Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
That's is easily one of the cleverest responses i have ever read on this forum. But skepticism is one of the only analytical truths one can know, hence Descartes only decent contribution to philosophy "One can know one is doubting because this thought process is a form of doubting itself". Cogito I'l Sum, I think therefore I am.
Oh well if Descartes said it the it's a given fact right? Oh wait....
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Most rational internal beliefs (not external like sensory data) are based on the opinions of others.Or have you actually observed the earth from Space to see that its round, or tried heroine to see that its dangerous ? Did you go back in time to witness Hitlers invasion of Russia ? The list goes on and on btw.
Not saying I disagree with Descartes, just your method of argument 😄
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
David Hume and Betrand Russel are arguably two of the cleverest people to have ever existed. Suggesting they are ignorant is like saying happiness is bad. There are cases in which you can argue that happiness is infact bad (pedophillia etc), but the general consensus is that it is a really good thing.
Nope, I can safely say they appeared ignorant to me ✅
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Yeah ... but if you don't take the Calvanist perspective you get into deep water into clarifying which parts of the bible are symbolism and metaphorical.
Not really, I have a God who helps with that. "I think because he loves me." - willRules
I apologise for contributing to the continued derailment of this thread ✅
Originally posted by Cartesian DoubtI find it ironic that you can back up your opinions/'facts' by claiming that it's impossible to prove anything as fact, and then, mere posts later, assert that others' beliefs concerning people you've only read about, are wrong.
David Hume and Betrand Russel are arguably two of the cleverest people to have ever existed. Suggesting they are ignorant is like saying happiness is bad. There are cases in which you can argue that happiness is infact bad (pedophillia etc), but the general consensus is that it is a really good thing.
One can't know anything, but one can know that Hume and Russel were extremely clever, and saying otherwise is akin to saying happiness is bad?
Originally posted by Original Smurph
I find it ironic that you can back up your opinions/'facts' by claiming that it's impossible to prove anything as fact, and then, mere posts later, assert that others' beliefs concerning people you've only read about, are wrong.One can't know anything, but one can know that Hume and Russel were extremely clever, and saying otherwise is akin to saying happiness is bad?
My point exactly ✅
Originally posted by Original Smurph
I find it ironic that you can back up your opinions/'facts' by claiming that it's impossible to prove anything as fact, and then, mere posts later, assert that others' beliefs concerning people you've only read about, are wrong.One can't know anything, but one can know that Hume and Russel were extremely clever, and saying otherwise is akin to saying happiness is bad?
Actually i can, its called contextualism, and its a very popular epistemological theory.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contextualism-epistemology/
It allows one to meanigfully talk about "knowing" about trivial things e.g. i Know I will go to college tomorrow, without having to worry about things like being a Brain in a Vat.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Actually i can, its called contextualism, and its a very popular epistemological theory.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contextualism-epistemology/
It allows one to meanigfully talk about "knowing" about trivial things e.g. i Know I will go to college tomorrow, without having to worry about things like being a Brain in a Vat.
Which seems to amount to simply ignoring stuff when it's inconvenient. Then again your link is impenetrable.
Originally posted by willRulesNot saying I disagree with Descartes, just your method of argument 😄
This doesn't really effectively challenge anything. Your response amounts tovery circular reasoning which is unfortunately common.
"Your arguement is bad, because your argument is bad"
Originally posted by willRules
Nope, I can safely say they appeared ignorant to me ✅
Its funny how one can't help noticing that word idiosyncratic sounds a bit like the words idiot and spastic put together ?
Originally posted by willRules
[B]Not really, I have a God who helps with that. "I think because he loves me." - willRules
So how exactly do you know that your God loves you ?, i hazard a guess that it maybe based on what has been said by the bible or what someone has interpreted in the bible and then passed onto yourself. Its funny how i've heard simillar interpretations and am yet to be convinced that any God, whether its Muhammad, Jehovah, Yahweh, Darksied, Jesus, Zeus, Xenu or Zoltan loves me in any way what so ever. However im skeptical about the lock ness monster, UFO's and Father Christmas as well. The point is, unless you've had some Cartesian innate idea about God existence, you cannot claim your perspective on religion hasn't been influenced by another hearsay source of Authority. In the end all Christian sources of Authority lead back to the bible. I would take the rationality of David Hume and Bertrand Russel (Those you have idiosyncratically claimed to be ignorant) over that weird hypocritical nonsense any day of the week.
Originally posted by Cartesian DoubtYet you still fail to address your own inconsistencies, which was what my post was about.
Actually i can, its called contextualism, and its a very popular epistemological theory.http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contextualism-epistemology/
It allows one to meanigfully talk about "knowing" about trivial things e.g. i Know I will go to college tomorrow, without having to worry about things like being a Brain in a Vat.
At one point, you justify your own opinions by claiming that nothing is truly fact, then you claim that you can treat trivial things as fact for the sake of an argument.
If you respond again, try to have it contain more than a link to a theory, followed by an explanation that has little to do with what I said.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
Impenetrable ?
Difficult or impossible to penetrate. Unable to be understood.
In its dominant form, EC is the view that the proposition expressed by a given knowledge sentence (‘S knows that p’, ‘S doesn't know that p’) depends upon the context in which it is uttered.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Difficult or impossible to penetrate. Unable to be understood.In its dominant form, EC is the view that the proposition expressed by a given knowledge sentence (‘S knows that p’, ‘S doesn't know that p’) depends upon the context in which it is uttered.
I understood it enough to use it as main revision source for my exam. 🙂
Originally posted by Original Smurph
Yet you still fail to address your own inconsistencies, which was what my post was about.At one point, you justify your own opinions by claiming that nothing is truly fact, then you claim that you can treat trivial things as fact for the sake of an argument.
If you respond again, try to have it contain more than a link to a theory, followed by an explanation that has little to do with what I said.
No it means that different situations require differing amounts of evidence to prove the knowledge is a J.T.B. (Justified true belief). Making a claim like someone is clever (E.g. Bertrand Russel) is requires less eveidence/justification to be supported than the notion that there is an all powerful, all knowing psychopath who created the universe while promoting the molestation and rape of children and the genocide of entire races, as well as requiring the sacrificing of children and men for his appraisal.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
No .... in fashion
Then I assume you would have spent time studying the is rather than being handed an extensive article on the subject with little context and less background.
Originally posted by Cartesian Doubt
No it means that different situations require differing amounts of evidence to prove the knowledge is a J.T.B. (Justified true belief). Making a claim like someone is clever (E.g. Bertrand Russel) is requires less eveidence/justification to be supported than the notion that there is an all powerful, all knowing psychopath who created the universe while promoting the molestation and rape of children and the genocide of entire races, as well as requiring the sacrificing of children and men for his appraisal.
You provided no evidence that Bertrand Russel was clever . . .
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then I assume you would have spent time studying the is rather than being handed an extensive article on the subject with little context.You provided no evidence that Bertrand Russel was clever . . .
Well to name one of his many, many achievements he basically was the first person to dick on Frege's template for Propositional logic, which is used to prove things like 1 + 1 = 2. He was also Ludwig Wittgenstein (Who was in fact a Christian)tutor, whose is arguably the greatest philosopher who ever lived. I.e. he basically invented the philosophy of Language.
I wish everyone would stop challenging me and start providing some sort of evidence that religion is rational that doesn't involve Aquinas, Pascal, Descrates or William frikin Paley.
The point is all rational explanaitions of God fail miserably. Hence my original claim, God vs Rationality.
Originally posted by Cartesian DoubtI don't see where I stated anything concerning religion.
No it means that different situations require differing amounts of evidence to prove the knowledge is a J.T.B. (Justified true belief). Making a claim like someone is clever (E.g. Bertrand Russel) is requires less eveidence/justification to be supported than the notion that there is an all powerful, all knowing psychopath who created the universe while promoting the molestation and rape of children and the genocide of entire races, as well as requiring the sacrificing of children and men for his appraisal.
You claimed you could present your opinions as facts because nothing was necessarily fact.
You then essentially asserted that someone was wrong based on what we know (the facts) about Russel and Hume.