Putting it bluntly, to me it appears to be pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
That's okay. I get it. Some people are going to think I talk just to listen to myself, and some are going to believe I'm sincere and genuine. I think about projection all the time. But do you understand it or not? Specifically, do you KNOW how to tell facts from opinions, so that you can honestly state what is self-evident and what isn't? <--- Does this make sense to you?
You might ask what this has to do with semantic analysis? Some people don't know how to parse facts from opinions, and it shows in how they apply the words they use in sentence structures revealing either positive or negative prejudice. They therefore will draw inferences that are errors in reasoning if negative, and they become disconnected from reality as they build error upon error. Hence, we project what's in our hearts.
Certainty is a really high bar to reach, so yeah I would say certainty is a big claim.
The certainty
that facts are learned and not imagined would be the self-evident lowest bar of
don't lie. As sure as seeing I have toes that are not imaginary. I don't get your hesitancy to hold that conviction.
Your whole dichotomy framework for undergirding knowledge. Is that something you were taught, read somewhere, or came up with yourself?
You're misunderstanding me for some reason of error. I suspect it's because you still don't understand how I parse fact from opinion.
It's not a framework for undergirding knowledge. To be clear, the entire Universe and God Himself are not built upon MY whole dichotomy framework.
I learned how to do semantic analysis by studying semantics particular to psycholinguistics. If you think that sounds like woo, trust me it's not. Everyone does it to some extent every time we try to understand what others are expressing.
Semantics are the sentiments that words carry. Unlike common definitions in a dictionary, each person has their own unique subjective nuances in the meanings of the words we commonly use. These nuances are referred to as psycholinguistics (words in thought) because the sentiments begin in the thought process we mean to express. And even though we all use common words, they carry meaning/feelings unique for every person. Hence words in thought have power, and these meanings can alter beliefs and behavior because we reason upon them in our minds and act accordingly.
So,
I use a framework of dichotomies to establish sound reasoning and to conduct semantic analysis,
NOT undergird knowledge.
And I indicated that here:
childeye 2 said:
Do you comprehend how this framework is using a
positive/negative dichotomy to establish sound reasoning when parsing semantics?
So, you understand, I find these dichotomies to be speaking to the most meaningful self-evident knowledge to be gained as we experience reality. These dichotomies represent energy that moves people in positive and negative ways.
True/false, Knowledge/ignorance, Honesty/dishonesty, Moral/immoral, Faithful/faithless, Compassionate/uncompassionate, Reasonable/unreasonable, Heartful/heartless, Kindness/unkindness, Merciful/merciless, Goodness/wickedness, Gracious/disgraceful.
Look again, the above are all objectively True dichotomies. These are just some of them, but they all show a meaning through contrasting the negative against the positive. These dichotomies power, by definition, the most meaningful sentiments words can carry. It means everyone KNOWS what these are.
Do you see Honesty/dishonesty? It's honesty to proclaim what is self-evident. I would be a lie to say that what is self-evident, is not self-evident. This is why a witness who lies under oath about what they saw is committing a crime. They don't get to say, 'I don't believe in anything self-evident" or "Certainty is a really high bar to reach, so yeah I would say certainty is a big claim".
Sort of, I'm a philosophical skeptic...which doesn't mean I live in perpetual doubt or question things without end. Simply that I do not believe there is an adequate reply to Munchhausen's trilemma such that we can claim to know anything beyond what is present to us. In particular it is a denial that we can know deep "truths" like cosmic history and questions of origins or what stuff is made out of. At least not from our own faculties.
I don't see any need to reply to the trilemma. We need to be able to differentiate between facts and opinions, and to do that we need to say what is self-evident and what isn't, without calling it dogmatism.
I understand that, and my statements aren't meant as criticisms of how you make sense of the craziness we call reality. If you are satisfied with your self-evident truths, more power to you. But if they are offered only on the strength of how apparent they are to you, don't be surprised when people dismiss what you say without consideration.
In my psycholinguistics, craziness is a symptom of being disconnected from reality. Above you say your statements are NOT meant as criticisms. Yet you contend that some people might dismiss me out of hand as if I alone can see what these dichotomies mean in reality. But these are self-evident as sure as I see my toes or you see yours, if you have toes. So, it occurs to me that you don't want to admit they're real because of the Munchhausen trilemma's effect on you.
A quick analysis of your sentiments above shows the same recurring error in processing information. You say "YOUR" self-evident truths. That reveals that YOU BELIEVE those truths are subjective, and not objective factual truths we all trust/believe in. Or perhaps the term 'belief' in your psycholinguistics only carries the sentiment of 'not-factual', so when you think, see, or hear, or use it, you don't factor in that 'belief' can also convey the sentiment of 'trusting" in something that is 'real' and 'trustworthy' just like the ground we walk on.
But you said, -->"What makes your approach dogmatic is that you assert that these dichotomies are foundational, but I can still ask why this is so".
Foundational for sound reasoning. True/false. <-- denotes a meaning in both substance and absence of substance, which we can reason upon with clarity <-- identifying the positive and the negative in a dichotomy does not qualify as dogmatism nor an assertion.
It's not a matter of what is worth believing or not, but recognizing what the basis of our beliefs truly is.
Sound reasoning is always a matter of what is worth believing or not. What we trust in matters because we reason upon what we believe/trust to be true. I see goodness/wickedness in reality. I can see that wickedness is a power, but I can't believe/trust in wickedness as the Eternal power. It's self-evident that wickedness is a depravity. I'd be a liar to say it's self-evident that wickedness is a virtue.
