Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

When does proving one's truth claims come to an end?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Are you calling me common!
    It's a badge I wear with honor, brother.
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      It's a badge I wear with honor, brother.
      Nothing common about a child of the Most High God, justified by the blood of Christ!
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Nothing common about a child of the Most High God, sanctified by the blood of Christ!
        Well, I got a double portion of "peculiar" in my people, so, yeah!
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          What do you think of these propositions? Would they require either a circular, regressive, or axiomatic argument to prove them?
          1. Contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.
          2. I am feeling pain.
          With the first, I think, we would have to assume that the laws of logic are universal and absolute (axiomatic). The second would be circular. How could you logically demonstrate that you are actually feeling pain to anyone but yourself with out begging the question?

          What do you think of statements where if one denies them, then one contradicts himself? For example, suppose someone makes the statement, "I exist." If he denies it, wouldn't he be contradicting himself? One would have to exist in order for him to deny it.
          Even if that is valid, that is where it ends. You could not logically move to anything else - for instance that what goes on in your mind actually corresponds to reality (the Matrix thing).

          Is the Munchausen Trilemma stating all of the possible options? What do you think of the idea where a proposition is proven true by the fact that if one denies the proposition, then one contradicts himself?

          Norman Geisler in his book, Christian Apologetics, teaches that undeniability is a test of truth. Something is true if it cannot be denied. What do you think of this?
          Again, wouldn't both require that we assume that the laws of logic are universal and absolute (axiomatic)?
          If I'm in pain, it is self-evident and undeniable that I'm in pain. How would this be fallacious?

          What do you think of axioms where if a person denies them, he contradicts himself? A person ends up contradicting himself if he denies the law of contradiction.
          Last edited by Hornet; 01-03-2020, 02:59 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Hornet View Post
            If I'm in pain, it is self-evident and undeniable that I'm in pain. How would this be fallacious?
            I didn't say that, I said you couldn't logically prove it to others: I said: How could you logically demonstrate that you are actually feeling pain to anyone but yourself with out begging the question?

            What do you think of axioms where if a person denies them, he contradicts himself? A person ends up contradicting himself if he denies the law of contradiction.
            And if he contradicts himself what does that tell us? It certainly does not tell us that the laws of logic are universal or inviolate. BTW - I do believe that the laws of logic are absolute since I start with God...
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by seer View Post


              And if he contradicts himself what does that tell us? It certainly does not tell us that the laws of logic are universal or inviolate. BTW - I do believe that the laws of logic are absolute since I start with God...
              By starting with God, you are starting with an unverified premise. Therefore you cannot claim your conclusion "that the laws of logic are absolute" is true.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                By starting with God, you are starting with an unverified premise. Therefore you cannot claim your conclusion "that the laws of logic are absolute" is true.
                What do you start with Tass that you can justify? I will be waiting...
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  OK Matt I get this, so can you give me an actual example of such a feasible break? I could imagine many non-arbitrary or non-question-begging breaks that have no correspondence with reality or truth.
                  A non-arbitrary or non-question-begging break would be relative to context. It'd be relative to your interests and goals in a discussion, or relative to the interests and goals of how you come to an intellectual peace about an issue. For example, perhaps you settle upon a belief in objective moral values because your moral intuitions are so powerful that any premise in a philosophical argument leading to the conclusion that relativism or subjectivism or nihilism or non-cognitivism is the case is less plausible than the cognitive content you are immediately acquainted with by virtue of the intuitions.

                  This methodological tactic is aporia. This is a kind of break. Why? It leaves unanswered questions regarding the epistemic legitimacy of intuition, the metaphysical grounding of intuitions, questions from evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience, etc.

                  At the same time, it's non-question-begging, because opting for what you have more reason to believe makes you a responsible epistemic agent. You're not using your intuitions to demonstrate objective moral values to someone who disagrees; you're explaining why you yourself are convinced that there are objective moral values. To side with prima facie seemings is an epistemic virtue.

                  Further, it's non-arbitrary because such a siding is in alignment with well-established epistemic norms: believe a proposition P when P seems to you to be the case, and there aren't any overriding defeaters D such that you see D defeats P. If you don't think D defeats P, and P seems to you to be true, then believe P. All of this breaks from following an issue down to its explanatory foundation. But if we demanded this from the everyday 'Joe' on the street, then the absurd conclusion would follow that before we know anything, we'd all first need to be professional epistemologists, which is a bit too much.

                  Use aporia again. What seems more plausible? That folks know some stuff? Or that some obscure philosophical theory that implies that only someone thoroughly acquainted with epistemology (the ins and outs of metaphysically complete demonstration) knows some stuff? What to do when defeaters are presented is a separate question, and you might have to adjust where you broke off the searching prior to the defeater, remembering that it's a defeater that you perceive to be a defeater.
                  Last edited by mattbballman31; 01-04-2020, 12:22 PM.
                  Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                  George Horne

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    What do you start with Tass that you can justify? I will be waiting...
                    You'll be waiting a while. Verification is Tass' string on his one-string banjo he'll hammer 'till the cows come home.
                    Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                    George Horne

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      What do you start with Tass that you can justify? I will be waiting...
                      You made the claim that "the laws of logic are absolute" since you "start with God", it up to you to justify your premise. Otherwise you don't have an argument. ...
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        You made the claim that "the laws of logic are absolute" since you "start with God", it up to you to justify your premise. Otherwise you don't have an argument. ...
                        Starting with God is a justification for the absolute properties of the laws of logic. There's a transcendental deduction of the properties for the ground for the absolute properties of the laws of logic. You start with the laws of logic. See that they're absolute. And then you posit a ground for the possibility of the properties that inhere in the laws of logic. That itself is a method of justification with a philosophical pedigree dating back to Kant. Unless you conflate your scientistic verificationism with epistemic justification, you won't be able to see that. And that, in the words of Yoda, will be why you fail.
                        Many and painful are the researches sometimes necessary to be made, for settling points of [this] kind. Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which it will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer. When this is done, the same question shall be triumphantly asked again the next year, as if nothing had ever been written upon the subject.
                        George Horne

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                          Starting with God is a justification for the absolute properties of the laws of logic. There's a transcendental deduction of the properties for the ground for the absolute properties of the laws of logic. You start with the laws of logic. See that they're absolute. And then you posit a ground for the possibility of the properties that inhere in the laws of logic. That itself is a method of justification with a philosophical pedigree dating back to Kant. Unless you conflate your scientistic verificationism with epistemic justification, you won't be able to see that. And that, in the words of Yoda, will be why you fail.
                          So circular it bites you in the butt!
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            So circular it bites you in the butt!
                            Where was he circular - exactly?
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              You made the claim that "the laws of logic are absolute" since you "start with God", it up to you to justify your premise. Otherwise you don't have an argument. ...
                              An axiom or presupposition is not proven Tass, it is accepted (or not). And in this case a rational God provides the grounding for universal logical truths. Do you have something better?
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
                                A non-arbitrary or non-question-begging break would be relative to context. It'd be relative to your interests and goals in a discussion, or relative to the interests and goals of how you come to an intellectual peace about an issue. For example, perhaps you settle upon a belief in objective moral values because your moral intuitions are so powerful that any premise in a philosophical argument leading to the conclusion that relativism or subjectivism or nihilism or non-cognitivism is the case is less plausible than the cognitive content you are immediately acquainted with by virtue of the intuitions.

                                This methodological tactic is aporia. This is a kind of break. Why? It leaves unanswered questions regarding the epistemic legitimacy of intuition, the metaphysical grounding of intuitions, questions from evolutionary psychology and cognitive neuroscience, etc.

                                At the same time, it's non-question-begging, because opting for what you have more reason to believe makes you a responsible epistemic agent. You're not using your intuitions to demonstrate objective moral values to someone who disagrees; you're explaining why you yourself are convinced that there are objective moral values. To side with prima facie seemings is an epistemic virtue.

                                Further, it's non-arbitrary because such a siding is in alignment with well-established epistemic norms: believe a proposition P when P seems to you to be the case, and there aren't any overriding defeaters D such that you see D defeats P. If you don't think D defeats P, and P seems to you to be true, then believe P. All of this breaks from following an issue down to its explanatory foundation. But if we demanded this from the everyday 'Joe' on the street, then the absurd conclusion would follow that before we know anything, we'd all first need to be professional epistemologists, which is a bit too much.

                                Use aporia again. What seems more plausible? That folks know some stuff? Or that some obscure philosophical theory that implies that only someone thoroughly acquainted with epistemology (the ins and outs of metaphysically complete demonstration) knows some stuff? What to do when defeaters are presented is a separate question, and you might have to adjust where you broke off the searching prior to the defeater, remembering that it's a defeater that you perceive to be a defeater.
                                This basically sounds like what I read from Alvin Plantinga, with few twists. At bottom it is an axiomatic position. Which I have no problem with. But isn't this really subjective since I could not objectively demonstrate that my moral intuitions are actually correct or true, except for me?
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Seeker, 12-01-2020, 12:30 AM
                                5 responses
                                86 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Starlight  
                                Working...
                                X