do so. No one and nothing is making you do that except yourself.


    False humility from a false and self negating worldview. One can take all of what youre saying as being that youre not sure of what youre saying correct? Why waste words when all you could say is you dont know for sure...instead of saying you cant know anyTHING for sure, and somehow seem sure of that concerning THINGS (in themselves)?



    WHile what youre saying may be a reaction to decart its not relevant to the argument Im giving. De Carte got de cart before de horse. Its not I think therefore I am, which already assumes one exists, rather its I am therefore I think for you must first exist to be able to state that oneself exists.

    Rather the argument being actually stated is: I am therefore I think, and I know that because its immediately verifiable as I engage in the very experiential process of thinking, stating, or deny that I exist for I must exist inorder to deny I exist. So its not a matter of depending on thinking to verify I exist, rather its being in the process of thinking about my existence that I see I must actually exist to do so. So again its not I (who exist) thinks, therefore I am. Rather its I am (I actually exist) therefore I think, for I must actualy exist inorder to be able to think about whether I do or not. While my non existence (and everythings non existence) is formally deniable, in that I can say it all day long, my non existence is nevertheless is not meaning affirmable without implying that I do exist.

    Besides how do you know that logical principles rest upon own cognative processes? The fact that one cannot deny them without using them shows their self justifying, not needing to be made evident or clear by another thing. One other thing that can be stated is that you confuse logic with reason. Logic deals with validity while reason deals with material truth about reality. You can have an absurd logical syllogism be valid yet ridiculously not true, where as something rational (like I exist) is either self evident or redicible to whats self evident. Its not dependning on deductive or inductive reasoning or logic..rather what Im saying is reductive in that its either identical or reducible to self evidence. Self evidence is not provable in the sense of how you speak of them, in terms of having to be made evident or claear by another thing..their clear in themselves, and cannot be made evident by another thing other than themselves.

    The way its known isnt circular, as if reason depends on reason inorder to verify reason is true and reliable..rather you must use reason in the process of asking about or denying reason is true, which isnt the same thing. To say "I can speak/type in english" one isnt using english as the basis of the argument, rather one is using english in the process of the argument..and because its using english in the process of the argument, thats how one can see its self evidence. So its not so much youre justifying self evidence on the basis of self evidence or justfying self evidence by something else (perhaps not self evident) rather youre seeing the clear evidence and reality of something that is evident in itself, while being in the process of thinking, asking, or denying if its true. Self evidence isnt used on the basis to prove or justify self evidence, rather its used in the process of observing if its self evident. So no infinite regress of justifications is necessary nor correct..that only comes about by intentional or unintentional proposed strawmen concenring this subject that you cant but live and act as if it were true.


    Thats not what is being claimed. Im not saying if you ask about anything that any proposed reality is true..Man not only does your view protect you from truth, and thus supposedly from responsibillity (at least the confrontation of knowing deep down youre responsible) but it also prevents you from having actual meaningfull discourse about it..Are you purposely misinterpreting what Im saying? Your views protects you not only from truth but also from real relationships..I think youve pretty much covered it then. Youre safe within the corrupting and self negating philosophy you have incorporated into your life from that which can move you foward. You have implied that, for why then wouldnt you say nothing or you dont know, IF youre really not sure? If your enot sure then you couldnt rule out anything, yet you attempt to. If you can rule out something then you can know something for sure, yet thats the one thing you are trying to avoid. Arent you trying to rule out that Im saying youre implying self evidence does correspond to reality/youre saying self evidence is infallible?

    One need not be infallible to know something is true or infallible. And Im not saying that proposing something exists means it exists. Im saying that IF something is self evident, one finds out it is/can observe the reality of its self evident nature by being in the process of thinking, asking, or denying it exists. Not everything is self evident. Just everything that is self evident is known or revealed as self evident while being in the process of thinking asking or deny it. Also its not known on the basis of something else that is self evident, rather, one can see that a particular thing is self evident or clear in itself, self justifying, self explaining, while one thinks about it, asks abot it, or denys it. Its existence and reality is shown by just interacting with it. This doesnt apply to impossible being (square circles, married bachelors, non existent selves), only to self evident truths about reality/realities.




    To claim something is self evident isnt to say a truth claim is clear or evident to us or everyone, nor that something that contemplates itself..thats a reading into the word evident and you must insert the word "to" us to change what Im saying. Rather something self evident is that which is clear or self explaining in itself, not to itself or dependant on us to see its clearness. It needs no further justification, because it has enough info within itself to be able to see it is true. Its self explaining. While thats what it is by definition, it does as you suggested, imply a knower or mind that is connected to it..While truth does imply a knower, that doesnt mean it necessarily implies any of us as needing to be such.

    Truth implies a thought and a thing known, and thus does imply a mind for truth resides in mind, on the other hand logic and reason doesnt depend on OUR cognative processes. All of us can misunderstand or over look what is self evident, or say that something self evident isnt evidence TO US, but that doesnt matter nor mean that something isnt self evident just because we dont percieve it to be/it isnt evident TO US. We're capable to misunderstanding.

    Something self evident is evident or clear in itself. Because the very nature of self evident truth is actually necessary, absolute, inescapable, real, unchangable, and not dependant on any of our beliefs, feelings, or thoughts, this implies a real necessary, absolute, unchanging mind that emanates this from which it comes from. Just because we participate in and with truth doesnt mean it originates from us as you wish to suggest..While the our knowing self evidence is dependant on our cognative abillities, the reality of the laws of self evidence/reason, gravity, moral law etc doesnt depend on our thinking abillity but on that which is actually necessary, and unchangable. Since absolute truth, self evidence and undeniabillity, reason and logic are actually inescapable realities and inform us concerning actuality, where their reality is implied in denying them, there must be a actually necessary and absolute ground for them, which automatically exludes us from being such.



    Yes but youre somehow suggesting that because we participate in reason, self evidence, that that means its existence is somehow dependant on us or our thinking abillities. We change, and what is self evident doesnt and cannot change, because its absolute. Since thought about a thing, comes from mind, were not absolute, yet self evident truth is absolute, it follows that there must be an absolute mind and being/nature, from which truth comes from, enabling us to enage and interact with it and use it.



    Because f its really no solution, as you certainly seem to think it isnt.. arent you completely ruling out self evidence? How can you do so without certainty, or how could you completely rule out something in a way that isnt conclusive?..yes...which..does consistently go against your tenets you have laid out in this thread..You are right about that..If its not conclusive that self evidence is not a solution, then its possible it is a solution..but somehow that idea doesnt come from you does it..? You absolutely rule out self evidence from being a solution, and imply certain conclusiveness with almost everything youre saying, while simutaneously stating you cant be cpnclusive about anything..Are you begining to see your dilemna youve allowed Kant get you into? Are you beginning to see that Kant kant get it right?

    The only way someone could know ice cream in itself is really good is if they knew phenomena in itself, which you deny, yet imply its true simulataneously. While it may be good in itself, because it exists, it may not be good for everyone to eat. It also may not be a good thing that can be enjoyed by all, nor does it mean that it is a varied goodness that is enjoyed by all. Theres other good things, like other ice cream flavors that ar also considered as personally preffered by some other people. While itys absolutely true that good exists, its also absolutely true that not all people consider what is good to be good, that some consider what is something they dont like/prefer to be something bad or evil vs it being a good thing they just dont like in light of other good things out there, and that some people consider what is really bad to be good.


    Again, if "self evidence" is fallible, thus cab be false, why you do say it in certain terms..why not just say you dont know if its true..yet if you do that, why choose any particular view over another? Yet you dont say you dont know. Besides if you can be less than conclusive, or can be closer to what is false, or state false things, why do you think you cant move not only closer to conclusive or state something conclusive? If its not conclusive that "self evidence is no solution" then isnt it possible that it is conclusive? If so, why state simultaneously it isnt, because YOU said its no solution did you not? If youre statements can be conpletely inconsistent with your own tenets, why would you think that sort of epistemology can ender yo anything remotely correct, justifiable, or coherent? The only way one could know what was crooked, was if they knew what was straight, for in the very meaning of the word crooked is the idea "not STRAIGHT". So crooked implies knowlegde of the straight. In a debate I heard recently, a man claimed you can know whats wrong but cant know whats right/good. He said you can know that youre not to murder jews, which he is one. The problem is that if you know you shouldnt treat a jewish person let alone any person badly, that implies you know you should treat them well. Likewise, the only way you could know what was less than conclusive, if you already knew what was conclusive to be able to differentiate between the two. So just like knowledge of what is crooked, implies knowledge of what is straight, knowing you shound treat people badly implies you know you should treat them well, so to knowledge of what is just less than conclusive, or not conclusive implies knowledge of what is conclusive..and that again goes against youre own tenets youve laid out in this thread.

    Is it me whose taking us in circle? Youre philosophy implies everything is/or most things are (because you engage in double talk) an infinte regress, everything is a circle that gets you no where, not mine. The philosophy and epistemology allows you a ground to make your statement with certainty and strength, the difference is you go and undermine youre own arguments, while I do not. When I say youre to take the statment "I can say/type at least one word in english" and say you use english in the process of stating/typing that, and dont use english as the basis of the argument (which WOULD be circular and self negating=false)...you come along with a strawman of that to say Im using english as the basis of that argument, therefore youre argument is a circle or infinite regress..You can do that if you want to, but you do so at your own detriment...yet all is ok because its not your fault..you couldnt possibly know what I was saying because you cant really know what im saying as it is, in itself..so you must be off the hook...........Meaningless.



    While I can admit when Im wrong, and would, is it the philosophy or epistemology I use that would get someone into a meaningless infinite regress (of justifications) or a circle more quickly, or yours?



    I don''t exactly know what PP s is but Im just wondering if PPs can come in a number 1 or 2. Then again, to get back to your reply, could you gain anyTHING from this discussion (or any others for that matter) if you cant know anYTHING in itself for what it really is..? Oh also if you can only know the thing as it is TO YOU, and not what it is in itself, and are stuck with only knowing your feeling concerning the thing, how do you know you can know your feelings or thoughts about the thing either? Besides that, I think youve already answered your own question and did my work of refuting your views for me throughout the thread. Let (at least one of us) report, and let the reader decide...
     
  9. Demiurge

    Demiurge This user has no title

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,520
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    lunar stonehenge
    I will return to this discussion this weekend. Goodbye until then

    Quickly, "P.P.S." means "post postscript."
     
  10. judas69

    judas69 god is in the radio

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Samsara ultimately is Nirvana; the duality is the singularity if that answers the first part of your question.

    As far as everything else goes, you'll need to be more specific.
     
  11. Dominick_7

    Dominick_7 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Jo mamas' land..

    Hehe yea:) I can understand that. What I find interesting is that some dont just come out and say they dont want any real or meaningful discussions, but have to go the long way of saying it..kinda.

    My point is that while he can state he cant know a thing in itself, just the thought or feeling about the thing, and cant know anything conclusively, he must imply certain knowledge of certain things in themselves, ie like the feeling and thought, but for some reason not other kinds of things; as in what exists independant of thought..yet he explains this with conclusive certainty..when all he needed to say was nothing but "I dont know".

    What I dont get is why he says anything beyond I dont know, or how he can rule anything out, or state anything with any certainty, if he can only know whats less than certain or conclusive but not what is certain/conclusive.
     
  12. judas69

    judas69 god is in the radio

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    When it comes to the absolute, modest foundationalism fails and will always fail; there is no rational, linear justification. The problems that haven't been answered, will remain unanswered.
     
  13. Dominick_7

    Dominick_7 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Jo mamas' land..
    Don't you think that you don't know how you can ensureit is false telling? You grasp the definition, understand it, and see that the predicate matches its subject, because the meaning of the predicate matches its subject/refferent.



    First of all to state that "nothing justifies my intuition" is a separate question. What can be seen is that it is stated with absolute certainty for it rules out any competing views to the contrary and applies itself to everything..contrary to your falsesly humble position of fallibility. If youre statements were truely fallible, actually fallible, not just logically/possibly/concievably fallible, then you not only couldnt state this, but your statement would negate itself as false. To state things like this in such a universal absolute way goes against the very epistemology you claim to espouse.

    Secondly, quite to the contrary of you tenets as well, you're confusing possibility with actuality, not treating them as different but as the same. While its logically possible or concievable in the mind, to think of something that appears to be self evident, as actually false, it isnt actually true that something self evident, ie true, can also be false. Something self evident wouldnt be probebly true, but rather would be necessarily true either in regards to abstract reality or actual concrete reality, for that is what it is by its nature and definition. The mere process of interacting with it establishes itself as actually inescapable and necessarily true.

    In regards to asking what justifies your intuition, this is a wrong question, because the reality of intuition is also self evident. Besides no one is saying that intuition is the basis of ones argument for self evidence being knowable and necessarily applicable to reality (ex. its actually and necessarily true that I must actually exist to be in the process of thinking, asking if, or denying that I exist). Rather what is being claimed is that one must think, observe, or use their intuition in the process of reflecting on actuality concerning their intuition. I dont know if its required they know theyre doing this, but that it happens is inescapable. Like I stated before, the statement "I can speak/type at least one word in english" doesnt use english as the basis of the argument but rather uses english in the process of the argument. If english was used as the basis for the argument then it would be circularily assuming it is english in order to prove it is english being spoken or typed. Since its not using english as the basis of the argument, but in the process of the argument, it is likewise not circular to say that one must use their intuition in the process of discovering they have intuition and can use it to discover self evident truth claims as true. So its not circular.

    Likewise, since theres no way to deny you have intuition without using ones intuition in the process of the denial, and one cant but use their intuition in the process of asking if one has one, it shows that ones intuition self evidently exists as well. Youre trying to use as unchangable a principle that everything must necessarily have a cause, but yet you have provided no reason to believe that. You must rely on dogamtism and pure blind assertion with no defense, for example your whole belief that all thought is not conclusive or justifiable, inorder to state your beliefs with static certainty concerning all thought in relationship to reality. While not all thought or belief is conclusive since that would imply a contradictory infinite regress of justifications or conclusions, with no real conclusion for the series, it is true to say that some knowledge needs no "conclusion", or at least refference to or justification in something else, but rather is itself self justifying because of the foundational nature of a certain kind of truth claim or knowledge.

    WHen you say "no statements are absolutely justifiable" the content of what you say reflects no real influence by your epistemology. Youre using a rigged game. What you end up doing is claiming something with absolute necessity/self evidence, and then TACK ON the qualification that that is falsifiable....that is, ACTUALLY falsifiable, if you really believed that that wasnt absolutely or necessarily true it would reflect in the WAY to state it..but the fact that it doesnt shows you dont really believe all view are falsifiable..perhaps everyones except yours..but not all. The problem you dont seem to see is that you do confuse possibility with actuality because you dont seem to understand that to say "there is no absolute justification for beliefs" is only stated with logical falsibiabillity not actual falsifiabillity. Heres the rub. IF your statement was ACTUALLY falsifiable, then it wouldnt be absolutely true in an actual way, so youd then have to actually change what youre claiming all together to something more along the lines of "I dont know".."it could be this or even that is true, but Im not sure". If it was only LOGICALLY CONCIEVABLE/LOGICALLY POSSIBLE that it is false, as abstract in the mind but not neceessarily in refference to actual reality, then nothing hinders you from stating what you do without it negating itself...except if it actually does negaate itself, then its self falsifying. So its either true or false that all statements are actually falsifiable or else that there are some statements that are not actually falsifiably..


    Heres the 1000 dollar question: IS your belief actually falsifiable or are you saying its just logically possible/concievable in the mind that your views are false?

    If youre trying to follow the old Antony Flew who is no longer an atheist, nor one who espouses the contradictory "falsifiabillity" principle that is itself not falsifiable, Id recommend you update your views.



    In order to TRUELY preserve the distinction between posibility and actuality which you claim to do but really do not do, it can be accurately stated that all contrary states of affairs can be logically concieved as logically possible in the mind, that is not the same thing as what is actually the case. The way we foundationally know actuality is through a non demiurge type unnaturally imposed epistemology, where one uses a type of knowledge that doesnt need to be justifified by another thing other than itself, because its clear in itself, or has justification for itself in itself. Its self explaining because its very nature is self evident..IE you dont need to go outside of the statement to see its truthfullness. What is used is self evidence and undeniabillity. If its self explaining in itself, you need not refference another thing in order to make it clear, for the very reason one refferences another thing to clarify something is to make sure it becomes clear..but something that is already clear or self explaining in itself, doesnt need to be and cannot be justifiable or made clear by another thing..its already clear in itself, self justifying and actually inescapable to deny its truth. To go against this is like condeming a person who already cleaned the window because they didn't clean the window of dirt that it doesnt have. You cant meaningfully deny self evidence without implying its truth in the denial..you can say you dont know about it, to be consistent and meaningfull, but you cant deny its true or applicable to actual reality without engaging in it to do so.

    No that's not my argument thats a strawman. My actual argument is that a self evident proposition would be self evident in itself, independant of our beliefs, feelings, or thoughts, but can be discovered as true while being in the process of asking about it or denying it...IE by interacting with it. So its not dogmatism. Your beliefs have a bufer because you equivocate on the word "falsifiable" because in doing so it allieviates you from feeling like your wrong even though you may be..either way your beliefs dont effect your claims because even if youre wrong you dont have to know that or say that. You rconclusion doesnt follow because while not all statements may be justifiable in the way you speak of, as justifiable by something else, somethings are foundationally justifiable in an absolute sense because some truths/knowledge is self justifying/self explaining.

    The way to cease the self deception is to ask whether all statement including yours are actually falsifiable or just falsifiable in a logically possible way as concievable in the mind. If all statements including yours are actually falsifiable, then the claim would be reduced to saying you cant know anything about actual reality, which assumes to know that about actual reality, which is thus contradictory, self destructive, and meaningless, thus false. You must necessarily imply knowledge about reality in the process of denying you do. So its actually undeniable that you can and do know smething about actual reality. If your statement is just falsifiable in a logically possible way as concievable in the mind, then youre saying exactly what I am and thus agree with me and dont disagree with what Im saying concerning actuality being knowable in itself as foundationally self evident and undeniable. So which is it?
     
  14. Dominick_7

    Dominick_7 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Jo mamas' land..

    If there is a time when youre seeking to come into a state of Nirvana, then theres a real difference between not having nirvana and being in a state of nrivana..if theres a real difference between not having nirvana and having a state of nirvana, then differences are real, thus the meaingless contradiction like "the duality is the singularity" which is held up and applauded by irrational minds who espouse eastern philosophy is false, and not the seed of truth. You must affirm real change and real differences in order to state all is only one, which negates the claim "all is one" as untrue. While being cant differ in being, for it would still have being and thus wouldnt differ, being can differ in the sense of differing i nterms of having different kinds of being where some have being/actuality with potential as limited being, and something having only being with no limiting potential as unlimited.

    So no your answer isnt an answer because it invalidates itself from being an answer since it makes no sense= meaningless. What makes no sense offers no sense or clarity..so when you decide to start making sense, avoiding contradictory or meaningless eastern rhetoric then I may be able to see an actual answer to my reply. If something can both be and not be at the same time and in the same sense, and thus you answer can also be a non answer, then youre offering nothing.
     
  15. Dominick_7

    Dominick_7 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Jo mamas' land..

    If foundationalism that affirms real differences in concepts and things doesnt apply to the absolute or reality, why are you using foundationalism since your'e using rational distinctions in regards to the absolute or reality?
     
  16. Dominick_7

    Dominick_7 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Jo mamas' land..

    Oh ok Demiurge:) Thanks for clarifying for me:) Have a great week.
     
  17. judas69

    judas69 god is in the radio

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    As a Zen Master once put it, it's like seeking an ox while riding an ox.

    In response to everything else, it's clear eastern thought is not your cup of tea.
     
  18. The Uppance Has Come

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2006
    Messages:
    105
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Brewer, ME
    Here's a question what is will power/freewill and what is insanity?
     
  19. judas69

    judas69 god is in the radio

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,029
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Free will is almost contradictory, as I can't think of how it would be possible to have a free disposition so, I really couldn't define this in words beyond saying it is the feeling of being incontrol of one's own tendencies (where the level of strength could be phrased will power).

    Insanity is identified by irratic and unrelated thinking symptomatic of a poorly functioning brain and can be the result of many things. Implied in the word is a sense of perminancy, at least if untreated. Normal people may also experience such symptoms resulting from lack of sleep, emotional stress, drug use etc.
     
  20. Dominick_7

    Dominick_7 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2006
    Messages:
    832
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Jo mamas' land..

    Good question.



    Free Will according to Websters is the capability of acting or of producing an effect IE the abillity to actualize a potential. It entails the power of being able to choose ones own actions by ones self, and being able to do otherwise than what one chooses.


    Insanity acording to Websters is unsoundness of mind or lack of the ability to understand that prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or that releases one from criminal or civil responsibility: as a : a disease, defect, or condition of the mind that renders one unable to understand the nature of a criminal act or the fact that it is wrong or to conform one's conduct to the requirements of the law being violated b : inability to understand and participate in legal proceedings brought against one IE the state of not being able to judge reality as it is because of a mental defect or disorder.


    How far is that really from Demiurges definition of what we can or cant know? Why do you ask?
     

Share This Page