Giveness - evidence that justifies but is justified by nothing else (Self Justified).
in [Logic]
|
Prev: 3SAT - Short Pigeonhole Refutations
Next: decayed peer review publishing; Julia F. Knight (Journal of Logic) has in common with Chandler Davis (Mathematical Intelligencer) #5.06 Correcting Math
From: Immortalist on 8 Aug 2010 22:24 A (failed) direct challenge to the sceptic's contention that nothing can be known with certainty. Here we see an attempt to show that there is something whose existence cannot be denied and which is such that we can and do know it with certainty. It is commonly referred to as 'the given'. It is what is immediately presented to consciousness. Even in erroneous perception, we will be told to just accept, something is still perceived. Neither illusion nor hallucination is characterized by perceptual vacuity - there always is something given. Berkeley spoke of 'the proper object of the senses', and A. J. Ayer and others of 'sense-data'. What all foundationalist theories do have in common is the view that all justification ends with evidence that justifies but is justified by nothing else. Such stopping points are the foundations of all justification, and therefore of all knowledge. An absurd claim will be made that this stopping point is not simply a "basic belief," but some experience in itself. But we will find that a resort is made to some belief or other about the state of this being and it's reason for being or even that it *be.* Any version of foundationalism of this sort is "doxastic" foundationalism, that is, a version where the foundational evidence is a belief. (The Greek word 'doxa' signifies 'belief' in English.) Next we will be told that, even if it does turn out to be a belief that is used as the final justification, next the attempt will be made to confuse this belief with some meaningless propositions that can't properly stand for what is -being- addressed. But there will be no escape, basic beliefs must be justified in order to justify other beliefs. Since they are not justified by anything else, the basic beliefs could only be self-justified. As we will see, a foundationalism described in the way will have a hard time getting off the ground. Philosophical Problems and Arguments: An Introduction by James W. Cornman, Keith Lehrer, George Sotiros Pappas http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201244/
From: Zerkon on 9 Aug 2010 09:12 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 19:24:39 -0700, Immortalist wrote: > But there will be no escape, basic beliefs must be justified in order to > justify other beliefs. Some of (or THE) Deepest human certainties and absolutisms are not built upon a belief of something but the eradication of something. Fear is one of these. Fear can be seen as only a belief inside a reasoned condition, otherwise fear is a primal reactionary irrational force. A belief becomes justified if it provides relief usually in the form of prediction which in turn justifies a sense of control. Religion is an example but then so is reason and science. Typing of givens.. how is any reasoned position possible without a base certainty? Since (I believe) all being is becoming, base certainty will and must change. If not (I believe) we will perish by becoming artless.
From: Immortalist on 9 Aug 2010 21:23
On Aug 9, 6:12 am, Zerkon <Z...(a)erkonx.net> wrote: > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 19:24:39 -0700, Immortalist wrote: > > But there will be no escape, basic beliefs must be justified in order to > > justify other beliefs. > > Some of (or THE) Deepest human certainties and absolutisms are not built > upon a belief of something but the eradication of something. Fear is one > of these. Fear can be seen as only a belief inside a reasoned condition, > otherwise fear is a primal reactionary irrational force. A belief becomes > justified if it provides relief usually in the form of prediction which > in turn justifies a sense of control. Religion is an example but then so > is reason and science. > > Typing of givens.. how is any reasoned position possible without a base > certainty? Since (I believe) all being is becoming, base certainty will > and must change. If not (I believe) we will perish by becoming artless. The defeat of foundtionalism was based upon the theory that the given by itself was not self justified; something else, some other concepts had to be added to it in order for it to be justified. Then the regress of justifications began again. You position sounds more like Hume's "Mitigated Skepticism" where an arbitrary point was created to suspend skepticism as much as possible in order to act in ways that promote survival. David Hume qualified his own Scepticism by pointing out that to live at all we have perpetually to make choices, decisions, and this forces us to form judgements about the way things are, whether we like it or not. Since certainty is not available to us we have to make the best assessments we can of the realities we face - and this is incompatible with regarding all alternatives with equal scepticism. Our Scepticism therefore needs to be, as he put it, mitigated. It is indeed doubtful whether anyone could live on the basis of complete Scepticism - or, if they could, whether such a life would be worth living. But this refutation of Scepticism, if refutation it is, is not a logical argument. In practical life we must steer a middle course between demanding a degree of certainty that we can never have and treating all possibilities as if they were of equal weight when they are not. Story of Philosophy by Bryan Magee http://www.amazon.com/Story-Philosophy-Bryan-Magee/dp/078947994X |