But how would Wittgenstein handle international relations, culture exchange, global politics? In the end, aren't we all one society with internal boundaries?All I'm saying is for moral relativism to be true, the word "morality" in America must mean the same thing as the word "morality" in Iran for instance. Only then can we say morality is relative to culture - the same thing (morality) is culturally determined (in America homosexuality is ok but in Iran it's immoral). If, on the other hand, the word "morality" means different things e.g. in America it might have a meaning associated with equality and in Iran the word maybe associated with the Quran then Americans and Iranians aren't talking about the same thing are they? — TheMadFool
I don’t see how any uncertainty in knowing the foundation of truth necessarily makes truth contingent. Again, my Jesus example. The Jesus in my story may not know where his intuitions came from, and may never know (in which case they are unknowable to him or perhaps to any human being); nevertheless, God put those intuitions in him; so they are not just a construct, and not contingent. — Acyutananda
I am left with the impression that this is utilitarian model of knowledge. I propose that only the basis of mathematics, such as predicate logic, induction, probability, are derived by use, and the rest can be extracted by vain observation of nature or articulated on top of other abstractions, without seeking actual non-epistemic benefit from those models. I believe that the work of Riemann in topology originally lacked applications and found most of its practical uses later.Under this assumption, which requires an epistemological shift from empiricism, situativity theorists suggest a model of knowledge and learning that requires thinking on the fly rather than the storage and retrieval of conceptual knowledge. In essence, cognition cannot be separated from the context. Instead knowing exists, in situ, inseparable from context, activity, people, culture, and language. Therefore, learning is seen in terms of an individual's increasingly effective performance across situations rather than in terms of an accumulation of knowledge, since what is known is co-determined by the agent and the context. — Wikipedia
This much of your post seems to be in almost complete agreement with me. The only difference between us seems to be your "as close . . . that I can imagine." Why not just say "This is a genuine/correct intuition," as I do?
Could not your "there is no answer. . . . apprehended" be paraphrased “The correctness of this geometric principle/proposition cannot ultimately be proved by any discursive argument. Its correctness ultimately rests on intuition, Such intuitions are intuitions that almost everyone has, and they are correct intuitions" – ?
"we are 'shown' things through intuition, but intuition is not that which is shown."
Can you refer me to where Kant says this? Anyway, I agree.
"[Intuition's] foundation is unknowable." — Acyutananda
Are you still representing Kant here? I don’t see why this should necessarily follow from "[Intuition's] foundation is unknowable." Let’s take my Jesus example above (which I don’t believe in, but which I think is a coherent story – not empirically true, but not a story that violates logic). Jesus may not know where his intuitions came from, and may never know (in which case they are unknowable to him or perhaps to any human being); nevertheless, God put those intuitions in him; so they are not just a construct, and not contingent. — Acyutananda
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.