Socrates philosophy and method

[shunyadragon]

Really Shuny, what is wrong with you? I'm going by what YOU QUOTED:"The more I read, the more I meditate; and the more I acquire, the more I am enabled to affirm that I know nothing"

So do you disagree with your own quote, that we can know something?

Read all of Voltaire, and you will find he believed and promoted many things. If you read his works fully you would realize that Voltaire is not referring to your anal retentive 'absolute nothing.' He was making skeptical arguments against the prevailing belief, and your anal retentive belief in 'absolute truths.'

Example:

Source: http://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_voltaire.html

He was an outspoken supporter of social reform (including the defense of civil liberties, freedom of religion and free trade), despite the strict censorship laws and harsh penalties of the period, and made use of his satirical works to criticize Catholic dogma and the French institutions of his day. Along with John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, his works and ideas influenced important thinkers of both the American and French Revolutions.

© Copyright Original Source

[HumbleThinker]

Humble, I think this is dangerously close to solipsism. But this debate has been going on between me and Shuny for a while. He for instance does not even believe that we can be certain of the laws of logic. Or that those laws are certain and universal.

You are correct, solipsism being the idea that only one's mind can be known to exist. There is no actual way around solipsism. But, at the same time, there is no course of action or thought process that necessarily derives from this position unless we make the error of making an ought out of an is. Perhaps the only thing we can take away from solipsism is a healthy skepticism.

Yes we could all be brain's in a vat (there's a >0% probability of it being true), but we have no reason to think that it is true. Yes you, this computer, and everything else could all be in my head, but we have no good reason to think that this is true simply because our perception of reality is a reconstruction of sense data within our brain. In this way, you can have confidence in a position without being certain. That's simply the nature of our existence; to act without certainty and live with the consequences.

In sum, to live is not simply to think, so to mistake our metaphysical/epistemological musings for prescriptions on how to live would be a mistake. Look at children: they naturally do not care about certainty or uncertainty. They simply hold confidently to their position until they feel they have a reason to change it such as someone they trust telling them otherwise or them experiencing a conflicting fact themselves.

[seer]

You are correct, solipsism being the idea that only one's mind can be known to exist. There is no actual way around solipsism. But, at the same time, there is no course of action or thought process that necessarily derives from this position unless we make the error of making an ought out of an is. Perhaps the only thing we can take away from solipsism is a healthy skepticism.

Yes we could all be brain's in a vat (there's a >0% probability of it being true), but we have no reason to think that it is true. Yes you, this computer, and everything else could all be in my head, but we have no good reason to think that this is true simply because our perception of reality is a reconstruction of sense data within our brain. In this way, you can have confidence in a position without being certain. That's simply the nature of our existence; to act without certainty and live with the consequences.

In sum, to live is not simply to think, so to mistake our metaphysical/epistemological musings for prescriptions on how to live would be a mistake. Look at children: they naturally do not care about certainty or uncertainty. They simply hold confidently to their position until they feel they have a reason to change it such as someone they trust telling them otherwise or them experiencing a conflicting fact themselves.

Can we know with certainty that the laws of logic are universal and absolute?

[seer]

Read all of Voltaire, and you will find he believed and promoted many things. If you read his works fully you would realize that Voltaire is not referring to your anal retentive 'absolute nothing.' He was making skeptical arguments against the prevailing belief, and your anal retentive belief in 'absolute truths.'

Example:

Source: http://www.philosophybasics.com/philosophers_voltaire.html

He was an outspoken supporter of social reform (including the defense of civil liberties, freedom of religion and free trade), despite the strict censorship laws and harsh penalties of the period, and made use of his satirical works to criticize Catholic dogma and the French institutions of his day. Along with John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, his works and ideas influenced important thinkers of both the American and French Revolutions.

© Copyright Original Source

That "example" has nothing to do with what we are talking about. And remember I was going by YOUR QUOTE. So do you disagree with your quote of Voltaire: the more I am enabled to affirm that I know nothing.
And why should I think that you have any idea of what Voltaire believed, you completely misunderstood Descartes.

[HumbleThinker]

Can we know with certainty that the laws of logic are universal and absolute?

Probably not, no. But as I said earlier, this is not an absolutely certain no.

In as much as the laws of logic are descriptive and based on our thought processes/language, I believe they are universal and absolute. For instance something cannot simultaneously be A and A'. But for a being that does not think as we do or a being that has a drastically different language than us, these laws might not exist to them. The referents of these laws, though, seem self-evident.

But who knows? What would make us certain that the laws of logic are universal and absolute? Being omniscient for one. But since I'm not, there could be some whacky universe out there that breaks the laws of logic. I have no reason to think that such a thing exists or that it is even possible, but incredulity alone doesn't create certainty. Having an infallible reasoning process for two. I certainly don't have that, but again I have no reason to think that my reasoning is wrong on this count. What else is there besides omniscience or infallible reasoning that would make us certain about anything? Having no doubts and being certain are two different things entirely.

[seer]

In as much as the laws of logic are descriptive and based on our thought processes/language, I believe they are universal and absolute. For instance something cannot simultaneously be A and A'. But for a being that does not think as we do or a being that has a drastically different language than us, these laws might not exist to them. The referents of these laws, though, seem self-evident.

Well no, no matter what the thought processes or language the sun could not both exist or not exist at the same moment.

But since I'm not, there could be some whacky universe out there that breaks the laws of logic.

Really? so there could be a universe where a star could both exist and not exist at the same moment?

[HumbleThinker]

Well no, no matter what the thought processes or language the sun could not both exist or not exist at the same moment.



Really? so there could be a universe where a star could both exist and not exist at the same moment?

I have zero confidence that such a thing could exist. Then again, I'm incapable of thinking outside of a mental system/language where that is impossible, so the only reason I have absolute confidence that such a thing will never exist is that I cannot conceive of it. But is that really absolute certainty?

And whether it is or isn't, does it really matter? I personally don't think so for the reasons I gave earlier.

[seer]

I have zero confidence that such a thing could exist. Then again, I'm incapable of thinking outside of a mental system/language where that is impossible, so the only reason I have absolute confidence that such a thing will never exist is that I cannot conceive of it. But is that really absolute certainty?

Yes, the impossibility of the contrary.

[shunyadragon]

That "example" has nothing to do with what we are talking about. And remember I was going by YOUR QUOTE. So do you disagree with your quote of Voltaire: the more I am enabled to affirm that I know nothing.
And why should I think that you have any idea of what Voltaire believed, you completely misunderstood Descartes.

Again, again and again . . . 'nothing' in this statement does not refer to 'absolute nothing.' it refers to skepticism that 'absolute truth;' is not knowable from the human perspective. You have to read Voltaire's whole writings to understand this. Voltaire does not advocate the he nor all humans know 'absolutely nothing.'

You do not have to believe me. You just simply have to read Voltaire's writings, and realize he believes things and promoted ideals, but held a skeptical view towards the prevailing absolute truths of the time, and believed by many today including you.

No I did not misunderstand Descartes. I understand his belief is separate from his belief in skepticism, and previously acknowledged this, and made legitimate comparisons to the enlightenment skepticism of the founding fathers.

As per the theme of the thread it is primarily the Socratic methods, and philosophy that I primarily endorse. I do refer to the philosophers of the 'enlightenment' in Europe and America that also embraced forms of Socratic philosophy, and it is true each philosopher developed their own take on the Socratic philosophy.

The philosophy of 'agnosticism' I follow is rooted in the philosophy and methods of Socrates. My Tweb moniker shunyadragon is from both the Oriental and Socratic philosophy. 'Shunya' is from the ancient pali meaning nothing, and 'dragon' is the father of China, and the wisdom of China. It also symbolizes the aggressiveness of the Socratic method questioning everything and knowing nothing.

It has become very apparent the dominant view of the Christians on this site is to absolutely reject this agnostic philosophy concerning the fallible human knowledge of God, which is the at the heart of our disagreement concerning my philosophical view toward knowledge, both theological and scientific. Some even propose to have agnostic 'doubt' concerning ones belief is the slippery slope to atheism, or they are in reality atheist anyway.

Many atheists also reject the 'agnostic view' when considering what they believe and why.

You need to review your English and understand the difference between the verbs, "to know," and "to believe."

[seer]

Again, again and again . . . 'nothing' in this statement does not refer to 'absolute nothing.' it refers to skepticism that 'absolute truth;' is not knowable from the human perspective. You have to read Voltaire's whole writings to understand this. Voltaire does not advocate the he nor all humans know 'absolutely nothing.'

Where did Voltaire qualify that? When he said NOTHING AT ALL he was only speaking of some things - references please. And why should I believe that you understand Voltaire any more than you understand Descartes?

No I did not misunderstand Descartes. I understand his belief is separate from his belief in skepticism, and previously acknowledged this, and made legitimate comparisons to the enlightenment skepticism of the founding fathers.

No Shuny, he used his skepticism to make a case for God and to show that skepticism is FALSE. You have no idea what you are talking about - again!

[HumbleThinker]

Yes, the impossibility of the contrary.

I think you misunderstood my question. "But is that really absolute certainty?" was in reference to "the only reason I have absolute confidence that such a thing will never exist is that I cannot conceive of it." The question is does an inability to conceive of X represent absolute certainty. I don't think so as that is simply an argument from incredulity.

But this is a wholly impractical, purely abstract position. The fact remains that we live in this universe and can only think within the confines of the thought process/language we all share as a species. And within this universe and within these confines, the laws of logic are absolute and universal. Nothing else matters, including whether we can have absolute certainty in this position or not.

[seer]

And within this universe and within these confines, the laws of logic are absolute and universal. Nothing else matters, including whether we can have absolute certainty in this position or not.

OK, so we agree that the laws of logic are absolute and universal in our cosmos?

[shunyadragon]

OK, so we agree that the laws of logic are absolute and universal in our cosmos?

From God's perspective yes, but not the perspective of fallible human logic.

[HumbleThinker]

OK, so we agree that the laws of logic are absolute and universal in our cosmos?

Despite the lack of absolute certainty, I am absolutely confident that they do. So yes we can agree.

[HumbleThinker]

From God's perspective yes, but not the perspective of fallible human logic.

Well we don't know God's perspective, so we can't comment on that for sure. But from our perspective, it's physicality impossible for use to conceive of, for instance, something that exists and doesn't exist simultaneously. We can say the words, but we cannot truly create such a concept in our minds. Thus in this sense the descriptive laws of logic are universal and absolute.