Is Fallibilism the basis for all honest philosophy?

[Gregory_Olson]

Disclaimer: I am without a doubt a philosophy newbie!

I read the above from a credible source, but, vaguely, it set off little alarm bells in my head.

CAF philosophers, is there anything wrong or unCatholic about the above position?

 

[DarkLight]

It’s certainly a position that many philosophers (Christian or otherwise) disagree with.

 

[Rhubarb]

Falibilism, as in, epistemology?

If so, falibilism is certainly more popular in modern philosophy. The position, in a nutshell, just means that you grand that someone can know something without ironclad, 100 percent, total and without question sureness. For instance, a fallibilist would say it is correct for me to say “I know my car is in the driveway.” An infalliblist would say “no, I don’t KNOW where my car is. I mean, I parked it there last night but it’s been 12 hours since I’ve seen it. It might have been stolen or something.” This is, of course, a very simple and unsophisticated example.

Infallibilism is very hard to defend, because it leads to the conclusion that we rarely, if ever, have knowledge. Even about things we’re almost always all going to agree that we know.

 

[Michael19682]

Disclaimer: I am without a doubt a philosophy newbie!

I read the above from a credible source, but, vaguely, it set off little alarm bells in my head.

CAF philosophers, is there anything wrong or unCatholic about the above position?

I think the dogma that gets thrown about really serves a purpose even in an open inquiry process because these represent milestones on well trodden paths. Technically, however, even the most basic assumptions, previously recognized pitfalls, and open to see errors are not contradictory to true philosophy when explored honestly. Perhaps only violence is in opposition to true philosophy; that violence would include undisclosed deception or lying about sense experiences, I think.

 

[ynotzap]

It is true all men are fallible because they are not omniscient, all knowing. This does not mean that they can’t know the truth. The church teaches that God made us to know Him , to love Him, to serve Him in this life, and to be happy with Him in the next. The Church also teaches that truth is the object of pursuit for the human mind ( object of appetency of the intellect) We also understand that the senses do not lie, that they are reliable in contacting the objective world. Although we can err in the interpretation of what the senses sense. Skeptics who deny this place themselves in a logically absurd position, we can know the truth even if we are fallible. Not only that, The Church was granted the gift of “infallibility” in matter of faith and morals by Jesus Christ.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

Thanks to all responders!

It is true all men are fallible because they are not omniscient, all knowing. This does not mean that they can’t know the truth. The church teaches that God made us to know Him , to love Him, to serve Him in this life, and to be happy with Him in the next. The Church also teaches that truth is the object of pursuit for the human mind ( object of appetency of the intellect) We also understand that the senses do not lie, that they are reliable in contacting the objective world. Although we can err in the interpretation of what the senses sense. Skeptics who deny this place themselves in a logically absurd position, we can know the truth even if we are fallible. Not only that, The Church was granted the gift of “infallibility” in matter of faith and morals by Jesus Christ.

Going to play devil’s advocate… Couldn’t a skeptic say that our position is equally absurd–because we are fallible we can’t be certain that our knowledge of God and all His teachings is the truth?

The best counter I would have would be to say that we don’t know God by our fallible efforts alone; God also helps us to know Him. And, if God’s help is real in this respect, the claim that our knowledge of God’s help in this respect is fallible too would be immaterial.

 

[ynotzap]

Thanks to all responders!

Going to play devil’s advocate… Couldn’t a skeptic say that our position is equally absurd–because we are fallible we can’t be certain that our knowledge of God and all His teachings is the truth?

The best counter I would have would be to say that we don’t know God by our fallible efforts alone; God also helps us to know Him. And, if God’s help is real in this respect, the claim that our knowledge of God’s help in this respect is fallible too would be immaterial.

Yes, this is a good response.
I would ask the skeptic:’"Are you sure, that we can’t be sure? ( he contradicts himself) We can be reasonably certain that we can have certainty in our judgement if it is consistent with objective reality ( the world outside of ourselves) and right logic, employing right reason. With the added help of our Faith.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

Yes, this is a good response.
I would ask the skeptic:’"Are you sure, that we can’t be sure? ( he contradicts himself) We can be reasonably certain that we can have certainty in our judgement if it is consistent with objective reality ( the world outside of ourselves) and right logic, employing right reason. With the added help of our Faith.

I feel like the skeptic would be OK with being unsure in his position that we can’t be sure. He would simply feel, like us, that his judgement and reason leads him to conclude that his position is most likely. Sooner or later all knowledge must come back to either empiricism–which position does evidence point to (I would argue Christianity, he would argue not), and divine intervention–knowledge or beliefs that are put or helped into our heads by God.

Hmnmm. I think becoming Christian relies more on the latter–on listening to God’s call, rather than a coldly applied experiment to some object. Although there is something to be said for the liquified blood of Saint Jerome in Naples.