Is it incorrect to characterize the above question as a spark igniting epistemological inquiry? — ucarr
As I recently wrote elsewhere, I(stick to appearances; those who promise ultimate truths are usually charlatans, oui 180 Proof?) — Agent Smith
... realized that we only ever 'know reality' – orient ourselves – approximately, or superficially, via myths, metaphors, maps & models. — 180 Proof
How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real? — 180 Proof
Is it incorrect to characterize the above question as a spark igniting epistemological inquiry? — ucarr
No, ex mea sententia, no! — Agent Smith
How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real? — 180 Proof
However, though the objective is knowledge (theoretical and practical, re sophia), philosophy is also the realization that the epsitemological [sic] project it has undertaken is futile, bound to fail). — Agent Smith
I myself adopt what I call an ad interim weltanschauung/philosophy (stick to appearances; those who promise ultimate truths are usually charlatans... — Agent Smith
Like @unenlightened once remarked, a brilliant observation, "I treat dreams as real until I wake up." :fire: — Agent Smith
Philosophy, IMO, begins (again and again) wherever the question "How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real?" predominates like an itch that grows as we scratch it. — 180 Proof
You're misreading what I wrote. My bad (I guess) for not being clearer. To unpack the statement, all I mean by it is that philosophy – reflective thinking – begins when we question our assumptions and givens (i.e. the ineluctable background (ontological) conditions for how we live and how we think). 'Topics in epistemology' (re: e.g. truth, knowledge vs opinion, etc) come later once philosophizing has begun in earnest and, IMO, themselves do not, cause us to philosophize.Philosophy, IMO, begins (again and again) wherever the question "How do we know our assumptions are true or our givens are real?" predominates like an itch that grows as we scratch it.
— 180 Proof
As I understand it, your above statement claims the question therein seeks a way, a manner or a means of knowing our acceptances-without-proof are real — ucarr
Here's what I mean by real (from a recent thread on the topic) ...What's your way of defining "real?"
...philosophy... begins when we question our assumptions and givens. — 180 Proof
philosophy – reflective thinking – begins when... — 180 Proof
'Topics in epistemology' (re: e.g. truth, know vs opinion, etc) comes later once philosophizing has begun in earnest and, IMO, themselves do not, cause us to philosophize. — 180 Proof
Reality is ineluctable and, therefore, discourse/cognition–invariant. — 180 Proof
The encompassing of reason that necessarily cannot itself be encompassed by reasoning, — 180 Proof
The real encompasses reason (Jaspers) and itself cannot be encompassed (Spinoza / Cantor) ... like 'the void within & by which all atoms swirl' (Epicurus). — 180 Proof
Reality is that which does not require "faith" and is the case regardless of what we believe. — 180 Proof
I like Tallis' response best.
"In the beginning was astonishment." — Manuel
The Pyrrhonist argument is quite simple and as powerful. For every thesis an equal and opposite antithesis (adiaphora). The scale of truth is perfectly balanced at the center. Hence epoché, post-aporia. — Agent Smith
Appears to me skepticism has a mathematical structure akin to the cancellation of opposite charges resulting in zero. Since zero in isolation is impractical, philosophy with practical content must be irrational. — ucarr
You've lost me. — 180 Proof
'Topics in epistemology' (re: e.g. truth, know vs opinion, etc) comes later once philosophizing has begun in earnest and, IMO, themselves do not, cause us to philosophize. — 180 Proof
Reality is ineluctable and, therefore, discourse/cognition–invariant. — 180 Proof
I can't "unpack" any more than I have already. You misread me out of context (or superficially) and thereby see "contradictions" where there aren't any. And I'm citing my own words from old posts (which I've linked), so why do you assume there's some other "source"? I suspect my problem, ucarr, with your responses is I don't see your point as I've not made any factual claims or proposed any arguments here with which it's reasonable to take issue.Can you unpack the quote? Also, can you cite its source? — ucarr
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.