You see as people who study philosophy we are often skeptics are faced with the fallibility of the world more than perhaps people who do not study it. — dclements

>:O

To be honest, there is no simple way for me to explain things enough so you can see the world from my eyes — dclements

I didn't ask to see the world through your eyes. You might as well just say that you don't know what the difference between empiricism and metaphysics is as you do not address any of the points raised.

If you figure out what this means it might help answer your question. — dclements

You're starting to irritate me with your rhetoric. Did you actually come to discuss any of the points raised, or it's all just about:

Well, who knows what man may understand one day, but that is not the issue at hand nor is it one I even have to bother addressing as it isn't really relevant to this issue. — dclements

And:

It is funny but to be honest thinking about this question, I find it kind of hard to address it the right way since I'm unsure of the right um.."paradigm" you might view the world from which would make you ask such a question in philosophy forum. — dclements

My view does not matter, I didn't start the discussion to promote my view. You're posing as an amateur psychiatrist here, so either cut it off or bring something to the table.

The question of knowledge is from Michael's perspective, not some hypothetical person who has access to the empirical evidence. Yes, someone really did know what his great grandfather ate that day, but they are not us. The question is one about us. Michael cannot know what his great grandfather had for lunch if there is no evidence or way of knowing. So, short of a dated photograph or a journal showing what Michael's great grandfather had for lunch on a particular day, Michael is rationally required to suspend judgement and say he does not know. — Chany

The point is that someone has had access to that information via empirical evidence. Someone could see it or hear about it. Same does not apply to the question of God or any other metaphysical question. I'm arguing that asking for empirical evidence is not the same as arguing for any absolute truth in a metaphysical sense. Those are two different categories. A question about what Michael's great grandfather ate in 1945 is not in the same category as question about whether God exists or not. How is that not apparent?

You seem to be missing the point. You can't go from "X is unknowable" to "nothing is knowable". You're suggesting that agnosticism entails global scepticism, but it doesn't. — Michael

I stand corrected on this point. I'm, however, moving to how can it be proved that ''X is unknowable.''

As an example, I might say that it is impossible to know whether or not my great grandfather had fish and chips on Jan 1st 1945. There's no self-defeating reasoning here. — Michael

At certain time, someone had access to the fact of what your great grandfather ate on Jan 1st 1945, or whether he ate at all that day. That is empirically provable. Someone knew it at some time, even if it was just the great grandfather himself. Same does not apply to metaphysics. It can't be said that someone had more access to the question of God at certain time and space. Such questions are not answered in the same way as the question of whether your great grandfather had a fish on that day or not.

Which only relies upon your supplied definition of agnosticism, and so doesn't need to supply its own. It simply doesn't follow that an agnostic about God must be a skeptic about all metaphysical propositions. The reverse holds -- a skeptic about all metaphysical propositions would also be a skeptic about God, but you can surely be an agnostic about God and not a skeptic about everything. — Moliere

It still doesn't seem to be a valid position to me, to be, for example agnostic about God, rather than saying that I'm not yet sure about the answer, which only shows that I haven't dedicated enough time to properly look for an answer or to develop an argument for/against. If agnosticism was just ''I simply don't know'' type of attitude, then it could be easily dismissed as influenced by the culture, experiences and attitude of the person who makes the ''statement''. Therefore agnostic about God must mean that God's existence is improvable and that proposition has to be proved.

As I've said in an earlier thread: Why do people need to be born into the world in order to redeem it? There is an underlying assumption here, or hope that more people put into the world "means" something. — schopenhauer1

I wouldn't agree that the world needs to be redeemed. However, I don't think that we as human should think on this level. If a couple wants to have children, why should one of their first concerns be that there will be ''more of us'' on this planet? Why is it relevant? The point in which I disagree with utilitarianism is that life is about quality of life, not about quantity, therefore the number of people on this planet is irrelevant to the meaning of life and to the ethical questions raised.

Also, the Camus' "hip" standing at the edge of existence by understanding the absurdity as we are living it out, is another candidate for many. — schopenhauer1

We've all experienced Camus' feeling of absurdity. In Myth of Sisyphus, Camus' immediately discards human reason and claims that the world is alien to us. Why? Just because of some feelings, or the lack of other feelings? It's as if I said that the one who understands God has finally understood the meaning of life. It might sound appealing to some, but I haven't proven that it's true with regards to its relation to reality. Neither did Camus prove that his feeling of the 'absurd' is something more than just a feeling.

So the desire for redeeming the world (charity, scientific advancement, enlightenment) is really instrumental in getting what seems to be the underlying case, the pure desire for more existence. Schopenhauer might call this the "will-to-live".. or simply Will when made into an abstract metaphysical concept. — schopenhauer1

Charity, scientific advancement etc. do not have to be a manifested desire for redeeming the world. If the ''Will'' is a metaphysical concept, is it also a part of the human nature? A part that is not futile (as it itself wants to exist) at all, and the rest, psychological feelings and experiences are the ones that make a person miserable? That would however mean that a person can only be miserable in a material sense, in his own body, so to speak, but not outside of it in a metaphysical sense.
.

Also stated: Boredom is felt when one's attention is not focused on any particular task, or can originate from a lack of stimulating things to do. It is often described as a dullness or restlessness. It causes one to experience time passing, or rather "pressing" down on us. What makes boredom so significant compared to other emotions is that it is, arguably, the baseline emotional state of being. When the usual concerns and goals of daily life are exhausted, or temporarily unable to be pursued, boredom seems to seep through as the phenomenological default experience. If this is true, that boredom is a baseline experience for humans, then what does that say about the nature of being and existence itself? — schopenhauer1

In this sense there can be more default experiences. Why would an experience, regardless of the importance for the individual, be so telling when it comes to the nature of being and existence itself? How can it be defined by an experience?

If life was to be characterized by various forms of flux and stasis, and stress — schopenhauer1

I'm not sure if you view human just from a materialistic point of view when you're describing those forms.

Define agnosticism then.

I disagree: there have been many empirical arguments which purported to demonstrate the existence of God. The entire body of literature on the arguments from design, arguments from fine-tuning, natural theology, intelligent design creationism, and biblical archeology all, in some form or another, seek to provide evidence for the existence of God and (in cases) the veracity of the Bible. But, this is rather off-topic. — Arkady

All those arguments have to start with philosophy as philosophy, unlike empirical sciences, can define God and look at the most basic nature of existence in a most abstract and general way. Empirical sciences focus on different topics. This is off topic, but I challenge anyone to prove that a scientist can answer a metaphysical question using only empirical data and science. Impossible.

The question is whether agnosticism says the existence of God is unknown or unknowable: your OP posited somewhat different definitions along those lines. That was the point my reply addressed. — Arkady

To be honest, it seems to me that agnostics try to dodge the bullet and don't want to admit that they're claiming that they've found an absolute truth.

I'd welcome the correct definition if anyone has it :)

Presumptions aside:

1) God is unknown. - I'm yet to hear why God is unknown and why that is not just lack of trying on our side. (God is used just as an example here, same could go for the soul or some other immaterial, empirically improvable existence) And if anyone finds it highly unlikely to be able to answer the questions of such sort, isn't it just a cultural influence? Isn't it just ''okay'' to think that we cannot know such things?

2) God's existence is unknowable. - Somehow it is knowable that it is unknowable, I wonder how that is the case. This is not a claim based on empirical evidence.

Why can it not be said that we cannot imagine any way, and that no way has ever been shown, and that it certainly seems to be impossible in principle, that God's existence could ever be proven by logic? That would seem to be fair characterization and a consistent expression of agnosticism. — John

The statement - ''God's existence can never be proven by logic'' is a logical conclusion. I'm not saying that the answer to the question of whether God exists or not is crystal clear. I'm asking why is it clear to some that we just cannot answer it.

Let's break this down. First, The question "can any absolute truth be known" has been at the heart of philosophy from the beginning. Maybe that's what separates philosophy from theology. I believe it cannot - not because our brains aren't big enough. More like they're too big. That's not typically what I call "agnosticism." — T Clark

Why can't it be known?

Second - "nothing metaphysical can be proven." I also believe this is true because metaphysics does not address matters of fact which are true or false. It addresses ways of seeing the world which are more or less useful. The purpose of metaphysics is for us to get together and discuss which of these ways we are going to use in what situation. — T Clark

No, metaphysics do not only address the ways in which we can see the world. I completely disagree with your definition. The purpose of metaphysics is to examine the fundamental nature of reality, how is that not the matter of the fact?

If someone asks a question ''Does God exist?'' - the answer is either yes or no, there is no third option. It is a question about the fundamental reality.

If you can swallow the idea of us not having access to the truth (ie letting doubt of us having the truth to replace what you consider to be the truth), then you might be able to understand what they are talking about. Right now you think this doubt of the truth is in a way the same thing as believing in a truth, which unfortunately for you it isn't. — dclements

Well, why do you not doubt your own doubts? Our reason is limited, but to what extend is it limited? It doesn't follow that the reason is limited therefore we have very little access to any truth.

Another way to put it, the world is much, much, much more complicated than we can understand so it is pretty much a given that any 'truths' we try to find will be distorted versions of what the actual 'truth' is. Hopefully this clears up things for you. — dclements

How do you support the claim that the world is much more complicated than we can understand? I'm not speaking about empirical data, but about the abilities of the reason and epistemology.

What is it arguing for then?

In fact I'd say most of our beliefs, apart from introspective beliefs (such as the cogito and our own direct experience), are like this. — Mr Bee

Based on what?

But despite that fact, your argument still doesn't work out. You can believe that the above is true without thinking that fact is absolutely certain. — Mr Bee

I never said that a fact stated as absolute with certainly is to be believed without thinking. I think that we can rationally try to find and test those absolute truths using our reason as agnosticism fails to truly prove that our reason is incapable of doing so.

Using God's existence as an example, it cannot be widely known because it's not something you can prove by using empirical evidence. It's not like scientists are going to discover God, they're not looking for him anyway. That's outside of their expertise.

But then again, why do we not question why agnosticism isn't agnostic about itself?

I say it is immoral to knowingly throw more people into the obligatory forced agreements of the economic system or any system that requires obligatory duties be performed. — schopenhauer1

So, by saying that something is immoral you imply that there are absolute moral standards? If so, then why would you focus only on the biological suffering of the individual? Metaphysical morals would suggest that there is more to life than just suffering and body sensations.

The only reaction people will have is to embrace the obvious need for obligations instead of spur the fact that it's there in the first place. But if this is your answer, why do you not even question why we should put people in the circumstance of forced obligation in the first place? — schopenhauer1

Because ''forced obligation'' is not the only thing that we should focus on when contemplating whether a new life should be created or not. Let alone the fact that life is not evaluated in a quantitative way - good stuff vs bad stuff. It's about whether life itself is good or not.