Besides the cogito, what absolute knowledge do we have? — Cidat
Besides the cogito, what absolute knowledge do we have? — Cidat
Besides the cogito, what absolute knowledge do we have? — Cidat
Why wouldn't these facts count as a provisional kinds of absolute knowledge. — Nils Loc
Are you asking, what is indubitable? Beyond doubt? — Banno
Does something being a tautology make it false, if it’s really so? A tautology, just because it’s one, isn’t a falsity.The cogito is a tautology; if it is true that I think, that there is an "I" that thinks, then of course it is also true that I exist. Something is going on, that much we know, and thinking certainly seems to be one of the things going on. Perception is another, sensation is another, desire is another: if it is true that there is an "I" perceiving, feeling, desiring, then it is also true that I am. — Janus
How do you understand the term “absolute”?All our knowledge is relative...to how things appear, so in that sense none of it is absolute. We can think 'absolute' as the binary opposite of 'relative', but it does not follow that we can know anything absolute. — Janus
What makes something an “assumption,” according to you?Aren't there problems with the cogito? Assuming that there is an 'I' doing the thinking. And what exactly is it we know about thinking? — Tom Storm
Aren't there problems with the cogito? Assuming that there is an 'I' doing the thinking. And what exactly is it we know about thinking?
— Tom Storm
What makes something an “assumption,” according to you? — ItIsWhatItIs
The idea of thinking assumes there is a thinker — Tom Storm
Doesn’t the fact that those people think that presuppose that they’ve already determined themselves as thinkers in contrast to others? If not, how could they think that they were getting thoughts from someone else, i.e., distinguish between a sender & a receiver mind (so to speak)?I have known many people who experience thoughts who are convinced those thoughts are coming from someone else. How do we determine that any thinking you experience is yours, that there is a you, an 'I am'? — Tom Storm
So, the thinker is assumed but the idea of thinking isn’t? — ItIsWhatItIs
Doesn’t the fact that those people think that presuppose that they’ve already determined themselves as thinkers in contrast to others? If not, how could they think that they were getting thoughts from someone else, i.e., distinguish between a sender & a receiver mind (so to speak)? — ItIsWhatItIs
Does something being a tautology make it false, if it’s really so? A tautology, just because it’s one, isn’t a falsity. — ItIsWhatItIs
How do you understand the term “absolute”? — ItIsWhatItIs
A universal negative judgment is absolute. — ItIsWhatItIs
So, the thinker is assumed but the idea of thinking isn’t? What makes it that the latter isn’t but the former is? — ItIsWhatItIs
although perhaps their argument is that because we are occasionally mistaken about what we think we know, we therefore do not know anything. — Banno
Close enough for practical purposes, but not 100%. It always needs updating, correcting, adding detail. — Vera Mont
Since when is perfection and omniscience necessary for knowledge??? — creativesoul
Maybe. Or maybe you hadn't actually considered what you were claiming. We know you read my post, since you replied to it - it's too later for you to pretend otherwise.I said, we have plenty of knowledge, both individual and pooled, that's accurate enough for practical used, but it's never prefect, complete or absolute. — Vera Mont
We know you read my post, since you replied to it — Banno
They actually do, just no novel information.Tautologies don't tell us anything about the nature of things. — Janus
Is what’s “not relative to any other or context” conceivable? If not, why do you speak on something that’s not thought?It means 'not relative', not relative to any other thing or context. — Janus
... “relative to us.” Does that imply that if wasn’t relative to just “us,” it’d be “absolute”; that is, that it’s just because that it’s just related to “us,” that it’s deemed “relative”; as if a relation to someone beside(s) “us” would qualify it as “absolute”?Meaning what? All our judgements and knowledge, whetger true or false, are relative to us, so none are absolute. — Janus
... & you’ve yet to define what disqualifies a thing from being “assumed” or an “assumption.” When I first asked you, this was your response...No. I already made this point. Both are assumed. — Tom Storm
This may be one of the least philosophical things that I think that I’ve ever heard (no disrespect is meant here, truly). Of course what you think a word means within your argument is significant. If it’s meaningless to you, how am I ever to grasp your meaning?It's not about what I think assumption means. — Tom Storm
The salient point is that there may not a straight forward 'I am' as the Cogito suggests. The experience of thought insertion leads some folk to doubt that they are a self and that their thinking may not be their own. — Tom Storm
They actually do, just no novel information.
There’s no way to argue that “X = X” can’t express “the nature” of “X,” granted that it doesn’t express any (relatively) new information about it. — ItIsWhatItIs
Is what’s “not relative to any other or context” conceivable? If not, why do you speak on something that’s not thought? — ItIsWhatItIs
Or are you saying that any relationship excludes a thing from being “absolute”? — ItIsWhatItIs
I think that the only information about things is given by their relations, not by their identity. — Janus
I'm saying that the nature of anything which depends on its relations with other things is relative, not absolute. — Janus
According to you, is there a smallest possible relation? — ItIsWhatItIs
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.