A Philosophy to end all Philosophies...

[Gabrial]

David Hume is the formost philosopher in this area, and I really think he touches the real reality of existance. He states that there is no knowledge or that knowledge can never be attained by our feeble human minds. Which i believe is true.

Knowledge is merly a word us humans associate with "thinking we know about something" when in reality, we dont know anything, except at the exact time we experience it. For example, "Will the sun rise tomorrow morning?" (well actually the sun really doesent rise, its our earth that rotates, making it appear to rise on our side of the earth) No one can be exactly sure if the sun will rise, until it happens. And a person might say they knew that the sun was going to rise, but in reality, they didnt know for sure. The sun might suddenly emplode or perhaps a gigantic astroid might hit our earth causing all life to be extinguished. Now the probability of that happening is slim to none, but probability in itself can always be proven wrong. (Winning the lottery, or getting struck by lightening) Just beacuse the probability is 1/100000000000000 doesent mean it cant happen, it just means its not likely it will.

I would like to hear some other peoples philosophies and opinions on this matter....

 

[MoonlessNight]

This is where the need for deductive, rather than inductive, logic comes into play.

Let's start off with what we can know for certaintity. As Descartes said, "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). If you are having thoughts, must you not exist in some way? The only way this does not follow is if our very system of logic was so entirely wrong that debating anything is rather pointless. So, you exist. That's one thing that you can know.

Unfortuanatly, that's where things start to get iffy. There are various proofs to say that we can know logic, and with logic itself proven (which is hard to do without creating a circular argument because of the nature of the question, hence the controversy), there are many other things we can say. But I have not yet seen a proof that does not contain flaws. So you can either assume the validity of logic and move on, or stay with only the knowledge or your own existence.

As I've said before the key to your belief system is the fundamental propositions that you assume about reality. But since you've assumed things, is it really knowledge?

At least you have the assurance of your own existence.

 

[Arikay]

Yes, no one can be 100% certain that the sun will rise tomorrow, but You can be 99.999etc.% certain.

 

[vajradhara]

This is where the need for deductive, rather than inductive, logic comes into play.

Let's start off with what we can know for certaintity. As Descartes said, "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). If you are having thoughts, must you not exist in some way? The only way this does not follow is if our very system of logic was so entirely wrong that debating anything is rather pointless. So, you exist. That's one thing that you can know.

Unfortuanatly, that's where things start to get iffy. There are various proofs to say that we can know logic, and with logic itself proven (which is hard to do without creating a circular argument because of the nature of the question, hence the controversy), there are many other things we can say. But I have not yet seen a proof that does not contain flaws. So you can either assume the validity of logic and move on, or stay with only the knowledge or your own existence.

As I've said before the key to your belief system is the fundamental propositions that you assume about reality. But since you've assumed things, is it really knowledge?

At least you have the assurance of your own existence.

Namaste all,

when Descartes said, "i think therefore i am." he meant that we can prove our existence by the fact that our thinking exists. he concluded that because we are thinking, ware really there, existing. i would conclude the opposite: "i think, therefore i am not."

as long as mind and body are not together, we get lost and cannot really say that we are here.

as someone said... knowledge is memory of a thing, not the actual thing itself. since our memory is fallible our knowledge can never be sure of itself or it's object.

 

[Thwingly]

Hello everyone,

Thanks for your posts everyone that posted here. In Gabrial's post, he said "there is no knowledge or that knowledge can never be attained by our feeble human minds." A doctrine of Hume's that he agrees with. There are two obvious possibilities, that this is true, or that this is false. If it is true, then it is not true, because it is a statement about reality, the statement makes a claim to knowledge, that either a) no knowledge exists or b) no knowledge can be obtained. Either way, it cannot be true. Therefore it must be false. If you want to suppose that logic does not work, you are once again relying on logic, claiming you know something but claiming you can't or there is nothing to know. I challenge you to come up with a way to show that logic is a fallible means of gaining knowledge. Otherwise, the statement you made must be false.

Logic is like math, there are certain obvious truths that you follow. For example, 2+2=4. This is obvious, and is emperically true. Keep in mind though, that empirical evidence is only valid for the physical realm.

I agree with Descartes. You know that you exist. Since you are always experiencing your existence, your far-fetched test for knowledge (you probably mean 100% knowledge though) is satisfied ("we dont know anything, except at the exact time we experience it.")

Reality is self-evident.

As for philosophies, take a look:

Colossians 2:8 (NIV)

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ."

Thanks again guys! I appreciate all your posts!

-Thwingly

 

[pace]

Haven't read that much of Hume yet, but I feel his work is more like, and meant like, reminding us that we're all philosophicly kids. Than that we are to stop philosophing.

Hume is philosophic giant. According to my university professors he's one of the absolute most important today.

 

[Philosoft]

Yeah, the Problem of Induction is a killer for, well for anyone who uses her eyes. Since I think it ultimately undercuts all worldviews, I tend to put it in cerebral storage. I don't think I'll see its resolution in my lifetime.

 

[burrow_owl]

sounds like you need to awaken from your dogmatic slumber. in other words, read something about Kant. I've never thought that Kant really addresses Humean scepticism, but rather is the first phenomenologist, since his project is really the delineation of the ontological structures that must exist in order for phenomena like causation to exist for-us. Inasmuch as the transcendental solutions to the 3 aporias answer Hume, I remain profoundly unconvinced. As a proto-phenomenologist, he's good stuff, though.

"Reality is self-evident."

huh? you can't leap from the existence of thoughts to the existence of the world, young GE Moore ("This is my hand! Ergo the world exists. QED").

and math isn't empirically true; it's the canonical example of analytic or a priori truth, truth by stipulation.

 

[Thwingly]

Pace,


Whether or not Hume is a philosophical giant or not has no relevance to this conversation. Stating that humans cannot have knowledge, is, in itself, a claim to knowledge, and thus a contradiction. If the smartest mathematician in the world claimed that 2+3=6, a child of 6 years with an IQ of 70 could correct him by taking 2 apples, and three apples, and combining them to make 5 apples, just like he learned at school. Also, everyone philosophizes, it's simply unavoidable. To say that we should stop philosophizing, is (sigh, this theme occurs often...) philosophizing, and thus you have contradicted your doctrine, and your statement is, according to you a "philosophical kid's" statement.


It is self-evident to us all that there is a reality.


reality-The quality or state of being actual or true.


Your conciousness actually exists, that is a reality, that is self-evident.


empirically-Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment


Math is provable by means of observation or experiment.


Example: I have one stone in my right hand, and one in my left hand. I take one stone from my right hand, and put it into my left hand, without removing from my left hand the stone that is originally there. My observation is that I now have 2 stones in my left hand. This is empirical evidence, of course, it may also be "the canonical example of analytic or a priori truth, truth by stipulation."


Thanks everyone, I love you all!


-Thwingly

 

[Zoot]

Let's start off with what we can know for certaintity. As Descartes said, "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). If you are having thoughts, must you not exist in some way? The only way this does not follow is if our very system of logic was so entirely wrong that debating anything is rather pointless. So, you exist. That's one thing that you can know.

Buddhism disagrees, saying "there are thoughts, therefore there is an existent" rather than "I think therefore I am".

At least you have the assurance of your own existence.

You'd better define "I" before you start assuring yourself it exists.

 

[pace]

Thwingly,

You got me wrong. I was never saying we're not philosophing, or that we shouldn't. I was rather contradicting the first post, wanting to say some rational philosophing should rather be toned down. That Hume meant we are philosophicly kids, not philosophicly non-existent. I agree with you with the self-contradicting statement. I'm not saying kids are not philosophing. Actually some philosophers argue they are the biggest philosophers of us all

 

[Thwingly]

Hello!

Ahhh thanks for clarifying Pace, I must have been confused by your use of two sentences connected to the same thought. Anywho, kids are lacking in reason, but overflowing in creativity... If this is what you are refering to, that we are lacking in reason and abounding in imagination then please clarify. Or, perhaps you are refering to wisdom and experience?

Thanks Pace.

-Thwingly

 

[Zoot]

Logical reasoning is a skill like any other. Kids have had less time to learn the skill, but they can be taught it and be better at it than adults who have never learned it.

 

[BInC]

Here is my two cents (this might be worth less than that for all I know):

First Possiblity: The original post was correct. We cannot know anything, because it is impossible. Therefore, I guess all our thought are worthless because they are not based on facts. Further continuance of this is pointless. We all go sit on our couches and do absolutely nothing, trying our best not to think.

Second possibility: We assume that it is wrong. Maybe we cannot know that the sun will rise tomorrow, but we can know that we do not know if it will rise. We can know that everyhting is uncertain; if we can acknowlegde the fact that we might be wrong then we at least no somthing. Then we can move on to other topics. We cannot base our thoughts on facts, but we can base them on knowledge. We can know that that the sun will probably rise tomorrow. From that knowledge we can make other predictions. Of course improbable things happen. But probability is never wrong (unless somebody made a miscalculation). If we worry about not knowing anything for sure, then we can't accomplish anything. All of the advancements humans have made have been based upon practicality. If it works most of the time, then we can use it.

 

[water_ripple]

Knowledge is a personal world-view that is influenced by others. Only when a person can escape their world-view they will BE...