On Sep 6, 2:02 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Sep 7, 3:47 am, D H <wings...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > brian fletcher wrote:
> > Certainty concerning metaphysical "things-in-themselves" doesn't even
> > matter.
>
> The Kantian nightmare is dead without it, so the "things-in-
> themselves" BS matters everything to be Kantian.
>
So would philosophy in general since one of the major questions in
philosophy is "what are things" which evolved into contem****ary
physics. Further parts of philosophy evolved into biology and
psychology and the questions about appearance and reality were
researched with the scientific method. This thing-in-itself and things-
as-they-appear is a statement about the difference between appearance
and reality. Some appearances can lead to mistaken beliefs about
reality as in hallutionations of dreams.
But I think DH's main point was something like an old comparison where
if all bibles were destroyed we could probsbly make another one only
from other books that talk about the bible.
> > What's im****tant is that we have or can come to a conceptual concensus
> > about "things-for-us" in our shared, phenomenal world.
>
> You're being just be as slly as any Kantian could ever dream to be
> now. FFS consensus aint gonna stop the sun from ****ning nor stop the
> bus from running you over.
>
But your position is based upon consensus also. Logic is just a custom
we have agreed to use in daily life, law courts, and politics and it
seems to work well.
> When consensus, which can only apply among man, is the only thing
> keeping you alive as you appear to be saying, then consensus has
> become your biggest threat and your worst enemy.
>
> You seem wi****ng a middle ground between faith and reason, where there
> aint one, su****ne.
>
> A zillion humans having a consensus aint gonna stop a tree being what
> it is.
>
> There was a consensus in Nazi Germany and of course among Kantians and
> mystics.
>
> Logic, in the context of reason as man's only means to hs knowledge,
> logic means nothing more than, non-contradictory identification and
> integration.
>
The theory of non-contradictory-identification. You have "accepted"
this belief in a particular way that doesn't seem justifiable. Like
most theories, it is beyond certainty to determine that degree of
absolute warrent.
Michael Gordge" has said something like;
> Non-contradictory identification; you cant
> deny something exists without first accepting
> that thing exists to deny, i.e. without contradiction.
> Therefore existence is an axiomatic principle of
> your knowledge, a fact of reality and it doesn't
> matter what we may call it.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_epistemology
> [see "concept formation"]
Your trying to create a foundationalist philosophy based on a single,
undeniable truth which you seem to imply is fixed and assured.
Your first principle that "we cannot deny that something exists
without first accepting that thing exists to deny, i.e. without
contradiction" depends upon a logical structure which is really a
second postulate.
Your unjustifiably claiming that the capacity to judge correctly, to
distinguish the true from the false and to determine what is
contradictory or non-contradictory cannot be mistaken or has no
chance
for error, and this non-contradictory identification remains
theoretical, but theoretically it is the best theory, that is all.
A revised version that is theoretically and inductively [tight] might
go, "IF the capacity to judge correctly, to distinguish the true from
the false and to determine what is contradictory or non-
contradictory,
is completely certain and cannot be mistaken, THEN it is the case
that
we cannot deny that something exists without first accepting that
thing exists to deny, i.e. without contradiction.
Adapted from Descartes' -circle-game- [out of print]
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/439d949cee00a1a9
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/8e18d5a8495653af
> Michael Gordge
|
