As with many things, I come across a view/claim that I cannot resolve or that I don't completely buy.
The claim is this:
Absolute certainty is possible only via phenomenological sense-perception in any present moment (that is, sense-perception not separated by time). For example, "I am aware that some experience is occurring as I type this," or "I sense things in this moment".*
Do you disagree? — numberjohnny5
First, I want to clarify what I mean by "know" or "knowledge", just so that we're on the same page. I'm using the common philosophical definition (at least in analytic circles) of knowledge as justified, true belief. — numberjohnny5
; truth refers to the correspondence theory of truth; — numberjohnny5
My view is that we can but only within a phenomenological-in-the-moment-sense-experience-of-something, and not with anything in which time separates the "presentness" of experience. — numberjohnny5
What belief would be justified by sensory experience? Give me an example. — Mongrel
That would be knowledge-internalism. The opposing view is knowledge-externalism. Both views have strengths and weaknesses. — Mongrel
"I sense [or believe] things in this moment". — numberjohnny5
o be honest, I haven't read much about the Internalism-Externalism debate, but the reason I probably side with the Internalism side is that since beliefs are mental and knowledge is a subset of belief, then knowledge is mental (along with its constituent parts, of course). — numberjohnny5
And that outlook sets the stage for mind-body conundrums. Externalism is explicitly an attempt to fly free of those issues. There's a good SEP article about it: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-intext/ . I found it to be a can of worms... the questions just keep rolling.
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.