Epistemology 101

[Sarpedon]

I am not sure if it is simplistic, but it is simple, for sure (the concept is simple, the actual execution of it usually is not). When it comes to physical reality, we use the scientific method (no need to elaborate). When it comes to axiomatic systems, we use logical deduction to show that the theorem is a valid corollary of the axioms. When it comes to events which happened in the past, we use the physical evidence (if any), and the testimonials of the ones who claim that they were eye-witnesses. When it comes to “supernatural”, we use… what?

“Supernatural” and “natural” is really a false distinction in terms of being itself. You may be content to just say “well, the world exists, so let’s study it.” Others may be content to say “Jesus is Lord, let’s praise Him.” Neither attitude to particularly comprehensive. If you want to go to the root of the matter and argue from the very crux of the matter, you will need a far more sophisticated philosophy than “the world exists,” because such a proposition is not self evident by any means.

“Cogito ergo sum” is a concept. Furthermore it presupposes someone, who exists, and who has the ability to think. If this entity physically exists, then it belongs to the physical category. If this entity is not physical, it belongs to the unanswered 4th category - which is not substantiated. So it definitely does not point to a physically non-existent entity who (or what) is also more than a simple concept. I am not sure about the “intelligibility of being”. Tell me, what you mean.

Intelligibility of being is Gilson’s work, which I’ve already summarized- the book does a more comprehensive explanation if you aren’t satisfied with my job summarizing it.

Cogito Ergo Sum derives from Descartes’ experiment in doubt. Descartes could bring himself to doubt everything, including the material world (i.e. being deceived by evil spirits). However, Descartes could not bring himself to doubt that that he is possibly being deceived. While he could doubt all of his experiences as being potentially wrong, he could not doubt that he was in fact experiencing either right or wrong somethings. Therefore, Descartes concluded that he could only be certain of his own existence as a percieving being.

Simply having the ability to grasp intelligibility in no ways presupposes a material order. Descartes decided he could only be certain of his own knowing nature. From this certainty, Descartes tried to build a system in which he could justify other things, like his individual experiences and the outside world. Many think that he failed in this attempt, such as Gilson. Nevertheless, the point remains that his central cogito ergo sum remains persuasive- for I can easily doubt the outside world as being false or something like the matrix, but I cannot doubt the fact that I am knowing as a being. Therefore, I can have knowledge of my own being as a being participating in intelligibility, even though I have no knowledge of the outside world outside of my own being. While this doesn’t prove theism directly by any means, it does demonstrate that we can have knowledge of things that are not contingent on the observable material order.

 

[R_Daneel]

This is simply not true!

I don’t know what you mean by this. A proper control group is the essence of medical studies. One group gets the new medication, the other gets placebo. Not even the doctors who administer the drug are aware of who is in which group. This double-blind setup ensures that the results are not tainted either intentionally, or inadvertantly. Without a control group there is no testing. And since no one can ensure that the selected control group will not get the “medication” (no one prays for them) the whole testing procedure collapses. What is problematic about it?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I give up. What the heck are you talking about?

look, until an empiricist brings up their divisions of reality, these distinctions between what is physical and what is not, dont have any place in our cosmology

thats why im pointing out that you are making categories that we do not make and then you expect us to define them.

our ontological systems dont differentiate by what is physical or not, that is a categorization that you are making. one which i intend to show is based on empiricism if you will stick to the argument. and im sure you know how i feel about empiricism.

I am talking about gods, devils, angels, demons - what have you. You assert, not I - that these entities exist in a non-physical manner. You assert, not I - that they are not simply concepts, but more than that.

we dont worry about a beings physical characteristics, that is of zero import to us. it can only be of import to you, if you accept some form of empiricism. we do not, so while you want us to explain the existence of beings according to physical characteristics, we arent empiricists, annd would not make that categorization

how can we possibly define categories you are making up? when we wouldnt do that our selves. its something like asking the question “have you quit beating your wife?”, only, we have no wife.

we simply want you to support the basis for these categorizations, when it comes time to defend necessity or contingency again, then ill be happy to defend our divisions of being.

but i cannot defend your division of beings.

Yet all these assertion (yours, not mine) are purely negative in nature. Not physical and not conceptual says nothing about what these entities are.

you still havent answered how you are limiting a non-physical existence to ‘conceptual’ existence.

if you admit that non-physical things can exist, then you need to provide evidence that they are limited to ‘mental concepts’

The purpose of this thread was to investigate the epistemological method of separating true and false statements pertaining to these entities.

we have told you that it is a part of metaphysics. we use logic applied to our divisions of being, things like necessity, contingency, et al.

It never even got off the ground. I am tired of this tug-of-war. No doubt you will chalk it up as one of your glorious victories. Have it your way.

you have a preconcieved notion of what we think, and then ask us to support your idea of our thought. fact is, until an empiricist comes up and makes these distictions, we dont.

Nonsense. People are indoctrinated into believing before the age when they could even read, let alone comprehend it.

obviously the chain had to begin with a witness.

Look it up, then.

ok, which ones are stolen, and how does that deny a previous link in the chain?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

“Supernatural” and “natural” is really a false distinction in terms of being itself…

While this doesn’t prove theism directly by any means, it does demonstrate that we can have knowledge of things that are not contingent on the observable material order.

 

[R_Daneel]

Well, since all of them are not axiomatic as geometry rules, it is not surprising that all of them are debatable. But this is philosophy, there is not one single definite philosophical proof, except, maybe, solipsism, completely ruled out.

Agreed. But you know, we may agree on this, but you will find a lot of people who disagree with us. They will assert adamantly that God’s existence can be proven without resorting to faith. WSP was one of them, who asserted that God’s existence can be mathematicaly proven if one accepts the veracity of the so-called “messanic propheces” and their fulfillment. Never heard such an outrageous claim, so I challeged him. You can guess what happened. He declined on the pretext that my requirements are “unreasonable”, I expect that he should substantiate (how unreasonable of me!) that the “prophecies” were accurate and that the fulfillment actually happened. I was rolling on the floor. But the challenge was not fruitless. Since that time he stopped this claim. Thank God for small mercies.

That said, I’ve not met yet a consistent critique of Plaintinga’s ontological argument (the Anselmian argument is problematic), and the ones of the cosmological (in any version of it) are shaky at best. There are threads in this forum devoted to this argument, see you there.

Are you talking about the modal ontological argument? Plantinga himself does not consider it “good” enough. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Plantinga.27s_modal_form

 

[R_Daneel]

“Supernatural” and “natural” is really a false distinction in terms of being itself. You may be content to just say “well, the world exists, so let’s study it.” Others may be content to say “Jesus is Lord, let’s praise Him.” Neither attitude to particularly comprehensive. If you want to go to the root of the matter and argue from the very crux of the matter, you will need a far more sophisticated philosophy than “the world exists,” because such a proposition is not self evident by any means.

I will explain in the answer to the second part.

Intelligibility of being is Gilson’s work, which I’ve already summarized- the book does a more comprehensive explanation if you aren’t satisfied with my job summarizing it.

Cogito Ergo Sum derives from Descartes’ experiment in doubt. Descartes could bring himself to doubt everything, including the material world (i.e. being deceived by evil spirits). However, Descartes could not bring himself to doubt that that he is possibly being deceived. While he could doubt all of his experiences as being potentially wrong, he could not doubt that he was in fact experiencing either right or wrong somethings. Therefore, Descartes concluded that he could only be certain of his own existence as a percieving being.

Simply having the ability to grasp intelligibility in no ways presupposes a material order. Descartes decided he could only be certain of his own knowing nature. From this certainty, Descartes tried to build a system in which he could justify other things, like his individual experiences and the outside world. Many think that he failed in this attempt, such as Gilson. Nevertheless, the point remains that his central cogito ergo sum remains persuasive- for I can easily doubt the outside world as being false or something like the matrix, but I cannot doubt the fact that I am knowing as a being. Therefore, I can have knowledge of my own being as a being participating in intelligibility, even though I have no knowledge of the outside world outside of my own being. While this doesn’t prove theism directly by any means, it does demonstrate that we can have knowledge of things that are not contingent on the observable material order.

Yes, one can maintain that we are simply “brains in vats” and what we perceive is simply fed to us from the “matrix”. One may even ask the qustion: “what is the true nature of reality”? The only, minor problem with this question is that - it is a nonsensical question. If we are all hooked up to the matrix, then the impulses fed to us are the actual reality. This is akin to the question: “what is the real color of the snow?”. If it is illuminated by a red lamp, the color is red. If it is illuminated by a green light, it is green. There is no “real” color. The color is what our senses transmit to us.

Sometimes the following question is presented: “how do we know that the data perceived by the senses is accurate?”. Another nonsensical question. We only have our senses to deal with the external reality. What epistmological method could we use to ascertain that the senses report the “actual” reality? Obviously not the senses themselves. Then what? This is called universal skepticism, which does not lead anywhere. Suppose that the (universal) skeptic wishes to employ “pure logic” to find out about “real nature” of reality. Since he has no feedback loop (the senses are already eliminated) he cannot decide if his “pure logic” leads to a correct conculsion or not.

From the “cogito ergo sum” it follows that we have direct knowledge (superficial knowledge, but still something) about our own existence. The next step is acknowledging that we perceive an external reality. The outright denial of this external reality is solipsism, which cannot be maintianed in a rational manner. If one accepts the reality of the external world (which is the only rational option), then one can start to examine it. What tool can he use? The senses, nothing else. The raw data is transmitted. The agent “scrubs” (interprets) the data, and sets up hypotheses. Then he can build up the system of knowledge. If he correctly interprets the data, he will survive. If he seriously misjudges the data, he dies. It is that simple. The external reality is not forgiving. The wages of error is death.

The proof of the pudding is that it is edible.

Now, those who preach that “pure logic” is a sufficient tool to deal with reality, have two options. Either they stick to their “argument” and they will die in a very short time, or they will become hopeless hypocrites, who scold the “dirty emiricism” while employing it nevertheless.

(This is just a short summary. It does not touch on the abstractions. The text would be too long.)

 

[R_Daneel]

we have told you that it is a part of metaphysics.

It is not part of metaphysics. it is part of epistemology. At least use the correct basic terminology. Read my post to Sarpedon for the rest.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Agreed. But you know, we may agree on this, but you will find a lot of people who disagree with us. They will assert adamantly that God’s existence can be proven without resorting to faith. WSP was one of them, who asserted that God’s existence can be mathematicaly proven if one accepts the veracity of the so-called “messanic propheces” and their fulfillment. Never heard such an outrageous claim, so I challeged him. You can guess what happened. He declined on the pretext that my requirements are “unreasonable”, I expect that he should substantiate (how unreasonable of me!) that the “prophecies” were accurate and that the fulfillment actually happened. I was rolling on the floor. But the challenge was not fruitless. Since that time he stopped this claim. Thank God for small mercies.

no, i havent stopped this claim at all.

not simply unreasonable, but impossible, by the standard you set, without any consultation with me, by the way. a standard that almost no historical event can meet.

you are free at any time to accept my fix, or to argue out the epistemology in order for there to be a fair debate.

but you have not done either yet. nothing is stopping that debate but you.

notice in this debate, here in this thread, when faced with close scrutiny of your position, you abandoned argument.

the debate of Messianic Prophecy would be no differrent, cornered you would simply use those standards to claim that the Prophecies were never spoken, or never fullfilled. so you would never have to address the mathematical issues that prove my point

if you have done any research of your own on the issue at all, you would know its a losing argument to deny the truth of Messianic Prophecy based on specificity or the mathematics. i suspect, as someone claiming to be a mathematician, you would know this.

i encourage you, to address the issues that prevent this debate from going forward.

nothing is stopping you but you.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is not part of metaphysics. it is part of epistemology. At least use the correct basic terminology. Read my post to Sarpedon for the rest.

here is the method. it is called metaphysics, and not epistemology.

we have told you that it is a part of metaphysics. we use logic applied to our divisions of being, things like necessity, contingency, et al.

 

[R_Daneel]

the debate of Messianic Prophecy would be no differrent, cornered you would simply use those standards to claim that the Prophecies were never spoken, or never fullfilled. so you would never have to address the mathematical issues that prove my point

For the record. You refused tell which passages are you going to use. The requirements were not “irrational”. I was asking for external references. That is what every historical claim needs to provide. End of story.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

For the record. You refused tell which passages are you going to use.

i will be happy to provide extensive lists just as soon as the issue of your ‘rules’ is adressed. remember, i dint ask for you to challenge me publicly, you didnt consult with me as to the format, you simply stuck a challenge out there.

normally the person challenged to a ‘duel’ is allowed to pick the weapon. in this case, i should have had (name removed by moderator)ut to the format. i would never have agreed to impossible standards.

The requirements were not “irrational”.

they were impossible to meet, thats the problem, you wish me to engage in a debate in which the deck is squarely stacked against me, before we even start.

I was asking for external references. That is what every historical claim needs to provide. End of story.

these are the problem.

**

1. corroborating external evidence that prophet actually said what he allegedly said, and

**

unless an uninterested, unrelated, and un motivated stenographer is following all the prophets around, over the course of 1800 years or so, this is an impossible standard to meet.

1. the corroborating external evidence for the fulfillment.

we actually have this in many instances, its recorded in the various books of the Bible. but you dont see that as ‘external’ because 3 centuries later the Church compiled all of these books into one canon, what we now call the Bible. the books ofg the Bible are all external to eachother, they just happen to be in the same canon

considering that Christianity was illegal for the first 3 centuries it existed, the few scribes who might have recorded events belonged to the sanhedrin that had Christ ecrucified, and it all occurred in Judea, a backwoods out of the way place, that later spent the next 2000 years being fought over by empires and religions.

its no great surprise there arent a lot of sources that we havent already compiled into the Bible.

your standards are impossible to meet. in fact there are few historical events that could meet them.

 

[bdelykleon]

Agreed. But you know, we may agree on this, but you will find a lot of people who disagree with us. They will assert adamantly that God’s existence can be proven without resorting to faith. WSP was one of them, who asserted that God’s existence can be mathematicaly proven if one accepts the veracity of the so-called “messanic propheces” and their fulfillment. Never heard such an outrageous claim, so I challeged him. You can guess what happened. He declined on the pretext that my requirements are “unreasonable”, I expect that he should substantiate (how unreasonable of me!) that the “prophecies” were accurate and that the fulfillment actually happened. I was rolling on the floor. But the challenge was not fruitless. Since that time he stopped this claim. Thank God for small mercies.

Well, there are no mathematical proofs outside mathematics. Philosophical arguments, even the good ones, deal with far more complex entities than ‘points’ and ‘numbers’. Terms like “existence”, “contingency”, and so are extremely complex, badly defined and mixed with popular thinking. This is the reason why so many objections can be made to every philosophical argument. God is no triangle.

Are you talking about the modal ontological argument? Plantinga himself does not consider it “good” enough. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument#Plantinga.27s_modal_form

It is not good enough because we still need to deal with its first assumption, which is a hotly contested one. Anyway, it answers the great kantian objection. Curiously enough, I have extreme problems with the negation of the first premise, I mean, I can’t conceive someone who can’t conceive the idea of the most supreme being. I feel like challenging this assumption is a desperate attempt to invalid the argument.

 

[bdelykleon]

Just a note on the external evidence: the Gospels were not made up as a single entity, all four Gospels show different sources to the ressurection accounts. It can be easily shown that:

1. There are one source in Mark.
2. Luke and Matthew follows marks narrative but in the ressurection there are signs, specially in Luke, of a different source.
3. John tells a completely different viewpoint, independent on the synoptic Gospels.
4. The Acts show the existence of another source of the ressurection accounts: that’s the probable origin of the Apostle’s Creed.

And this is as good as it can get in Ancient history on number of sources.

 

[Sarpedon]

If we are all hooked up to the matrix, then the impulses fed to us are the actual reality. This is akin to the question: “what is the real color of the snow?”

Another nonsensical question. We only have our senses to deal with the external reality. What epistmological method could we use to ascertain that the senses report the “actual” reality?

You are using a fiat system them. Suppose someone “feels” God through personal experience or any other supposed sense. Who are you to say what can and what cannot constitute proper “senses?”

Obviously not the senses themselves. Then what? This is called universal skepticism, which does not lead anywhere.

Here you are resorting to pragmatism as a standard of truth. Suppose a Christian says that believing in God is conducive to a better society. Given that this “leads somewhere” who are you to say that such an approach is intellectual dishonesty?

From the “cogito ergo sum” it follows that we have direct knowledge (superficial knowledge, but still something) about our own existence. The next step is acknowledging that we perceive an external reality. The outright denial of this external reality is solipsism, which cannot be maintianed in a rational manner. If one accepts the reality of the external world (which is the only rational option), then one can start to examine it.

Your claim that solipism cannot be rationally maintained is not well supported. Merely perceiving things outside of the mind is not the same as perceiving those things correctly, in terms of Cartesianism. We can act in accordance with the external reality without asserting that the external reality is intellectually correct

The proof of the pudding is that it is edible.

Here again is your pragmatic standard of truth. If you are willing to define truth as what “works,” then this casts your entire thread, and indeed your whole position, in an entirely different light. Are you willing to take it there?

 

[R_Daneel]

You are using a fiat system them. Suppose someone “feels” God through personal experience or any other supposed sense. Who are you to say what can and what cannot constitute proper “senses?”

There are two options. Either he can teach me how to emulate his achievement, or not. If he can, then I am able to do my own experiment, and draw my own conclusions. If he cannot, then in my eyes, he is delusional. If he maintains that it is his own personal “business”, I will not even voice this opinion. However, if he would assert that I give credence to this claim, and change my life to accommodate his belief, then - I am afraid - the kid gloves would come off. My beliefs do not infringe on his right to believe whatever he happens to believe. I don’t want anything more or anything less than that. His delusion is his own.

Here you are resorting to pragmatism as a standard of truth. Suppose a Christian says that believing in God is conducive to a better society. Given that this “leads somewhere” who are you to say that such an approach is intellectual dishonesty?

I would ask him to show how does Christianity lead to a better society? Because it is my view that Christianity does not lead to anything “better” - and there is no evidence to the contrary. Also my stance is not really “pragmatic”, in the sense of seeking a “better” way. Truth is whatever conforms to reality - for better or for worse. I am willing to acknowledge that the Christian belief system is more personally fulfilling, it gives comfort in the times of need. There are all sorts of good things to be said about Christianity. But I would prefer to look reality in the face even if it is not comforting. But this is just my way. Not everyone is willing to take this road.

Your claim that solipism cannot be rationally maintained is not well supported. Merely perceiving things outside of the mind is not the same as perceiving those things correctly, in terms of Cartesianism. We can act in accordance with the external reality without asserting that the external reality is intellectually correct

Solipsism is the total, complete denial of the external world. That is why it cannot be rationally supported. The fact that we can misinterpret the raw data we percieve with our senses does not invalidate the the data itself.

Here again is your pragmatic standard of truth. If you are willing to define truth as what “works,” then this casts your entire thread, and indeed your whole position, in an entirely different light. Are you willing to take it there?

If our concepts (interpretations) about the external world are so out of tune with the reality that they cause our own death, then no other argument can be made. A dead person cannot defend his arguments any more. I am only saying that our knowledge or perceptions are either in synch with external reality (that is “truth”) or they are not. In this latter case, the external reality will not respect our misconceptions. The person who believes that it is safe to step off from a cliff, will have his misconception proven to be false by good, old gravity.

 

[R_Daneel]

Well, there are no mathematical proofs outside mathematics. Philosophical arguments, even the good ones, deal with far more complex entities than ‘points’ and ‘numbers’. Terms like “existence”, “contingency”, and so are extremely complex, badly defined and mixed with popular thinking. This is the reason why so many objections can be made to every philosophical argument. God is no triangle.

No kidding.

It is not good enough because we still need to deal with its first assumption, which is a hotly contested one. Anyway, it answers the great kantian objection. Curiously enough, I have extreme problems with the negation of the first premise, I mean, I can’t conceive someone who can’t conceive the idea of the most supreme being. I feel like challenging this assumption is a desperate attempt to invalid the argument.

Would you clarify your position? It would be easier for me if I actually knew which argument you happen to refer to. There are quite a few variants, and I would rather not bark up the wrong tree.

 

[Sarpedon]

There are two options. Either he can teach me how to emulate his achievement, or not. If he can, then I am able to do my own experiment, and draw my own conclusions. If he cannot, then in my eyes, he is delusional. If he maintains that it is his own personal “business”, I will not even voice this opinion. However, if he would assert that I give credence to this claim, and change my life to accommodate his belief, then - I am afraid - the kid gloves would come off. My beliefs do not infringe on his right to believe whatever he happens to believe. I don’t want anything more or anything less than that. His delusion is his own.

I’m not talking about morality at all. By using a pragmatic truth standard, you lose the ability to object to other positions as being fundamentally wrong. You may have a different pragmatic goal than the person, but you still can’t claim that your pragmatism is more true than his or her pragmatism. You are caught between two conflicting ideas. On the one hand, you want to be able to say that your position is right and the other position is wrong. If you want to do this, you have to justify your system. You can’t say “this just makes life easier” as you alluded to in your other post. Doing so results in a pragmatic standard of truth, which then makes it impossible for you to condemn another position as wrong in metaphysical true or false terms.

I would ask him to show how does Christianity lead to a better society? Because it is my view that Christianity does not lead to anything “better” - and there is no evidence to the contrary.

In principal, if we could show that Christianity is beneficial, would you uphold it as a true system since it is pragmatic for society? If you are willing to use pragmatism for one thing, why not for another?

Also my stance is not really “pragmatic”, in the sense of seeking a “better” way. Truth is whatever conforms to reality - for better or for worse.

That’s the whole point- what is “reality?” You are defining reality as the material world. I am asking you for evidence for this. You evidence is that such an approach is “pragmatic.” You then say that “pragmatism” consists of adhering to reality, which you just said is justified by pragmatism!

Solipsism is the total, complete denial of the external world. That is why it cannot be rationally supported. The fact that we can misinterpret the raw data we percieve with our senses does not invalidate the the data itself.

There is also the possibility that our perception itself is flawed, so that we misinterpret true data in every circumstance. You still aren’t proving that this is wrong, you are just stating it is not “pragmatic.”

The person who believes that it is safe to step off from a cliff, will have his misconception proven to be false by good, old gravity.

The experience of falling off a cliff takes place through our perception. The experience of death takes place through our perception. You can’t say that our perception is justified because we perceive good effects from it. Your evidence for the reliability of our perception is in fact part of perception itself, and therefore fails to justify perception. If things were that simple, philosophy would be much easier!

 

[R_Daneel]

That’s the whole point- what is “reality?” You are defining reality as the material world. I am asking you for evidence for this. You evidence is that such an approach is “pragmatic.” You then say that “pragmatism” consists of adhering to reality, which you just said is justified by pragmatism!

No, it is much simpler than that. “Pragmatism” does not even come into the picture. The evidence for the external, material world is overwhelming. It is impossible to maintain that the external, material world does not exist. Logically it is possible - that is what solipsists do - at least theoretically, even though no one can actually maintain that philosophical stance.

You ask if I can show, if that is “all”, if I have evidence that there is “nothing” outside the physical realm. Of course I don’t have such an evidence. It is impossible to provide evidence for a non-existing entity. It is nonsensical to demand such evidence.

If someone wishes to maintain that the external, physical world is not all there is, then they must get evidence for their claim. (Please, don’t bring up conceptual existence at this point. Conceptual existence is fundamentally different from physical existence.) As I suggested in the OP, the theists are the ones who assert the “existence” of non-material and non-conceptual entities. This whole thread was supposed to be devoted to the ways and means how this type of existence can be substantiated. There was one poster who suggested the epistemological method of “prayer”. That is all. I find it ironic that no one else chose to make a meaningful contibution.

There is also the possibility that our perception itself is flawed, so that we misinterpret true data in every circumstance. You still aren’t proving that this is wrong, you are just stating it is not “pragmatic.”

Ah, so you now appeal to universal skepticism. You say that is is possible, that all of our perceptions are incorrect. Let me translate this: "we cannot see correctly, because we have eyes, we cannot hear correctly, because we have ears, we cannot taste correctly, because we have tongues, we cannot smell correctly, because we have noses… etc. Don’t you see that such a position is nonsense? The question is now: “on what grounds do you say that”? To say that “it may be possible” is not enough. There must be some evidence to assert such a claim. But the evidence cannot be brought on empirical grounds, since the validity of the senses is already denied. On what grounds can anyone say that? Pure speculation just does not cut it.

The experience of falling off a cliff takes place through our perception. The experience of death takes place through our perception. You can’t say that our perception is justified because we perceive good effects from it. Your evidence for the reliability of our perception is in fact part of perception itself, and therefore fails to justify perception.

Well, a long time ago someone actually had an objection like this. He actually said: “how do you know that you are dead?”. I am serious. It happened.

Yes, there are some basic principles, which cannot be justified. The reliability of the senses is one of them. It does not matter, what kind of metaphysical system you adhere to, there will always be a “ground”, a set of basic principles, which cannot be “proven”, which are simply accepted as self-evident.

If things were that simple, philosophy would be much easier!

Philosophy is not just metaphysics. Metaphysics is simple. It is needlessly complicated by the fact that most people are not willing to face reality, most people want to believe in something “beyond” this existence. Since they positively maintain that such existence is “real”, they can either bring up evidence for it, or they can not. The obligation is on their side. If they can, then their evidence can be reviewed, and if the evidence is good, their assertions will be accepted. If they cannot provide evidence, then their stance is dismissed as wishful thinking.

One more time, this thread was offered to do exactly that. Ten pages, and the only positive post was to suggest prayer. All the other posts were directed to derail the thread, to argue that the question is itself incorrect. As I said, pretty ironic.

 

[Sarpedon]

You ask if I can show, if that is “all”, if I have evidence that there is “nothing” outside the physical realm. Of course I don’t have such an evidence. It is impossible to provide evidence for a non-existing entity.

No, I never asked for this. I asked for your positive evidence that our perception of the material order is correct. That’s not the same as asking for evidence for something beyond the physical order.

If someone wishes to maintain that the external, physical world is not all there is, then they must get evidence for their claim.

Yes, but the person who maintains that the physical world is part of what there is needs evidence too. Anyone who maintains anything as true needs to provide valid reasons for doing so.

Ah, so you now appeal to universal skepticism. You say that is is possible, that all of our perceptions are incorrect. Let me translate this: "we cannot see correctly, because we have eyes, we cannot hear correctly, because we have ears, we cannot taste correctly, because we have tongues, we cannot smell correctly, because we have noses… etc. Don’t you see that such a position is nonsense? The question is now: “on what grounds do you say that”? To say that “it may be possible” is not enough. There must be some evidence to assert such a claim. But the evidence cannot be brought on empirical grounds, since the validity of the senses is already denied. On what grounds can anyone say that? Pure speculation just does not cut it.

There is literally nothing in this post answering my question. I can easily imagine how someone could doubt the veracity of the external world- almost all eastern philosophies assert that the external world is an illusion. That’s many millions of people. Someone who asserts something beyond the physical world does indeed need reasons for doing so. You correctly point this out. However, pointing this out does not let you off the hook for providing reasons for accepting the material order. Simply asserting that such a positions are “nonsense” is not a valid reason.

Yes, there are some basic principles, which cannot be justified. The reliability of the senses is one of them. It does not matter, what kind of metaphysical system you adhere to, there will always be a “ground”, a set of basic principles, which cannot be “proven”, which are simply accepted as self-evident.

You consider the fundamentalist Christian position of just accepting the Bible as the fundamental axiom to be absurd. I agree with you. However, I am not content to just assume that the material order is a valid ground axiom. Given that millions of people deny this, such a position is not automatic. That’s part of Gilson’s point- it is very dangerous to place faith in the wrong axioms. That’s why he argues that the intelligibility of being itself is the best axiom, since it is the furthest back one can go.

Philosophy is not just metaphysics. Metaphysics is simple. It is needlessly complicated by the fact that most people are not willing to face reality, most people want to believe in something “beyond” this existence. Since they positively maintain that such existence is “real”, they can either bring up evidence for it, or they can not. The obligation is on their side. If they can, then their evidence can be reviewed, and if the evidence is good, their assertions will be accepted. If they cannot provide evidence, then their stance is dismissed as wishful thinking.

Yet you seem to think yourself exempt from such a requirement! Merely asserting that a skeptical position is “nonsensical” is not going to cut it. Millions of people who adhere to eastern philosophies assert that the world is an illusion. Where is your positive evidence that it is not? Why should your view become the default view that does not need to be explained? While you can ask them for evidence that the world is an illusion, they can ask you for evidence that the world is real as we see it. Why do you think that the burden of proof falls on them and not on you?

One more time, this thread was offered to do exactly that. Ten pages, and the only positive post was to suggest prayer. All the other posts were directed to derail the thread, to argue that the question is itself incorrect. As I said, pretty ironic.

What’s wrong with arguing that your question is incorrect? So far you have not providing evidence that you as the secular person is correct and the Hindu philosopher is not. Your use of pragmatism was circular, and now you just say that the other position is “nonsensical.”

 

[R_Daneel]

There is literally nothing in this post answering my question. I can easily imagine how someone could doubt the veracity of the external world- almost all eastern philosophies assert that the external world is an illusion. That’s many millions of people.

Well, as you know many people “say” many things. If anyone would tell me, that I am just a figment of his imaginatoin, that I am not “real”, then I would ask him (only for the fun of it, not seriously) that why does he bother to talk into thin air - since there is no one to talk to.

However, it goes a bit deeper. That solipsist (or follower of some Eastern philosphy) will invalidate his own assertion by violating it with his actions. He will take some illusionary food from this illusionary external “non-reality” and he will breathe the illusionary “non-air”. He can try to hold his breath, but his own body (and hopefully he does not believe that his own body is also an illusion) will override his desire, and he will draw in a huge gasp of this illusionary “non-air”. When it comes to words and actions, actions speak much louder than words.

Someone who asserts something beyond the physical world does indeed need reasons for doing so. You correctly point this out. However, pointing this out does not let you off the hook for providing reasons for accepting the material order. Simply asserting that such a positions are “nonsense” is not a valid reason.

We are back to square one. I am maintaining that the external world is real, and the “proof” is that I exist. One cannot doubt his own existence - the “cogito ergo sum” is a wonderful way to put that. If one maintains that the external world is just an illusion, then he can adhere to his view - and die due to asphyxiation, or he can deny it by breathing. So simple.

That’s part of Gilson’s point- it is very dangerous to place faith in the wrong axioms. That’s why he argues that the intelligibility of being itself is the best axiom, since it is the furthest back one can go.

Short of reading his book, can you point me to some source which just explains the phrase of “intelligibility of being”? Just what does this phrase mean? I have no idea.

Just a short remark. Tomorrow I am leaving for a nice, long cruise trip, and I will not be able to see your reply, and will not be able to respond. I will be back at the end of the month.