By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
donathos on 04 April 2009
Edit Thread
appolose said:
donathos said:
appolose said:

Through definition and logic: when considering the question, "How can I know?", I would answer "Because of...", but when I examined that because of, I realized it contained propositions that I didnt know for certain, either.

All right.  But you could just as well have accepted my point of view--empiricism, couldn't you?  (You've already agreed that my views are also "logical" in the sense of being internally consistent.)

On what basis do you choose your views over mine?

(Also, what would it mean to "know for certain"?)

Wait, do you mean I could have accpeted empiricism after this realization I had, or before?  If after, I have actually taken it (empiricism).  Why?  I dunno.

By certain, I mean immutable or fundamental.

Well, what I mean is:  I believe you claim that our belief systems are arbitrary; that one is as good as any other, because we cannot trust our judgements.  For shorthand, let us say that I am an empiricist, and you are a skeptic.

I'm asking, why aren't you an empiricist as well?  If you're right--if our belief systems are arbitary--then my empricism is just as good as your skepticism.

However, by saying this...

Through definition and logic: when considering the question, "How can I know?", I would answer "Because of...", but when I examined that because of, I realized it contained propositions that I didnt know for certain, either.

...and using terms like "considering," "examined" and "realized," you make it sound like you have good reasons for being a skeptic.  That, maybe, I should recant my empiricism and be a skeptic, too.

Really, you make it sound as though your choice of skepticism is not arbitrary at all.

So, I'd like to know: why do you choose skepticism over empiricism?

***

Regarding "certainty," I guess this is what I'm asking:

You say that you "realized it contained propositions that [you] didnt know for certain, either."  Your central challenge, then, is that "nothing is certain," which is something you realized when asking yourself how you know various things.

"The sky is blue.  I know that to be true, because I see it.  But do I really see it?  How do I know that for certain?"

But my question here is: what does this "certainty" mean?  You say "immutable" or "fundamental," but I'm not sure I understand those terms better in the sense that you must mean.

For the sky, why shouldn't a person assume that he certainly sees it?  How could such an assumption ever go wrong?

If you can, please help me to understand "certainty" in the sense that you mean.  How does this concept apply to any real scenario or situation?  (Examples may help me to better see what you mean.)