No, I accept pragmatically that I'm running on flawed hardware; I don't need to be certain of it (nor of anything).
The notion of "existence" is confusing and far from fundamental, and your claim depends quite a lot of simpler concepts. If you to convince me of that point, you first have to convince me to be 100% certain of, say, the law of non-contradiction.
In order to 100% convince me with a logical argument, you first have to 100% convince me of logic - 99.999999% isn't good enough. It's a basic issue of epistemology that is summed up by the Münchhausen Trilemma.
I am convinced 100% of logic itself. According to your trilemma, I am a foundationalist.
I want a grand list of internet achievements for things like Godwinning a thread/getting someone else to Godwin a thread, bringing up a Wittgenstein debate, turning the whole thing into nihilism/solipsism/skepticism.
I want a grand list of internet achievements for things like Godwinning a thread/getting someone else to Godwin a thread, bringing up a Wittgenstein debate, turning the whole thing into nihilism/solipsism/skepticism.
I want a grand list of internet achievements for things like Godwinning a thread/getting someone else to Godwin a thread, bringing up a Wittgenstein debate, turning the whole thing into nihilism/solipsism/skepticism.
I'd like to keep track of my score and others.
It's called a bingo card.
No... I need persistence. All of it. And we should track this on a high score board on the internet.
But if you can't be certain of your own existence, how can you give yourself credit for an achievement? You can't credit yourself more than anyone else, logically.
But if you can't be certain of your own existence, how can you give yourself credit for an achievement? You can't credit yourself more than anyone else, logically.
You can't stop me! You can't stop that which does not exist!
In order to 100% convince me with a logical argument, you first have to 100% convince me of logic - 99.999999% isn't good enough. It's a basic issue of epistemology that is summed up by the Münchhausen Trilemma.
I am convinced 100% of logic itself. According to your trilemma, I am a foundationalist.
So, you accept these foundational principles a priori, without justification? How is this different from faith - what if someone argues that the existence of God is also a foundational belief?
But if you can't be certain of your own existence, how can you give yourself credit for an achievement? You can't credit yourself more than anyone else, logically.
Sure you can - if you're 99.99% sure of your existence and your achievement, you can 99.99% credit yourself.
There's only one thing I can be sure of in all the world: that there is something which perceives.
That something appears to be me. I can't be sure what it's perceiving, or even if there is anything to perceive. But nonetheless, something perceived. I am able to ascertain, to question, but the only reality I have as a foundation is that I perceived the ability to do these things in myself.
So, you can't be sure of basic principles of reason, but you can be sure that there is something which perceives? Surely the latter requires the former.
So, you can't be sure of basic principles of reason, but you can be sure that there is something which perceives? Surely the latter requires the former.
I have no frame of reference beyond that there is a frame of reference (or else there wouldn't be, and thus there wouldn't be).
So, you can't be sure of basic principles of reason, but you can be sure that there is something which perceives? Surely the latter requires the former.
I have no frame of reference beyond that there is a frame of reference (or else there wouldn't be, and thus there wouldn't be).
On what basis can I accept the logical argument you just made as certain? Why can't there both be and not be a frame of reference?
Your statement that "there is something which perceives" necessarily relies on more basic principles of logic and reasoning in order to make any sense at all. Moreover, concepts such as existence (which underlies the words "there is") are far from simple. So, you can't assert that statement as certain without asserting certainty of those underlying principles.
Personally, I'm much more convinced of simple things like "1+1=2" than I am of complicated things like "there is something which perceives"; I hope you are as well. However, I don't feel the need for certainty in either of those statements.
In order to 100% convince me with a logical argument, you first have to 100% convince me of logic - 99.999999% isn't good enough. It's a basic issue of epistemology that is summed up by the Münchhausen Trilemma.
I am convinced 100% of logic itself. According to your trilemma, I am a foundationalist.
So, you accept these foundational principles a priori, without justification? How is this different from faith - what if someone argues that the existence of God is also a foundational belief?
God is the antithesis of logic. Take for example DeMorgan's laws.
NOT (A and = (not A) or (not
It's easier to imagine extra dimensions beyond the third than it is to imagine a scenario where that law can be broken.
When you start to consider the idea of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, immortal being you run into nothing but failures of logic. Can god lift a rock so big he can't lift it? One path leads to paradox, the other does not. A large tree blocks your path.
Ah, but then I can't be sure that "there is something which perceives" either.
I can in one very specific sense. As far as I'm concerned, my own experiences are the only things that exist in any capacity. That I perceive them, and am able to recognize that fact, is a circular differentiation from nothing. Were there no differentiation, then I would not have have existed to have experienced anything in the first place.
I can differentiate that there is something, as opposed to nothing, as the latter cannot occur simultaneous to the former (though there could be a "something" in a universe that lacks the ability to perceive, but that's irrelevant).
That differentiation is the only thing I can prove to myself, and I can prove it only to myself, as the only evidence I have is my own solipsistic existence.
So yes, I can be sure, because there is an I to make the assertion in the first place. Nothing else can be proven, and nothing can be proven to anyone but myself.
Rym, without more basic principles, the very notion of "there is something which perceives" doesn't make any sense, and surely you can't be certain of something that doesn't make sense.
What is "is"? What is "perceives"? Why can't there be a nothing which perceives? Why can't there be nothing and also something?
The argument you make to yourself must necessarily rely on these more basic principles, and so the conclusion cannot be certain unless you are also certain of those principles.
So, at the very least, your argument has to be "Apart from reason itself, the only thing that I can be sure of is that there is something which perceives" - this is, I think, the path that Descartes took.
However, this is quite a flawed position; after asserting skepticism of one's senses, Descartes arbitrarily chose not to extend this skepticism to reason itself (this might have been motivated by his religious beliefs).
Principles are not necessarily things however. Your argument gets into the murky, completely useless from any possible perspective bottom of Philosophy that has no place in any real argument. ;^)
Principles are not necessarily things however. Your argument gets into the murky, completely useless from any possible perspective bottom of Philosophy that has no place in any real argument. ;^)
Ah, but that self-same criticism applies to solipsism. As such, by its own standards, solipsism is not only useless but also wrong. It asserts an unwarranted level of special significance where it is hardly deserved - it's simply a case of special pleading used to justify skepticism of some things but not others. It also gives a false impression of concepts such as "perception" as being ontologically basic despite their obvious complexity.
Incidentally, by principles I simply mean more basic concepts, such as logic and the law of non-contradiction. Scott, it seems, has asserted a position of foundationalism; although flawed, it is at least consistent, unlike your position.
Also, the general principle I am getting at is not entirely useless (at least, less so than solipsism) - it states that you should do away with certainty altogether (though of course you might have cause to bring it back, given that this isn't certain). It also does this without the need to resort to confusing ideas such as "existence" and perception".
God is the antithesis of logic. Take for example DeMorgan's laws.
NOT (A and = (not A) or (not
It's easier to imagine extra dimensions beyond the third than it is to imagine a scenario where that law can be broken.
One's inability to imagine such a scenario does not make it impossible, especially considering the possibility of flawed cognition.
When you start to consider the idea of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, immortal being you run into nothing but failures of logic. Can god lift a rock so big he can't lift it? One path leads to paradox, the other does not. A large tree blocks your path.
Absent justification, how is any assertion more valid than any other? The paradox could be resolved in several ways: 1) Asserting, for example, that God is nearly-omniscient, nearly-omnipresent, and nearly-omnipotent. 2) Denying some of the laws, or making exceptions for God 3) Stating that such paradoxes are acceptable.
"God" is trivially disproven from the perspective that every assertion of a specific "god" has its own specific high-order problems. E.g, cultural/secular origins of particular assertions.
Any real assertion of a literal god is pragmatically disproven by the combination of a total lack of evidence and the positive evidence of specific secular origins. No need to even begin to delve into lower-order disproofs.
"God" is trivially disproven from the perspective that every assertion of a specific "god" has its own specific high-order problems. E.g, cultural/secular origins of particular assertions.
Any real assertion of a literal god is pragmatically disproven by the combination of a total lack of evidence and the positive evidence of specific secular origins. No need to even begin to delve into lower-order disproofs.
Methinks you are a bit focused on the judeo-christian god with these "proofs". That you think the secular origin or origins would not themselves be derived from possible gods would be part of your own assertions.
The paradox could be resolved in several ways: 1) Asserting, for example, that God is nearly-omniscient, nearly-omnipresent, and nearly-omnipotent. 2) Denying some of the laws, or making exceptions for God 3) Stating that such paradoxes are acceptable.
Also taking "Language problem" as an answer now since Wittgenstein was mentioned up-thread. Clearly "big" and "lift" and "can" and "can't" all have problems within the context of a language that deals with omnipotence. One of the classic responses is that this statement and this paradox are essentially nonsense. They sort of assume that an omnipotent thing exists in the same sort of way we do.
"God" is trivially disproven from the perspective that every assertion of a specific "god" has its own specific high-order problems. E.g, cultural/secular origins of particular assertions.
Any real assertion of a literal god is pragmatically disproven by the combination of a total lack of evidence and the positive evidence of specific secular origins. No need to even begin to delve into lower-order disproofs.
Oh, I agree; "God" is plainly false once you actually delve into the real word.
However, if you allow for "foundational beliefs" the way Scott suggested, you can't really justify which beliefs should be foundational and which should not.
Why not accept that nothing at all is certain or "foundational", and simply let everything come down to pragmatism?
So hats. I have a yak hat. It is very warm! I love my yak hat.
From what google shows me that looks like a pretty sweet hat. I've only got a top hat, it's pretty good, needs some repair though. The biggest problem is that I don't get good opportunities to wear it. I have been thinking of getting a bowler or derby hat to compensate, similar style but somewhat less ostentatious.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism
I'd like to keep track of my score and others.
That something appears to be me. I can't be sure what it's perceiving, or even if there is anything to perceive. But nonetheless, something perceived. I am able to ascertain, to question, but the only reality I have as a foundation is that I perceived the ability to do these things in myself.
Your statement that "there is something which perceives" necessarily relies on more basic principles of logic and reasoning in order to make any sense at all. Moreover, concepts such as existence (which underlies the words "there is") are far from simple. So, you can't assert that statement as certain without asserting certainty of those underlying principles.
Personally, I'm much more convinced of simple things like "1+1=2" than I am of complicated things like "there is something which perceives"; I hope you are as well. However, I don't feel the need for certainty in either of those statements.
That's the point.
NOT (A and
It's easier to imagine extra dimensions beyond the third than it is to imagine a scenario where that law can be broken.
When you start to consider the idea of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, immortal being you run into nothing but failures of logic. Can god lift a rock so big he can't lift it? One path leads to paradox, the other does not. A large tree blocks your path.
I can differentiate that there is something, as opposed to nothing, as the latter cannot occur simultaneous to the former (though there could be a "something" in a universe that lacks the ability to perceive, but that's irrelevant).
That differentiation is the only thing I can prove to myself, and I can prove it only to myself, as the only evidence I have is my own solipsistic existence.
So yes, I can be sure, because there is an I to make the assertion in the first place. Nothing else can be proven, and nothing can be proven to anyone but myself.
What is "is"? What is "perceives"? Why can't there be a nothing which perceives? Why can't there be nothing and also something?
The argument you make to yourself must necessarily rely on these more basic principles, and so the conclusion cannot be certain unless you are also certain of those principles.
So, at the very least, your argument has to be "Apart from reason itself, the only thing that I can be sure of is that there is something which perceives" - this is, I think, the path that Descartes took.
However, this is quite a flawed position; after asserting skepticism of one's senses, Descartes arbitrarily chose not to extend this skepticism to reason itself (this might have been motivated by his religious beliefs).
Incidentally, by principles I simply mean more basic concepts, such as logic and the law of non-contradiction. Scott, it seems, has asserted a position of foundationalism; although flawed, it is at least consistent, unlike your position.
Also, the general principle I am getting at is not entirely useless (at least, less so than solipsism) - it states that you should do away with certainty altogether (though of course you might have cause to bring it back, given that this isn't certain). It also does this without the need to resort to confusing ideas such as "existence" and perception".
1) Asserting, for example, that God is nearly-omniscient, nearly-omnipresent, and nearly-omnipotent.
2) Denying some of the laws, or making exceptions for God
3) Stating that such paradoxes are acceptable.
Any real assertion of a literal god is pragmatically disproven by the combination of a total lack of evidence and the positive evidence of specific secular origins. No need to even begin to delve into lower-order disproofs.
http://www.etsy.com/listing/61336899/cat-ear-hat-black-grey-fleece-kitty-ear?ref=sr_gallery_6&ga_includes[]=tags&ga_search_query=cat+ear+hat&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery
However, if you allow for "foundational beliefs" the way Scott suggested, you can't really justify which beliefs should be foundational and which should not.
Why not accept that nothing at all is certain or "foundational", and simply let everything come down to pragmatism?
I've only got a top hat, it's pretty good, needs some repair though. The biggest problem is that I don't get good opportunities to wear it. I have been thinking of getting a bowler or derby hat to compensate, similar style but somewhat less ostentatious.
Also absurdism beats solipsism any day.