You are correct to say that philosophically there are no absolute certainties but, nevertheless, we often have to live as if there were. No-one really knows for example whether their partner loves them or not - they may just be pretending, we can't know for sure that they're not - but anyone trying to conduct a relationship with that uncertainty as it's defining feature is not going to be very successful.
That feels like a very dichotomous way to say it, and it shows that you're not quite up on the various types and level of Logic. This all moves beyond the level 1st order levels of thinking, and my Skepticism is that of Pascal and Kierkegaard, not of the Logical Postivists. So, no, fortunately, my position can't simply be wished away in brief fashion. Granted, it would be nice if it could be, but Analytic Philosophy doesn't enable either you or I to escape the Epistemic complications we all have and (which often) many folks either are just unaware of or dismiss due to Pragmatic notions that really don't obtain nor can be known to be reflected in Reality.
As for relationships, a lot of people these days are quite unsuccessful, aren't they? I wonder what the divorce rate is among those who hold to UR verses ECT?
involve making an commitment to moral values in the face of this objective uncertainty.
True. It does, but a commitment should likely be informed along the way by the recognition of various contingencies which manifest in the ongoing daily grind of life ...
The same is true of faith. You may regard that as a fault but it is true nevertheless.
Not exactly, theologically speaking. If there is any truth to the contents that we find written in the time worn pages of the Bible, we see that faith in God through Christ requires the activity of the Holy Spirit along with our human predispositions and epistemic limitations.
However, unlike this theological epistemic quandry we have whith God, general commitment to, say, a spouse requires a different kind and level of input socially and epistemically than would be referred to by various biblical models reflecting our states of mind in which we 'relate' to God.
Your argument seems to be that we can't really say anything because we don't know anything beyond all doubt. But you are being self-contradictory if you don't acknowledge that that also applies to that argument itself. It is really no more than your subjective opinion with no more claim to absolute truth than anything else. There is absolute truth but we see through a glass darkly and can't apprehend it.
My apologies if my argument 'seems' to insinuate that we can't say anything. Rather, my position is that we can't say as much, nor establish as much, as we'd often like to in order to fully justify our ethical, social and spiritual notions
So I agree with your general philosophical point but if no-one can say anything with being able to demonstrate its objective veracity, no no-one would be able to say or post anything at all, including you. Except for
@Saint Steven.
Yeah.... I hear you. But fortunately, I don't advocate a "no-one can say anything" position. Pascal didn't. Kierkegaard didn't. Wittgenstein didn't. Others haven't. But what I can say is that the nature and functions of those ideas we think of as enabling us to conceptualize 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' (or 'relativity' for that matter) may not always be as clear cut, fully identified and uncomplicated as we often like to make them out to be. And my epistemic, existential position in saying this would then apply to UR, ECT and Annihilationism ...
all.
