By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
donathos on 16 April 2009
Edit Thread
appolose said:   

Ha! :)

I had my customary point-by-point response nearly complete when my computer flipped-out a bit and lost it... (at which point I also flipped-out a bit and lost it!)

I can't bring myself to try to retype it all, so let me get right to the heart:

appolose said:

donathos said:

Besides that, let's suppose that you absolutely know that empiricism is contradictory.  And I absolutely know that empiricism is a method of acquiring absolute knowledge.  Are we strictly at an impasse?

…

And, from my point of view (if you're not a solipsist and grant that I exist as a consciousness as well), if I absolutely know that empiricism is valid, then why should I be open to what you say?  Shouldn't I immediately dismiss your claims as mere belief?  How can you ever show me anything that could convince me that what I absolutely know to be true is not actually true?

 

    That’s an example of what I was previously describing. You can hypothetically suggest two people with opposing absolute knowledge (just like you can set up two people with opposing ‘mere belief’ – if that’s all we have).

 

    But, as this is being brought to my mind, truth means truth and it won’t not-be-what-it-is for another mind. I absolutely know empiricism is contradictory (not a working method of truth) so I know you can’t have absolute knowledge otherwise. Literally this would be like proposing the hypothetical situation (without making it confused in epistemic terminology): What if (hypothetically) the sun exists for John and also it doesn’t exist for Jane. Either I just confess I have no idea what that would mean for reality or I say well, whatever that is, it can’t be my problem because I know otherwise. Might as well ask if I’m hypothetically wrong about something I absolutely know.

    But as far as “how do we deal with an apparent disagreement”, yes, we are “stuck” – if there’s a “sovereign source of truth” and I am not that source, then I have no certain method of making it appear in your mind by some external demonstration or argument.

What I gather here is that: you "know what you know"; you're not open to being shown anything to the contrary, because you cannot conceive of doubting that which you claim to know; your system allows for no ways of dealing with "apparent disagreement" and you cannot make a case for your views via "external demonstration or argument."

Though I agree that this is the only apporpriate and logical position for your views (and I said as much many many posts ago), it's slightly exasperating because it calls into question the very idea that there can be anything gained by our discussion.

While I take some solace in knowing that, the very fact you argue for your position implies that you don't yourself believe it at heart... the rest of me is discouraged.

I mean, just so we're clear, we don't have to be dealing in "hypotheticals"; I know that empiricism is a "working method of truth," and therefore your claims to "absolutely know" the contrary are certainly false.

And for all I can tell, since you'll admit to no evidence to the contrary (despite the fact that both you and I have a lifetime's worth of it), that does indeed mean that we're at an impasse.