Taking land usually involves war which can get really ugly. I don't think fighting a war in order to take someone's land is moral.And the corollary question is: should we just allow people to take others' land with impunity? — Baden
Not necessarily. You don't have to ethnically cleanse a country to take it over. Peutro Rico for example was acquired from the Spanish by the United States in the Treaty of Paris 1898.Which on a grand scale translates to, is ethnic cleansing OK? — Baden
How?You seem to be assuming that for something to exist it requires a perceiver — jastopher
I did not intend to propose subjective idealism. I am not sure if my position does imply subjective idealism.Subjective idealism, which appears to be what you are proposing, is refutable on a number of levels. — jastopher
If there were no intelligent beings, then the very concept of a phenomenon would not exist. There would be no such thing as phenomenon.When we speak of the 'the universe' we speak of our concept of an independently existing phenomenon. If the concept disappears because there are no beings around to conceptualise it, it doesn't follow the phenomenon ceases to exist also. — jastopher
This is not one of the greatest philosopher of all time and is famous for saying, I think therefore I am. — René Descartes
This is the greatest philosopher of all time — René Descartes
I think knowledge is very mysterious just like consciousness and I don't think the regress argument does it justice.To me the infinite regress argument is both good and bad. Good because it sets a high standard for epistemology, thereby assuring quality in knowledge. Bad because it can't be answered in a favorable way. — TheMadFool
What does the regress argument have to say about 'self evident truths'?The point of the regress problem? To problematize the whole notion of axioms — Ying
But these are not random questions. Aren't you implicitly excepting the regress argument as true when you interrogate the believer?hat's all fair enough, if someone puts a regress argument. But the alternative is to just question 'how do you know that?' and continue questioning until the person you are questioning either walks off or realises that the knowledge of which they felt so sure actually rests on an infinite, circular or ungrounded chain of prior assumptions. — andrewk
It's a nice strategy but if I were the knowledge claimant I would ask for the reason for the constant requests for justification.That way the only claim is made by the knowledge claimant, so the onus is on them to justify their claim to knowledge. — andrewk
I would also like to see certain people less sure of themselves. Good answer.The point? The point is to encourage greater epistemic humility. Since much of the harm in the world seems to be done by people who are very sure of themselves, anything we can do to make such people less sure of themselves seems likely to reduce the amount of harm. — andrewk
You mean the "box" that was supposed to be the question of the poll? :rofl:Please tick the box unless you’re in the first group where there’s no box. Don’t blame me, I didn’t design this thing! — CuddlyHedgehog