Are There Any Definites in Philosophy?

[MindOverMatter2]

Go outside and kick a big rock with your bare foot. I want to hear uncertainty then.

God bless,
jd

You can be certain that you are feeling pain in conjunction with kicking what appears to be a stone. But you cannot be certain that the stone is not a simulation made to appear real.

A:

I believe that Descartes was incorrect. The theorem should say, “I am, therefore, I think.” And, now we have scientism

God bless,
jd

It is true that ontology must come before the possibility of knowledge; however, we can only know this by first having knowledge in conjunction with the ability to think. In terms of knowing ontology, epistemology is obviously a superior category, since without knowledge of being it is meaningless to talk about being. Thus the context in which Descartes makes his claim is different to the context from which you draw your rebuttal.

“I think therefore i am”, is an epistemological claim. It is not a claim that one must know before something can exist. But rather, I am thinking, therefore i “know” i exist. This is important. You have to know or think, before you can acknowledge the fact of your being. Descartes uses the fact of “thinking” in order to signify something that is brutally evident to all of us, as in, something we could not possibly know about doing if we didn’t exist. Descartes does not ignore the ontological necessity of being before thinking but rather demonstrates the necessity of ones being through the fact of thinking.

Epistemology, as in knowledge of a thing, is the context in which the claim is made.

At this point we must now consider that it is not Descartes claim that is wrong; but rather people have failed to acknowledge the context and the categorical significance of the claim. Scientism is a distortion of that claim, not a fact of it.

Sorry J Daniel. Its not my intention to embarrass you.

 

[sedonaman]

Did I miss it? How about death and taxes?

 

[chase200mph]

Topic says all I’m asking.

Definition of “Definite”

Formal or informal

 

[wbarquez]

Topic says all I’m asking.

Definition of “Definite”

I believe that in philosophy nothing is definite except what is real. In philosophy, the only certainty is reality. The rest are merely perceptions. Reality simply “is”. Now, what this “is” is, depends on your philosophical framework. It depends on whether you are a realist, an idealist, a materialist, or a rationalist.

 

[grannymh]

That
and that nothing can ever be known with 100% certainty.

“All of reality is based upon uncertainty. Certainty is impossible.”

Peace be with you,
Archistrage

One can know with certainty that God exists even if one cannot prove it according to other people’s expectations.

Reality is based on the definite principle that human nature in itself unites the material and spiritual worlds.

 

[chase200mph]

It is definite that existence, truth, and knowledge exist because to say otherwise requires an existing, truthful, knowable statement.

NICE!!! Well put… : )

 

[chase200mph]

One can know with certainty that God exists even if one cannot prove it according to other people’s expectations.

Reality is based on the definite principle that human nature in itself unites the material and spiritual worlds.

[SIGN]QUOTE=grannymh;7119895]One can know with certainty that God exists even if one cannot prove it according to other people’s expectations.

Response, so if I join ranks with the countless deluded and I said I was Napoleon Bonaparte I can’t prove it but I can rest assured it’s still true….

Reality is based on the definite principle that human nature in itself unites the material and spiritual worlds.
Response, evil and evil, or human nature and religion, history would agree; nevertheless, I am surprised to hear this in here….
[/SIGN]

 

[sedonaman]

“There is an ‘is’.” – Anthony Rizzi, The Science Before Science.

 

[grannymh]

Quote from grannymh. One can know with certainty that God exists even if one cannot prove it according to other people’s expectations.

Response, so if I join ranks with the countless deluded and I said I was Napoleon Bonaparte I can’t prove it but I can rest assured it’s still true….

Why not?

However, what I was referring to was the existence of God and not your existence as Napoleon.

From granny. Reality is based on the definite principle that human nature in itself unites the material and spiritual worlds.
Response, evil and evil, or human nature and religion, history would agree; nevertheless, I am surprised to hear this in here….

I would like to understand your response better. Especially since I was talking with a philosophy professor earlier this week about philosophy being secular. If that is the case, than philosophy can come to the “definite” of human nature being rational/corporeal, material/non-material. The “definite” can be verified by objectively observing and philosophically studying the “being” that is human nature.

As for religion, it seems to me that philosophy over the centuries has been a bridge to either a religious or non-religious personal position.

 

[chase200mph]

Re: Are There Any Definites in Philosophy?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by chase200mph
Quote from grannymh. One can know with certainty that God exists even if one cannot prove it according to other people’s expectations.

Response, so if I join ranks with the countless deluded and I said I was Napoleon Bonaparte I can’t prove it but I can rest assured it’s still true….
Why not?

Response, Because it’s not based in rational thought…

However, what I was referring to was the existence of God and not your existence as Napoleon.

Response, Yet both are still based in irrational thought, the truth definition of faith.

Quote:
From granny. Reality is based on the definite principle that human nature in itself unites the material and spiritual worlds.

Response, evil and evil, or human nature and religion, history would agree; nevertheless, I am surprised to hear this in here….

I would like to understand your response better. Especially since I was talking with a philosophy professor earlier this week about philosophy being secular. If that is the case, than philosophy can come to the “definite” of human nature being rational/corporeal, material/non-material. The “definite” can be verified by objectively observing and philosophically studying the “being” that is human nature.

Response, I was a bit flipped here, those are indeed philosophical views; nevertheless, modern philosophy is of far less structure than modern philosophical views (our Legal system is based on the latter for instance) Philosophy means the love or study of wisdom if memory serves and perceptions are relative and have little to do with reality since reality is always in a perpetual state of flux and varies from audience to audience and cannot be objectively observed pheeew, that was a mouthful). One may use spiritual terms to define realities (plural), none will ever describe reality however because there are always more than one. While some of the bible demonstrates great wisdom, some also demonstrates great evil; unfortunately, great evil has been derived and utilized more often than any redeeming characteristics (a fact of history). Now the debate is it the inherent evil “nature of men’ or the inspired by the evil ‘nature of the word’.

 

[JDaniel]

You tell me? What were you thinking about when you wrote this post? Are you honest enough to admit that you had a thought before you wrote it? I doubt that you really did think about it.

I am therefore, I think.

God bless,
jd

 

[grannymh]

Re: Are There Any Definites in Philosophy?

---

Response, evil and evil, or human nature and religion, history would agree; nevertheless, I am surprised to hear this in here….

I would like to understand your response better. Especially since I was talking with a philosophy professor earlier this week about philosophy being secular. If that is the case, than philosophy can come to the “definite” of human nature being rational/corporeal, material/non-material. The “definite” can be verified by objectively observing and philosophically studying the “being” that is human nature.

Response, I was a bit flipped here, those are indeed philosophical views; nevertheless, modern philosophy is of far less structure than modern philosophical views (our Legal system is based on the latter for instance) Philosophy means the love or study of wisdom if memory serves and perceptions are relative and have little to do with reality since reality is always in a perpetual state of flux and varies from audience to audience and cannot be objectively observed pheeew, that was a mouthful). One may use spiritual terms to define realities (plural), none will ever describe reality however because there are always more than one. While some of the bible demonstrates great wisdom, some also demonstrates great evil; unfortunately, great evil has been derived and utilized more often than any redeeming characteristics (a fact of history). Now the debate is it the inherent evil “nature of men’ or the inspired by the evil ‘nature of the word’.

Catholicism teaches that the nature of men and women is not inherently evil. It is good but wounded.

As for the inherent nature of the world, common sense would observe that the world is not purposefully evil.

Hopefully, there is a philosophy with definites regarding the peerless nature of the human person which is an intimate, unique unification of soul and body. And it would be beneficial if a philosophy used common sense. Seems to me, that Catholicism is logical in regard to its philosophy.

 

[JDaniel]

You can be certain that you are feeling pain in conjunction with kicking what appears to be a stone. But you cannot be certain that the stone is not a simulation made to appear real.

What, then, did I kick to cause this pain? A simulation? Perhaps it gave me simulated pain. I don’t know, Man, but it hurts!

It is true that ontology must come before the possibility of knowledge; however, we can only know this by first having knowledge in conjunction with the ability to think. In terms of knowing ontology, epistemology is obviously a superior category, since without knowledge of being it is meaningless to talk about being. Thus the context in which Descartes makes his claim is different to the context from which you draw your rebuttal.

Hmmm. . . I wonder how the animals do it?

“I think therefore i am”, is an epistemological claim. It is not a claim that one must know before something can exist. But rather, I am thinking, therefore i “know” i exist. This is important. You have to know or think, before you can acknowledge the fact of your being. Descartes uses the fact of “thinking” in order to signify something that is brutally evident to all of us, as in, something we could not possibly know about doing if we didn’t exist. Descartes does not ignore the ontological necessity of being before thinking but rather demonstrates the necessity of ones being through the fact of thinking.

Yep. Also, by killing innocent animals, I am given to understand.

Sorry J Daniel. Its not my intention to embarrass you.

I am unembarrassable.

God bless,
jd

 

[adriancombe]

That
and that nothing can ever be known with 100% certainty.

“All of reality is based upon uncertainty. Certainty is impossible.”

Peace be with you,
Archistrage

There are several actually. Foremost, as Augustine said (centuries before Descartes) ‘Si fallor,sum’=‘If I am deceived, I am’.

St. Paul also teaches that God can be known to exist by reason alone (Romans 1:19-20).

 

[adriancombe]

I very often find myself doubting the Law of Non contradiction. So I say in philosophy at least, definite does not exist. we can be certain of nothing.

Well, if the law of non-contradiction doesn’t hold, then both it and your position are equally true at the same time in the same respect. So your viewpoint is inherently self-defeating.

 

[a_priori]

In terms of knowing ontology, epistemology is obviously a superior category,

Superior perhaps, but certainly contingent. Without anatomy, there can be no hope of physiology.

 

[a_priori]

Topic says all I’m asking.

Definition of “Definite”

“All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusion is called a philosopher.” ~Ambrose Bierce, (1832-1914) Epigrams

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Superior perhaps, but certainly contingent. Without anatomy, there can be no hope of physiology.

I don’t understand what you mean or what your point is.

Without knowing, there can be no knowledge of knowing or thinking.

 

[sedonaman]

I don’t understand what you mean or what your point is.

Without knowing, there can be no knowledge of knowing or thinking.

“Technically, one can never ‘know’ anything because the university does not endorse the belief that there is an external reality independent of one’s feelings.” – Mike Adams
townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ma20050725.shtml

Note: If we can never ‘know’ anything, why do we need to pay college professors to teach students things they can’t know? In fact, if this were true, humans could never ‘know’ that they could not ‘know’ anything. So how could the professor who thought of this know it for a fact?

 

[a_priori]

I don’t understand what you mean or what your point is.

Without knowing, there can be no knowledge of knowing or thinking.

The point is that there is no point. The ontology/epistemology argument is circular. If one didn’t exist, one couldn’t know. If one couldn’t know, existence would be irrelevant. Our “minds” are trapped in the fishbowl of spacetime anyway. Therefore even using human language words like “knowing”, “thinking” or even “knowledge” while assuming their concrete meaning is, well, delusional. We’re all afflicted by it. It is a very human thing to think we have a clue. God has it figured out so it will be ok in the end.