There is a light brown tabby cat looking out towards you — Punshhh
This is false. Wittgenstein disproved global skepticism by his analysis of hinge beliefs. Global skepticism is self-defeating. — darthbarracuda
I agree Marchesk these are interesting cases relating to the issue of doubt. My feeling is though that they do not contradict what Wittgenstein was saying, though I haven't gone back to 'On Certainty' to check. I think the fundamental point remains that doubt can only rest on some certainties. The certainties these people with brain trauma accept are by 'objective' standards wrong, but those people still act on them. (Mostly: in some cases they seem to act on knowledge they avow that they don't consciously have)So in all those rather strong looking hinge cases, it is possible to have brain trauma so that you actually do doubt what seems to be undoubtable, in a real, every day lived sense. — Marchesk
there's a difference between philosophy and science fiction although it's sometimes a hard thing to explain. — Wayfarer
But there are computer scientists who dispute that claim. — Marchesk
So you don't think any distinction between things which merely entertain us, things which imbue our lives with a sense of meaning or beauty and things which have direct practical applications is meaningful? You don't take there to be any genuine logic at all behind any such distinction? In short, you simply don't understand any such distinction? For you all those kinds of things mentioned are simply practically useful, and that's it; end of analysis? — John
The hinge beliefs Wittgenstein primarily focused on were those required for reason itself. Skepticism and doubt are inherently rational. They depend upon the ability to reason. You can't have global skepticism because that would entail doubt of reason itself. We can doubt the fruits of reason, sure, but reason itself cannot be doubted on pain of contradiction. It is always a given. — darthbarracuda
To put it another way, then, you can't criticize language without using language. You can't argue against argument without using argument. You can't fully disprove or withdraw from reason without using reason in the process of doubt. — darthbarracuda
What does pragmatism have to say about two competing theories of equal plausibility and appeal? — darthbarracuda
You say you are a realist about an external world if I remember correctly, whereas I am actually leaning towards straight-up idealism. Both are able to capture the same things. They are empirically equivalent. Realism, in my view, could be seen as a historical and biased prejudice. — darthbarracuda
one cannot disprove scepticism without starting philosophy. Indeed, since scepticism is a philosophical position, one cannot even articulate it without starting philosophy. — unenlightened
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.