Then where does the fascination with certainty come from? — Reformed Nihilist
:up:I feel like there is a step of logic missing between that premise and conclusion.
Is this a fool's errand? — Reformed Nihilist
It feels as though if we cannot establish a foundational inerrant truth to build our knowledge upon, then somehow by extension all claims to truth are equal, knowledge is impossible or meaningless — Reformed Nihilist
No, it was Peirce alright. — Ciceronianus
the attempt to create/discover some fundamental bedrock of certainty upon which we can build a foundation for all knowledge and wisdom. Some singular truth that is irrefutable and inerrant from which we can derive the other truths of the universe. It's a little analogous to the search for a fundamental indivisible particle, upon which all matter must be bult on. — Reformed Nihilist
On the other hand, while it's an inference based on a small amount of information, I suspect that what you have to say will be entirely uninteresting and unconvincing to me. I guess I'll leave it up to you while letting you know that your post comes across as lacking not just the social humility that be a turn off to people (I sometimes lack that), but more importantly the intellectual humility that allows people to take you seriously as a thinker. Leastways, that's how it looks to me. — Reformed Nihilist
Let us be as positive as we can be, for those finds are rare to come across. — PoeticUniverse
Sadly, claims to such finds are not rare at all, and to date all I have encountered have be vacuous. — Reformed Nihilist
Not quite sure I'm understanding the distinction you're trying to make. Can you expand? — Reformed Nihilist
Then again, it might also be the case that in simply having a perspective, intelligent species cannot, as it were, get out of a perspective to view nature from a "view from nowhere", as Nagel puts it, to see how things are without an interpreting mind of some kind. — Manuel
It feels as though if we cannot establish a foundational inerrant truth to build our knowledge upon, then somehow by extension all claims to truth are equal, knowledge is impossible or meaningless, and it's simply an "anything goes" situation, where the truth is whatever you decide you want it to be. I feel like there is a step of logic missing between that premise and conclusion. It feels a bit like saying "there's no foundation that is impervious to natural disasters, so you can't build a house" or "all houses are subject to possibly being ruined by natural disaster, so you may as well build anywhere". — Reformed Nihilist
^^axiology includes aesthetics, ethics & logic.ontology – what is necessarily not (never) the case such that whatever remains (possibly the case) is ineluctable?
^^axiology – which priorities, values, habits, norms are optimal for (this) ontology?
epistemology – how can we make (this) ^^axiology practical, or apply it to culture, politics and daily living?
For the sake of discussion, consider an alternative schema for, let's call it, 'a metaphysics for agency':
ontology – what is necessarily not (never) the case such that whatever remains (possibly the case) is ineluctable?
^^axiology – which priorities, values, habits, norms are optimal for (this) ontology?
epistemology – how can we make (this) ^^axiology practical, or apply it to culture, politics and daily living?
^^axiology includes aesthetics, ethics & logic.
Thoughts? — 180 Proof
You misread me, Smith. Not "metaphysics of" but metaphysics for ...metaphysics of agency, huh? — Agent Smith
Hardly "scientiific" compared to this...a bit (too) scientific for my taste but is there a choice? — Agent Smith
I replied to this with the same misgivings, IMO, more applicable to scientific concerns than addressed to philosophical (existential) aporia.Metaphysics:
1. Causality
2. Ontology
3. Identity & Change
4. Necessity & Possibility
5. Space & Time
[ ... ] — Agent Smith
I'm not a positivist and I agree with Einstein's sage insight that "imagination is more important than knowledge" (pace Plato re: banishing (silencing) "the poets"). Predictions, after all, are deductions of explicit (and implicit) possibilities, no? Science without (or with "less") fact-based imaginings (e.g. conjectures, predictions, prepared experiments, criticisms, etc) is nothing but religious wankery (woo). Besides, while possibility entails conceivability, conceiveability is not bound by or restricted to following bivalent logic or making grammatical sense that, respectively, excludes impossibilities or nonsense; so, in ontology, I'm referring to the former sense of possibility (modal) not the latter (fantasy).The less we depend on imagination (possibility), the better it is, no? — Agent Smith
Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.
I'm not a positivist and I agree with Einstein's sage insight that "imagination is more important than knowledge" (pace Plato re: banishing (silencing) "the poets"). Predictions, after all, are deductions of explicit (and implicit) possibilities, no? Science without (or with "less") fact-based imaginings (e.g. conjectures, predictions, preparing experiments, criticisms, etc) is nothing but religious wankery (woo). Besides, while possibility entails conceivability, conceiveability is not bound by or restricted to following bivalent logic or making grammatical sense excluding impossibilities or nonsense; so, in ontology, I'm referring to the former sense of possibility (modal) not the latter (fantasy).
Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand. — 180 Proof
That's why I qualified imagination with "fact-based"; eliminate the fact-free stuff first, then the stuff that doesn't follow logically as a possibility, etc.As for science needing imagination, what about Occam's razor (do not multiply entities beyond necessity)? — Agent Smith
:ok: :smirk:That said, consider me a convert to yourreligion[speculation], I'm on board with respect to the general thrust of your argument.
I just don't see how we could even go about trying to find a perspective-less view to see things as they are in a natural state, not affected by any representations. But then are there "things" left at all?
It's very obscure territory. — Manuel
As for the idea of "the One", perhaps this can be illuminating in certain instances for the individual capable of having these experiences. — Manuel
Which is why we always keep asking "why" questions. — Manuel
I think people can confuse the moment of the experience with some deep truth. — Manuel
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.