I am guessing this is the empirist VS Rationalist discusion?
I love epistemology :D
Anyway one of Sokrates most famus missquotes (not mentioned once in Platos works) explains it well:
"I know, I know nothing"
but this would be knowlage, in other words, if no real knowlage is posible it would be imposible to know.
Let me ask anyone here. When you were a child, old enought to remember (say age 4 to 12), did you ever question your existence ?
I'm pretty sure nearly everyone didn't. Which means it's not innate. IOW's, our brain shouldn't hafta grow itself conscious about this.
Try to convince a child that, "merrily....life is but a dream". They'll look puzzled at you then probably start laffing.
My point is, the burden of proof belies upon the naysayers....and the unconvinced (like myself....at times) awaits proof that we don't exist.
But then I believe in mytempsychoses.
Let me ask anyone here. When you were a child, old enought to remember (say age 4 to 12), did you ever question your existence ?
I'm pretty sure nearly everyone didn't. Which means it's not innate. IOW's, our brain shouldn't hafta grow itself conscious about this.
Try to convince a child that, "merrily....life is but a dream". They'll look puzzled at you then probably start laffing.
My point is, the burden of proof belies upon the naysayers....and the unconvinced (like myself....at times) awaits proof that we don't exist.
But then I believe in mytempsychoses.
I exited that time period one year ago... Yeah, I did...
The _Ghostess_Lola:
"My point is, the burden of proof belies upon the naysayers....and the unconvinced (like myself....at times) awaits proof that we don't exist."
Generally speaking,the burden of proof actually,always,rests with whomever makes the claim.If claimant "X" makes a statement "Y",then claimant "X" automatically assumes the burden of proving "Y". If claimant "X" cannot,or will not attempt to prove their claim, not only is no one else under any obligation whatsoever to assume the burden,but everyone else can safely take the position "That's an interesting idea,but I have no way of evaluating it(hence there is no reason I should accept it.) This,btw, is much more diplomatic than saying "lol...you are so full of crap."
I am guessing this is the empirist VS Rationalist discusion?
I love epistemology :D
Anyway one of Sokrates most famus missquotes (not mentioned once in Platos works) explains it well:
"I know, I know nothing"
but this would be knowlage, in other words, if no real knowlage is posible it would be imposible to know.
also agree sokrates is misunderstood. when he says i know that i know nothing he really means he knows Nothing - that which escapes the binary relation. Nothing is the Truth ("no thing" but truth)
sokrates was always clever and those who havent read classics at university or at self might miss this ironic statement and think socrates thinks "we can't know anything" which is not what he's saying.
he's just saying the truth is "no-thing" and thus we just cant "say" it. therefore going back to the original, 1st post, chess exists, we just can't "say" that it does and thus by so establish its truth without a doubt.
Due to the difficulties of establishing,beyound a doubt,the "truthfulness" of an idea,it is vastly more utilitarian to ditch the idea of " absolute validation" and instead aim for establishing "acceptablity":ie if an arguement is strong I should find it's premise " acceptable".Likewise,if the arguement is weak,I should find the premise "unacceptable". Furthermore,one should be prepared to switch positions between acceptable and unacceptable as future evidence dictates.Trying to absolutely validate an idea is dangerously close to mere hand-waving.
Due to the difficulties of establishing,beyound a doubt,the "truthfulness" of an idea,it is vastly more utilitarian to ditch the idea of " absolute validation" and instead aim for establishing "acceptablity":ie if an arguement is strong I should find it's premise " acceptable".Likewise,if the arguement is weak,I should find the premise "unacceptable". Furthermore,one should be prepared to switch positions between acceptable and unacceptable as future evidence dictates.Trying to absolutely validate an idea is dangerously close to mere hand-waving.
absolutely validate an idea by mere hand waving is what Moore did.... so.... why not
Trash_Aesthetic:
"absolutely validate an idea by mere hand waving is what Moore did.... so.... why not"
This thread in a nutshell.
‘Does chess exist?’
That is a very good question!
My answer is: ‘Why should I care?’
‘Does chess exist?’
That is a very good question!
My answer is: ‘Why should I care?’
PG becuase if it doesn't exist you shouldn't be playing it
‘Does chess exist?’
That is a very good question!
My answer is: ‘Why should I care?’
PG becuase if it doesn't exist you shouldn't be playing it
unless, PG, you admit you're playing something that may not exist!
do words exist ? and if not, what is this plonk ?
words surely exist. i can see them. but the question is if they mean anything. if words exist, their meaning but exist by extension, but we cant know the meaning. sorry!
Hats, you see colour that you interpret as meaningful words.
man, you gotta stop smoking.
Fair aint got nothin to do with it.
A great line from"Mr.Robot". The main character narrates his own life and says," I'm probably insane. Afterall, I am talking to you and you do not exist!"
‘Does chess exist?’
That is a very good question!
My answer is: ‘Why should I care?’
PG becuase if it doesn't exist you shouldn't be playing it
unless, PG, you admit you're playing something that may not exist!
What is the problem with playing something that does not exist?
By that line of thought: what if sex does not exist? Should you stop having sex because of that? (Not that I have sex, by the way: I do not; I'm leaving it for marriage. OK, bad example...)
What if draughts do not exist? Should you... Oh, wait. Perhaps you do not play draughts...
What if food does not exist? Should you stop eating? [MINDBLOWING! — Or perhaps not.]
if a yes we would have to know for sure to say it and we cant know anything for sure, so no. b if no the world wouldnt exist and thus we couldnt state it doesnt exist so no. c is correct. d is socrates old classical answer but modern school says its wrong because we can have true beliefs about something and they consider it somewhat knowledge. e no because definition of existence means absolute, universal, independent (not dependent on your mind) f. same problem g. same problem as "a" h. same problem as "e" i is saying the same thing as a, because if it were not, it would run into the same problem as h, not including universally, absolutely.
C (according to hyper-modern school), d according to classical school. But modern era we are in so C.
thanks for laying it out and being clearApotek You are welcome.
I hate to admit it,but while I would choose the safety of c) or d) to pass an exam,I am secretly an a) guy.In other words,I believe that chess does exist..
