Moral and philosophical problems: any answers?

[ApologiaSophia]

I would say that the knowledge of anything must be certain simply by definition. I mean the other alternatives imply that there is a super-knowledge or that knowledge and opinion are not essentially different. All of these are wrong. So then knowledge must be certain to be knowledge. Therefore, let us ask what character the Trinity has in our cognition. Apparently,since we lack proof (in the sense of a proper syllogism), there cannot be a true knowledge of the Trinity and only opinion.

Of course faith is something that we start with in our philosophies but it is no substitute for knowledge and for all premises based on faith, we must endeavor to show that they are either provable or self-evident. Our quest for proving the existence of an external world is basically the quest to show that there are things separate from us. Now if there were not anything so separate then everything would be a modification of us and this would be absurd, for then it opens the possibility that contraries modify each other, that humans never change substantially, and that ultimately God is just a mode of us. The last two are especially bad and especially the former option since then men do not die or get born.

Finally either an external or intersubjective or subjective or internal world exists (the subjective is a mental world, the inter a world governed by mental operations, and the internal a Cartesian world). The internal, subjective world doesn’t exist since then we could not objectify or behold our thoughts or be mistaken about our psychological states. Then either the intersubjective or external worlds exist. The intersubjective world doesn’t exist for the reason that it amounts to a perfectly functioning subjective world. We already disproved that one exists. Therefore the external world exists.

Most philosopher’s would disagree that certainty and knowledge are synonymous. I know my mother loves me, but I’m not certain. I know George Washington was our first president, but I’m not certain. I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but I’m not certain. I know you exist, but I’m not certain. I know I’m not dreaming. ALL knowledge apart from a priori knowledge is based on presuppositions that we cannot prove with absolute certainty. Probability is just as much knowledge as is certainty. Historical knowledge is never certain.

It is not necessarily to how that there exist things separate from us, but whether our experience of the external worlld is reliable. If I am plugged into the matrix, or if this is a dream, that does not pressupose that nothing exists separate from myself.

As far as internal and external worlds, I disagree with your first contention. First, even if the external world exists, it woulld be erroneous to say an internal world exist. The problem is not whether the external world exists, but proving it with certainty. It is not something you can just prove with process of elimination, as you did above. The fact you would not be able to know your psychological mistakes is irrelevant on this matter.

Is a dream a perfectly functioning subjective world? It is not. So prove the external world is not actually a dream and that you are plugged into a matrix.

I would agree it is unreasonable to disbelieve in the external world. My point is that we can have reasonable knowledge of things without having absolute certainty about such things.

 

[fakename]

Most philosopher’s would disagree that certainty and knowledge are synonymous. I know my mother loves me, but I’m not certain. I know George Washington was our first president, but I’m not certain. I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but I’m not certain. I know you exist, but I’m not certain. I know I’m not dreaming. ALL knowledge apart from a priori knowledge is based on presuppositions that we cannot prove with absolute certainty. Probability is just as much knowledge as is certainty. Historical knowledge is never certain.

It is not necessarily to how that there exist things separate from us, but whether our experience of the external worlld is reliable. If I am plugged into the matrix, or if this is a dream, that does not pressupose that nothing exists separate from myself.

As far as internal and external worlds, I disagree with your first contention. First, even if the external world exists, it woulld be erroneous to say an internal world exist. The problem is not whether the external world exists, but proving it with certainty. It is not something you can just prove with process of elimination, as you did above. The fact you would not be able to know your psychological mistakes is irrelevant on this matter.

Is a dream a perfectly functioning subjective world? It is not. So prove the external world is not actually a dream and that you are plugged into a matrix.

I would agree it is unreasonable to disbelieve in the external world. My point is that we can have reasonable knowledge of things without having absolute certainty about such things.

Well I suppose that if you accept the criticism of Gettier then you would not accept my definition of knowledge but I think that (1) even if philosophers don’t agree with my definition the question would be “can you prove that knowledge is something less or more than what I said it is?” and (2) it seems obvious that knowledge is always certain and true or else again, there is something more than knowledge which is “super-knowledge” or knowledge is just a degree of opinion. And both are false.

Now, whether you agree with my proof, my question would be better served if I insist on having the answer to my numbers (1) and (2). And now that I think about it, my problems may be better answered by breaking them into several other threads.

 

[fakename]

Well I suppose that if you accept the criticism of Gettier then you would not accept my definition of knowledge but I think that (1) even if philosophers don’t agree with my definition the question would be “can you prove that knowledge is something less or more than what I said it is?” and (2) it seems obvious that knowledge is always certain and true or else again, there is something more than knowledge which is “super-knowledge” or knowledge is just a degree of opinion. And both are false.

Now, whether you agree with my proof, my question would be better served if I insist on having the answer to my numbers (1) and (2). And now that I think about it, my problems may be better answered by breaking them into several other threads.

But of course, feel free to respond if you want -I would like it very much.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Well I suppose that if you accept the criticism of Gettier then you would not accept my definition of knowledge but I think that (1) even if philosophers don’t agree with my definition the question would be “can you prove that knowledge is something less or more than what I said it is?” and (2) it seems obvious that knowledge is always certain and true or else again, there is something more than knowledge which is “super-knowledge” or knowledge is just a degree of opinion. And both are false.

Now, whether you agree with my proof, my question would be better served if I insist on having the answer to my numbers (1) and (2). And now that I think about it, my problems may be better answered by breaking them into several other threads.

I understand your objection, but by the standard of absolute certainty we wouldnt know much. Even a lot of knowledge we take for granted would not be knowledge. What constitues knowledge depends on the burden of proof. If certainty is your burden of proof, you wont know much. If empirical evidence is your exclusive standard, you’ll probably a naturalist. Now whether faith is knowledge will depend on your burden of proof. I personally believe that one can come to believe in God a priori. Apart from that I think the a pisteriori are sufficient as well. I do not think any worldview has the explanatory power as Theism does; indeed, Theism has no viable alternative (or so is my contention). By process of elimination, Theism is true. I think faith should be rooted in reason, but whether faith is knowledge will be determined by the burden of proof. I think, when examined, that absolute certianty is an unreasonable standard when setting the burden of proof. I suppose that would be my only response.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

Just to add to the above: as far as the Trinity goes, you probably wont find absolute certainty in coming to the conclusion of sed doctrine, but you will be able to show it reasonable. The reasonableness of eye witness accounts and sacred tradition to the resurrection of Christ and his claim to be deity and one with the Father. The best way to reconcile Jesus’ words are through homousion. Looking to Church history can help show why. The Trinity itself is a mystery, but a mystery is a phenomena that cannot be fully comprehended or explained, but by it all other things are illuminated and understood. The Trinity is not blind faith. Just because it cannot be proven with certainty does not mean we cannot show it to be a reasonable belief. If you want certainty, be a mathemitician. If you want Truth outside of equations you have to part with certainty.

 

[jimmy]

In response to the cannibalism question, it’s wrong because it involves killing people for their meat. If there was lab grown human meat that didn’t involve chopping anyone up then there would be no moral problem, except for the ick factor of eating what is essentially a tumor.

Several years back there was a movie made called Alive, about a South American Rugby team that got trapped in the Andies mountains when their plain crashed. They were trapped in the mountains for several months in the middle of the winter. Since they had no food, they were forced to eat their dead teammates. They didn’t kill them, they just ate them after they died from the cold. Eventually some of them were saved.

My question is, was this immoral considering that no one killed anyone? I would say simply that they did what they had to do to survive.

 

[fakename]

Just to add to the above: as far as the Trinity goes, you probably wont find absolute certainty in coming to the conclusion of sed doctrine, but you will be able to show it reasonable. The reasonableness of eye witness accounts and sacred tradition to the resurrection of Christ and his claim to be deity and one with the Father. The best way to reconcile Jesus’ words are through homousion. Looking to Church history can help show why. The Trinity itself is a mystery, but a mystery is a phenomena that cannot be fully comprehended or explained, but by it all other things are illuminated and understood. The Trinity is not blind faith. Just because it cannot be proven with certainty does not mean we cannot show it to be a reasonable belief. If you want certainty, be a mathemitician. If you want Truth outside of equations you have to part with certainty.

I think I may have answered my own question to some extent luckily. After reading the Summa on Faith, I discovered that faith is the acceptance of something as certain when we don’t have justification for it being so and also the ability to treat it as something uncertain in so far as we are able to do further research into it and find more evidence for it.

I don’t believe anything of faith can be knowledge. It must always be rather subjective. Therefore in my debates on religious matters I will not claim to have knowledge but only faith. However faith is not opinion because opinion is uncertain.

 

[ApologiaSophia]

I think I may have answered my own question to some extent luckily. After reading the Summa on Faith, I discovered that faith is the acceptance of something as certain when we don’t have justification for it being so and also the ability to treat it as something uncertain in so far as we are able to do further research into it and find more evidence for it.

I don’t believe anything of faith can be knowledge. It must always be rather subjective. Therefore in my debates on religious matters I will not claim to have knowledge but only faith. However faith is not opinion because opinion is uncertain.

Well im glad you feel more at ease ^_^, we may have to agree to disagree though. There is something puzzling me however. You said faith is not an opinion because an opinion is uncertain. You also said faith is not knowledge because knowledge requires certainty. So either faith is knowledge or opinion, unless there is some middle ground. But would be the middle ground between certainty and uncertainty? Can there be different levels of certainty? And by the definition you gave, isnt faith really just a closed-minded, strong opinion?