| donathos said: |
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."
Indeed if I doubted what I absolutely knew it would mean I didn’t know it. As I know empiricism and rationalism are contradictory as a method of truth you can’t show me anything to the contrary. But you’re welcome to try.
Yes, the question of epistemology isn’t about whether or an individual can deal with an apparent disagreement with someone else (aka methodologically convince someone of something he believes).
The only case I am making is that revelation isn’t problematic as an answer to the epistemological question. I’m not attempting to convince you of any piece of information about the truth of the world. Merely that the method of revelation isn’t problematic like empiricism and rationalism as recognizable in our mind. That’s the only thing I really wished to be gained from the 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.
Recognizing that something is contradictory really isn’t an argument in the sense of a rationalistic method of truth. Of course in the sense of a “verbal battle” this is an argument. But this could be clearly categorized as an explanation on my part, not an argument to provide “proof”. What I’m saying is similar to stating that a bachelor is not a banana. Logic does not mean gaining any “first” truths. Knowing sense data doesn’t mean gaining truth of what it represents. Revelation, however, does mean knowledge that is received.
It’s an issue of meaning in the mind. I’m not attempting to convince you of anything about the world. (That may be all that revelation is necessary for.)
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.
Hehe. No you don’t know.
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.
I have no “evidence” that sense data has ever handed me the correct interpretation of itself. As by its definition it doesn’t. Although, I have “experienced” a lifetime of beliefs about reality and sense data.
As this sort of answer to epistemology is certainly despised by many (that knowledge is a gift from God) there is a mantra of the bible I quite agree with concerning the world that rejects it: “They are ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth”.
Okami
To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made. I won't open my unworthy mouth.
