Is this belief proof of objective truth?

[Ben_Sinner]

There is a belief that no belief can ever be proven for certain. It can reasonably be assumed to be true, but it can never be proven for certain.

How about this belief though?:

“Reasoning reasons.”

And if somebody asks “why do you believe that”, you could answer “Believing believes” without it being circular since the answer in itself would be reasoning.

If they ask you “Why do you think that?”, answer with “Thinking thinks”

If reasoning didn’t reason, then it wouldn’t be reasoning. If believing didn’t believe, it wouldn’t be believing. If thinking didn’t think, it wouldn’t be thinking.

In a strict linguistic sense.

 

[Tomdstone]

There is a belief that no belief can ever be proven for certain. It can reasonably be assumed to be true, but it can never be proven for certain.

How about this belief though?:

“Reasoning reasons.”

And if somebody asks “why do you believe that”, you could answer “Believing believes” without it being circular since the answer in itself would be reasoning.

If they ask you “Why do you think that?”, answer with “Thinking thinks”

If reasoning didn’t reason, then it wouldn’t be reasoning. If believing didn’t believe, it wouldn’t be believing. If thinking didn’t think, it wouldn’t be thinking.

In a strict linguistic sense.

I suppose so, but the statements:
“Reasoning reasons”
“Believing believes”
“Thinking thinks”
don’t say much.

 

[Rhubarb]

Yeah, I don’t know what you’re trying to say when you say “reasoning reasons.”

If someone asks you “why did you do that?” and you answer “reasoning reasons” you might as well just answer “reasons,” which is generally considered to be a truism.

If you mean that the act of reasoning is reasonable, that’s also a definition truism and I don’t think it’s the sort of thing that the skeptic about knowledge has in mind when they say that there can be no knowledge.

 

[truthquester]

All I know about what you said is if I were having a discussion with you about anything and you said that, that conversation would be over very quickly. That proves nothing and sounds like it could be very irritating to the person you are talking to.

 

[Hans_W]

René Descartes’ “I think, therefore I am” is a bit more useful, but not much more.

 

[dmar198]

There is a belief that no belief can ever be proven for certain.

If they truly believe that, then it sounds like they must believe that their own belief is uncertain.

If they aren’t certain about their own skepticism, that’s a step in the right direction. Then you just need to point out to them that some things CAN be known for certain. For example, you can know for certain that at least one truth is absolute, because the alternative involves a self-contradiction.

 

[Ben_Sinner]

Yah, I realized I made a mistake with the ‘answering’ of questions, I thought I was going somewhere with that, but when I read it over, it sounds random, I used up all my edits, so I couldn’t get rid of it haha. Just ignore that part of it.

Basically what I’m saying is the verb “reasoning” is the same thing as the verb “reasons”, but they both can create a sequence of objective events. When people are reasoning, they use reason. (doesn’t matter if the reason is true or flawed, or if its even the true representation of a ‘reason’)

This is more implied to the Agrippa’s Trilemma where it says NOTHING AT ALL can ever be proven. No matter what belief you have, you will always have to concede to assumptions, circular reasoning, or an infinite regress in the process of trying to prove it.

I’m not sure you can fall into any of those by believing “Reasoning reasons”

 

[Ignatius]

There is a belief that no belief can ever be proven for certain. It can reasonably be assumed to be true, but it can never be proven for certain.
.

How about the belief that no belief can ever be proven?