| appolose said: What I mean by saying "external world" is any proposition about reality. What I mean by "nothing can be proven" is that there is no method for gaining knowledge that would avoid depending on knowledge in the first place (or rather, looking for a method of truth already begs the question as to whether you can know a method will give you truth). Hope that's clear... knowledge is the only certain beginning of epistemology... merely because I can't analytically go any farther back. Really, what I just said is the answer to your question as to "how do I know this isn't based on a false premise". I'm merely recognizing that by definition, knowledge will already be necessary to even posit a method of truth (it's not a premise about reality...it's the definition of words). It is a confession that any belief is already dependant on knowledge. |
I'm not sure I follow you. What "knowledge" is it first necessary to possess in order to be able to gain more knowledge? What do you mean by "a method of truth"? Are there different methods of truth?
I ask these questions because you've said that nothing can be proven about the external world. You've avoided saying anything about any other type of world. As far as I can tell you don't believe anything can be proven. Is that correct?
