My Apology for having a problem with your Epistemology

[2PhiloVoid]

As various individuals from different perspectives have tried so hard to let me know, I'm not in with the status quo with how I perceive and evaluate the world. in which we live. Apparently, and according to others, I have a few major deficiencies in my mental logic circuits. This is the evaluation I've been given by more than one person because I refuse to instantly and completely jump on board with the currently favored political, religious (or irreligious), and/or scientific angle of entry that I am expected to conform to in order to be considered 'sane.'

Or maybe I'm discordant with what others expect of me because my own existential starting point isn't and has never been (and can't be) the same one that they have found themselves starting with. We all begin our experiences and our appraisals of the world in which we live at different places and what a few folks don't seem to realize is that their chosen criterion by which to measure aspects of the Reality isn't necessarily the 'sure, absolute' thing that they've assume their criterion to be. It also just might be that their criterion (or criteria if there's more than one) for what constitutes knowledge isn't quite as clear, simple, straightforward, objective or as well defined idea as they'd like to think it is.

And in essential accordance with the topics and statements made in the following video, here's why I disagree and am at odds with my critics ...

3 Paradoxes That Will Change the Way You Think About Everything​

 

[chevyontheriver]

As various individuals from different perspectives have tried so hard to let me know, I'm not in with the status quo with how I perceive and evaluate the world. in which we live. Apparently, and according to others, I have a few major deficiencies in my mental logic circuits. This is the evaluation I've been given by more than one person because I refuse to instantly and completely jump on board with the currently favored political, religious (or irreligious), and/or scientific angle of entry that I am expected to conform to in order to be considered 'sane.'

Or maybe I'm discordant with what others expect of me because my own existential starting point isn't and has never been (and can't be) the same one that they have found themselves starting with. We all begin our experiences and our appraisals of the world in which we live at different places and what a few folks don't seem to realize is that their chosen criterion by which to measure aspects of the Reality isn't necessarily the 'sure, absolute' thing that they've assume their criterion to be. It also just might be that their criterion (or criteria if there's more than one) for what constitutes knowledge isn't quite as clear, simple, straightforward, objective or as well defined idea as they'd like to think it is.

And in essential accordance with the topics and statements made in the following video, here's why I disagree and am at odds with them ...

3 Paradoxes That Will Change the Way You Think About Everything​

Sometimes we just get the metaphysical blues:

 

[jacks]

It's simple really. We know nothing, all we have are beliefs and with those beliefs comes a plethora of opinions!

BTW I haven't found you to be illogical. At least no worse than the rest of us.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sometimes we just get the metaphysical blues:

That's a fun song, Chevy. Thanks for sharing it! I needed it, even if my problem with everyone else's criteria isn't so much metaphysical in nature as much as it is epistemological, a form of angst coming being buffeted uni-laterally way too often by those who claim, without much demonstration, that they indeed "KNOW" better on all counts about everything else.

Keep in mind, too, that the OP video is not intended to be an "answer." No, it is merely a philosophical starting point for me---it's the "original position" that I've always dealt with in attempting to engage both Christianity and Secular Humanism since 1986. It's the position that places me in the quiet room with Blaise Pascal and thinkers like him since his time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's simple really. We know nothing, all we have are beliefs and with those beliefs comes a plethora of opinions!

I think you do know something. Or better yet, you have faith in a Certain Someone for a REASON ... and there are aspects of your faith that are fact and not mere opinion.

BTW I haven't found you to be illogical. At least no worse than the rest of us.

Well, thank you. It's good to know where the bottom line is, I suppose.

 

[chevyontheriver]

That's a fun song, Chevy. Thanks for sharing it! I needed it, even if my problem with everyone else's criteria isn't so much metaphysical in nature as much as it is epistemological, a form of angst coming being buffeted uni-laterally way too often by those who claim, without much demonstration, that they indeed "KNOW" better on all counts about everything else.

Keep in mind, too, that the OP video is not intended to be an "answer." No, it is merely a philosophical starting point for me---it's the "original position" that I've always dealt with in attempting to engage both Christianity and Secular Humanism since 1986. It's the position that places me in the quiet room with Blaise Pascal and thinkers like him since his time.

A friend of mine wrote a different Metaphysical Blues song but I can't find the words to it. The premise was a man and a woman were having some issues. Quine could posit hope, all sorts of other philosophers weighed in with advice epistomological and metaphysical, yet in the end even Kierkegaard couldn't jump that far and they found themselves in an untenable situation with the metaphysical blues. My friend is a Thomist, as am I, and he ended it with 'It's all in Aquinas'. But the couple never actually did get out of their metaphysical blues. It was a great and funny song, making the bar scene in St Louis 40 years ago.

 

[Merrill]

The medieval Scholastic philosophers tackled many of these issues

Their solution largely depended upon First Principles

First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge

First Principles thinking breaks down true understanding into building blocks we can reassemble into something that simplifies our problem.

fs.blog

offers a good introduction

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The medieval Scholastic philosophers tackled many of these issues

Their solution largely depended upon First Principles

First Principles: The Building Blocks of True Knowledge

First Principles thinking breaks down true understanding into building blocks we can reassemble into something that simplifies our problem.

fs.blog

offers a good introduction

I appreciate this reference, Merrill. I really do. But I'm already beyond Introductions for Philosophy and I don't believe in all that many 'first principles' that provide an impregnable system of thought, especially not in areas of Theology or Cosmology. This is exactly one nuance of the inclimate social atmosphere I find myself among other thinkers (such as yourself).

As far as first principles go, I'd offer the mild rejoinder that I've gleaned from Ralph Baergen in his book, Contemporary Epistemology (1995), and, in relating some critiques of Thomas Reid (whom, I know, isn't to be equated with Thomas Aquinas), I'd ask as Baergen does on page. 147, "Why, for instance, should one suppose that universal agreement on some proposition [particularly one that is considered to be a first principle] shows it to be true?"

According to the source that you've offered, I don't think it can be stated ardently enough that merely thinking from first principles really provides insight into the Problem of the Criterion by which we accomplish more than sending up rockets into space. Arguing from first principles doesn't guarantee the success of Muskian electric cars in the marketplace, as recent economic events among car rental companies show. It especially offers very little other than questions we can pose on the Cosmological level.
And from the analogies about sports in the article you posted, it sounds like that if I were on a football team, I'd be on the Pittsburgh Stealers (sic on purpose ... ) Or so Elon Musk would aver.

 

[Merrill]

I appreciate this reference, Merrill. I really do. But I'm already beyond Introductions for Philosophy and I don't believe in all that many 'first principles' that provide an impregnable system of thought, especially not in areas of Theology or Cosmology. This is exactly one nuance of the inclimate social atmosphere I find myself among other thinkers (such as yourself).

As far as first principles go, I'd offer the mild rejoinder that I've gleaned from Ralph Baergen in his book, Contemporary Epistemology (1995), and, in relating some critiques of Thomas Reid (whom, I know, isn't to be equated with Thomas Aquinas), I'd ask as Baergen does on page. 147, "Why, for instance, should one suppose that universal agreement on some proposition [particularly one that is considered to be a first principle] shows it to be true?"

According to the source that you've offered, I don't think it can be stated ardently enough that merely thinking from first principles really provides insight into the Problem of the Criterion by which we accomplish more than sending up rockets into space. Arguing from first principles doesn't guarantee the success of Muskian electric cars in the marketplace, as recent economic events among car rental companies show. It especially offers very little other than questions we can pose on the Cosmological level.
And from the analogies about sports in the article you posted, it sounds like that if I were on a football team, I'd be on the Pittsburgh Stealers (sic on purpose ... ) Or so Elon Musk would aver.

I didn't mean to be condescending and say "here is an introduction to first principles"

I was merely saying that these issues have vexed philosophers and scientists for a long time, and some have worked to solve them

The problem is not with knowledge, or how we formulate our beliefs. It is the apparatus, assumptions, and theory which we employ toward the understand of the formulation of our beliefs. We cannot fall into the trillema of Gorgias, and assert

i. Nothing exists
ii. Even if existence exists, it cannot be known
iii. Even if it could be known, it cannot be communicated.

these are fundamental and complex issues. What appears to be a paradox, can be solved when using a different approach,

anyway --I ramble lol. But here is an essay I will recommend: "Philosophic Semantics and Philosophic Inquiry" by Richard McKeon.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I didn't mean to be condescending and say "here is an introduction to first principles"

I was merely saying that these issues have vexed philosophers and scientists for a long time, and some have worked to solve them

The problem is not with knowledge, or how we formulate our beliefs. It is the apparatus, assumptions, and theory which we employ toward the understand of the formulation of our beliefs. We cannot fall into the trillema of Gorgias, and assert

i. Nothing exists
ii. Even if existence exists, it cannot be known
iii. Even if it could be known, it cannot be communicated.

these are fundamental and complex issues. What appears to be a paradox, can be solved when using a different approach,

anyway --I ramble lol. But here is an essay I will recommend: "Philosophic Semantics and Philosophic Inquiry" by Richard McKeon.

Y'know, it's an interesting thing: that while I think I remember coming across Richard McKeon's name in my many readings, when I look at the various books I have on Human Rights, its nature and its history, he's barely mentioned, if at all. From what I see so far, he's only mentioned for one paragraph by Stefan-Ludwig Hoffman (2011) in my copy of, Human Rights In The Twentieth Century. ......... I wonder why.

I suppose that if I read an essay like that of Selinger, William. "The forgotten philosopher: A review essay on Richard McKeon." The Review of Politics 80, no. 1 (2018): 137-150-------------------------there may be an answer in there somewhere.

Still, I'll look up the specific essay you've cited and have a read so I can add it to my existing bib. There could be something useful in there. Thanks, Merrill! I appreciate your thoughts on this.

 

[Merrill]

Y'know, it's an interesting thing: that while I think I remember coming across Richard McKeon's name in my many readings, when I look at the various books I have on Human Rights, its nature and its history, he's barely mentioned, if at all. From what I see so far, he's only mentioned for one paragraph by Stefan-Ludwig Hoffman (2011) in my copy of, Human Rights In The Twentieth Century. ......... I wonder why.

I suppose that if I read an essay like that of Selinger, William. "The forgotten philosopher: A review essay on Richard McKeon." The Review of Politics 80, no. 1 (2018): 137-150-------------------------there may be an answer in there somewhere.

Still, I'll look up the specific essay you've cited and have a read so I can add it to my existing bib. There could be something useful in there. Thanks, Merrill! I appreciate your thoughts on this.

Parts of my dissertation dealt with McKeon

this is a good book that deals with some of the issues above:

On Knowing--The Natural Sciences

Well before the current age of discourse, deconstruction, and multiculturalism, Richard McKeon propounded a philosophy of pluralism showing how "facts" and "values" are dependent on diverse ways of reading texts. This book is a transcription of an entire course, including both lectures and...

books.google.com

this one contains the essay I mention

Freedom and History and Other Essays

This volume of essays is an important introduction to the thought of one of the twentieth century’s most significant yet underappreciated philosophers, Richard McKeon. The originator of philosophical pluralism, McKeon made extraordinary contributions to philosophy, to international relations...

press.uchicago.edu

if I can find the PDF, I will post it here or link you to it

the semantics essay is like 18 pages long, and it took me a YEAR to fully digest and understand. Not that it is obtuse, or byzantine, but that it is profound and deep

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Parts of my dissertation dealt with McKeon

this is a good book that deals with some of the issues above:

On Knowing--The Natural Sciences

Well before the current age of discourse, deconstruction, and multiculturalism, Richard McKeon propounded a philosophy of pluralism showing how "facts" and "values" are dependent on diverse ways of reading texts. This book is a transcription of an entire course, including both lectures and...

books.google.com

this one contains the essay I mention

Freedom and History and Other Essays

This volume of essays is an important introduction to the thought of one of the twentieth century’s most significant yet underappreciated philosophers, Richard McKeon. The originator of philosophical pluralism, McKeon made extraordinary contributions to philosophy, to international relations...

press.uchicago.edu

if I can find the PDF, I will post it here or link you to it

Ok. Thanks.

the semantics essay is like 18 pages long, and it took me a YEAR to fully digest and understand. Not that it is obtuse, or byzantine, but that it is profound and deep

That's no problem. I'm sure I could get through those 18 pages in quick time. I'm used to that level of reading.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

A friend of mine wrote a different Metaphysical Blues song but I can't find the words to it. The premise was a man and a woman were having some issues. Quine could posit hope, all sorts of other philosophers weighed in with advice epistomological and metaphysical, yet in the end even Kierkegaard couldn't jump that far and they found themselves in an untenable situation with the metaphysical blues. My friend is a Thomist, as am I, and he ended it with 'It's all in Aquinas'. But the couple never actually did get out of their metaphysical blues. It was a great and funny song, making the bar scene in St Louis 40 years ago.

Truth be told, I don't really have the Metaphysical Blues as much as I have Epistemological Suspicion of other people's uni-laterally driven ideological obfuscations, evasions, and other forms of disengagement from any counters I might offer ...

... I suppose I'd make a lousy communist. Although someone might pass me through the gate as a liberal. I don't know. One thing I do know for sure is: I don't know everything, but many others apparently feel they do. It almost has a diabolical feel to it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Truth be told, I don't really have the Metaphysical Blues as much as I have Epistemological Suspicion of other people's uni-laterally driven ideological obfuscations, evasions, and other forms of disengagement from any counters I might offer ...

I get it.

... I suppose I'd make a lousy communist.

A good commie needs certainty.

Although someone might pass me through the gate as a liberal.

I would not pass that gate.

I don't know. One thing I do know for sure is: I don't know everything, but many others apparently feel they do. It almost has a diabolical feel to it.

Humility has a place. Most of philosophy is the opposite of humble.

Intellectual rigor is far less common than people who think they are intellectually rigorous. On a good day we can only do systematic thinking for a few minutes at a time. Even the best of us. I can only do it a few seconds at a time.

I like how Thomas Aquinas has preserved a place for common sense. I think that's what can get us by when skepticism gets too powerful. The hard questions are still relevant but to get through the day we don't have to have it all nailed down. I admit to reading Thomas mostly as theologian and less as philosopher, but I am always impressed by his method, which seems so rich.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I get it.

At least someone around here does.

A good commie needs certainty.

They need a lot of things that they ... don't have. That's what drives them. But we have insight to what Jesus thought about that problem.

I would not pass that gate.

Oh, you never know. If you're shrewd about it, you might. Besides, whether they let your through the gate doesn't actually make one a liberal. It's enough for the gatekeepers to realize that you hold at least a few principles of value in commonality with them. At least until Screwtape shows up to tell them otherwise.

Humility has a place. Most of philosophy is the opposite of humble.

Oh, I don't know about that. I think I'd frame the place and purpose of Philosophy in a way not dissimilar to how Joseph Ratzinger frames it. The main difference is that I rely on Philosophy that has comes 'after' Aquinas ... and still come out as a Christian.

And, then too, as you know, there is such a thing as false humility. I'd be willing to bet your PhD is worth something even if the rest of the world were to spit on it.

However, if I were standing before Christ with my diploma in my hand, I'd have very little to crow about other than to say: "Uh...thank you, Lord, for giving me the opportunity to learn, contemplate, and even at times muddle through with a mere attempt to use the mind that you've given me!"

Intellectual rigor is far less common than people who think they are intellectually rigorous. On a good day we can only do systematic thinking for a few minutes at a time. Even the best of us. I can only do it a few seconds at a time.

Sure. There's a lot of folks running around with a good amount of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, making this or that claim or declamation, all the while not really realizing they haven't quite pinned the tail where it belongs ...

I would like to think that the next time I go on vacation, those who are arranging the systems by which I will be traveling can harness the power of intellectual rigor for more than a few minutes at a time. I would assume that my travel plans will go much more smoothly and be more enjoyable. It'd especially be awesome if my travel plans don't become the semblance of a recent SNL skit.

I like how Thomas Aquinas has preserved a place for common sense. I think that's what can get us by when skepticism gets too powerful. The hard questions are still relevant but to get through the day we don't have to have it all nailed down. I admit to reading Thomas mostly as theologian and less as philosopher, but I am always impressed by his method, which seems so rich.

Oh, I like some things Aquinas said. I haven't read all of him, but what I have read of him has been thoughtful. I do have a vague memory of one of his works, which I pulled of the shelf at the college library back in 1991, having spurred my thinking for a paper I had to write for an Intro to Philosophy class I took. His argument/insight was helpful to me, even if it didn't seem to impress the other students in the class during the open forum discussion time we had.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Sure. There's a lot of folks running around with a good amount of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, making this or that claim or declamation, all the while not really realizing they haven't quite pinned the tail where it belongs ...

Dunning-Kruger is almost a principle of epistemology with me. When they confidently think they know what they're talking about, they are too clueless to know they don't. When I start thinking I know what I'm talking about is the signal I'm clueless too.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Dunning-Kruger is almost a principle of epistemology with me. When they confidently think they know what they're talking about, they are too clueless to know they don't. When I start thinking I know what I'm talking about is the signal I'm clueless too.

Whoops! My bad. I edited my post above with a few additional thoughts on this...