Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

We are going to start with Fear and Trembling . I cut and pasted the webpages into a 73-page Word file. If anyone would like a copy of it, PM me your e-mail address or IM me at Since1978.

We will start with the preface and prelude, but no timeline. Simply post your thoughts in this thread as you read and when things feel wrapped up we'll move on to Chapter 1.

Scott

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

I compressed the Word file; the ZIP is available here.

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

I read last night that SK died 11/11/1855. We decided to read him on 11/11/2005 (when Scotch confirmed in his post of 11/11 that we would go with him.) 150 years later - I think if we had any doubts on whom to read first, this anniversary is reason enough.

RJT

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

[ QUOTE ]
I read last night that SK died 11/11/1855. We decided to read him on 11/11/2005 (when Scotch confirmed in his post of 11/11 that we would go with him.) 150 years later - I think if we had any doubts on whom to read first, this anniversary is reason enough.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]I like it when a plan comes together. I am having trouble getting past the inaccurate description of the story of abraham tho.

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

For Part I of the Prelude this is what I got from Kierkkegaard's version of Abraham, and how it relates to his brief parable. Abraham is told by God to offer his son, Issac, for a burnt offering. In the process of this event, Issac learns to move his trust of his earthly father figure Abraham, to the father figure of all God. Issac learns to always trust God. One must learn to move from only trust of parental figures, and begin to trust in God.

The parable mentioned relates to this in that a child must depend on his mother for survival when life begins, but as he grows he must be able to use what nature provides him. In the parable he still is able to have a good relationship with his mother, he is just not as dependent on her. It seems with Issac and Abraham, Issac will have a strained relationship with Abraham based on how the event took place. So there is a slight difference between the story of Issac and Abraham and the parbable mentioned. Unless Issac understands afterwards the lesson to be taught, and is still able to keep the same relationship with Abraham.

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read last night that SK died 11/11/1855. We decided to read him on 11/11/2005 (when Scotch confirmed in his post of 11/11 that we would go with him.) 150 years later - I think if we had any doubts on whom to read first, this anniversary is reason enough.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]I like it when a plan comes together. I am having trouble getting past the inaccurate description of the story of abraham tho.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you suppose there is a significance to the description's inaccuracy, or is it merely fluff?

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read last night that SK died 11/11/1855. We decided to read him on 11/11/2005 (when Scotch confirmed in his post of 11/11 that we would go with him.) 150 years later - I think if we had any doubts on whom to read first, this anniversary is reason enough.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]I like it when a plan comes together. I am having trouble getting past the inaccurate description of the story of abraham tho.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you suppose there is a significance to the description's inaccuracy, or is it merely fluff?

[/ QUOTE ]I believe it is of significate importance to the story being told. There is likly nothing about the Abe story in this work that is fluff. Unfortunelty, for the author there is a much simpiler explaining of Abrahams actions. It's not as rightoues as the author would have you believe. Milgram More so it is very very dangerous. But give me some more time so I can re read this work to give it a fairer read.

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

Could someone who knows where in the bible to find this Abraham story please post a link to the original?

Scott

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

[ QUOTE ]
I compressed the Word file; the ZIP is available here.

[/ QUOTE ]

many thanks

chez

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

[ QUOTE ]
Could someone who knows where in the bible to find this Abraham story please post a link to the original?

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

It is in Genesis (I don't have a Bible handy). I read it last night. The story of Abraham is quite lengthy, although the particular text with Isaac is short.

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

My thoughts thus far – haven’t even deciphered the whole of the Prelude (I think I spoke in haste when I told chez, SK was easy).

In his preface SK (as J De Silentio) pokes fun of almost (or at least finds them not particularly relevant) philosophers of his day (or immediately prior to his own time) who seek to go beyond doubt and live only with what is empirical. “In our time nobody is content to stop with faith but wants to go further.” Or that they expect their empiricism to be able to take them further.

He says others can look to go beyond doubt. That for me (him) Faith is fine. I (RJT) might have said it this way “Hey, maybe it’s just me”. He uses self deprecation to disarm the reader. SK as De Silentio says the writer is not a philosopher – yeah right.

I like his wit:

“What those ancient Greeks (who also had some understanding of philosophy)…”

and

“… so that there were fifty words for a period and thirty-five for a semicolon.”

Trop – I take it Trop is a contemporary of Soren who wrote criticisms of works in their day?

Regarding the Prelude – without getting into the text yet, I think of some filmmakers who use this technique. I can’t recall anything specific, but I think Tarentino does this. I remember Costa-Gavras in his film “Missing” uses a similar technique to SK. CG repeats the same scene in flashbacks – he further tells what (might have) happened to the missing son until near the end of the film we see how the son was probably abducted and killed. The scene is repeated as does SK repeats the Abraham story each time with a new (different?) understanding. Reading the different versions of the Abraham story I imagine rewinding a video and then playing it again but, each time we are watching a new movie. Or perhaps like a recurring dream (perhaps, nightmare is a better word) that differ dramatically each night.

SK’s technique here seems very novel for his time. Without a keen sense of 19th century literature, I might be overstating.

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

King James Version

New American Bible

New International Version

Hebrew

Scott

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I read last night that SK died 11/11/1855. We decided to read him on 11/11/2005 (when Scotch confirmed in his post of 11/11 that we would go with him.) 150 years later - I think if we had any doubts on whom to read first, this anniversary is reason enough.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]I like it when a plan comes together. I am having trouble getting past the inaccurate description of the story of abraham tho.

[/ QUOTE ]
As I read it, we are not getting a description of the Abraham story (of which I remember only the jist) but a description of what one man saw as significant in the story. We are reading the message that he gets from the story.

The man revisits the story several times as he gets older and sees a different message each time.

We are given four different messages (maybe as an intro to stages we and/or the book go through) plus a final teaser about the greatness of the story.

chez

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

[ QUOTE ]
As I read it, we are not getting a description of the Abraham story (of which I remember only the jist) but a description of what one man saw as significant in the story. We are reading the message that he gets from the story.

The man revisits the story several times as he gets older and sees a different message each time.

We are given four different messages (maybe as an intro to stages we and/or the book go through) plus a final teaser about the greatness of the story.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I had that same idea that the man retells the story at different stages of his life. I wasn’t sure if that was implied by SK or even the case for sure.

I also agree that SK will probably get into more of what he is offering here as we proceed with F & T. I am going to give the Prelude another go later on this evening. I suggest that we discuss this a bit longer - (Scotch, you set the timetable) - but not get bogged down in it quite yet, as it seems this might be what the whole book deals with in various ways.

I don’t mean to suggest that if someone has a good idea so far that they should refrain from posting it. I certainly will post if I have something to add after my re-read. “Not bloody well likely.” (That last sentence is a quote from Seinfeld. I’ll probably allude to him often as we get into existentialism. Thought I should disclose this from the onset. The Bible, Godfather I and II, To Kill a Mockingbird, Seinfeld and a dictionary - my essential reference material in my life thus far. Mosquito, your use of the word fluff - is that an homage to Seinfeld, too? )

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

[ QUOTE ]
Mosquito, your use of the word fluff - is that an homage to Seinfeld, too? )

[/ QUOTE ]

Unintentional if at all. I usually have no idea what I mean. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

I was browsing the internet to cut and paste some pictures of Abraham and Isaac as depicted in Art. I was hoping also to find a few examples that I thought might match up with the 4 versions.

It seems that this has already been done - made my work easier.

www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/ashp/brunelleschi_ghiberti.html

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As I read it, we are not getting a description of the Abraham story (of which I remember only the jist) but a description of what one man saw as significant in the story. We are reading the message that he gets from the story.

The man revisits the story several times as he gets older and sees a different message each time.

We are given four different messages (maybe as an intro to stages we and/or the book go through) plus a final teaser about the greatness of the story.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I had that same idea that the man retells the story at different stages of his life. I wasn’t sure if that was implied by SK or even the case for sure.

I also agree that SK will probably get into more of what he is offering here as we proceed with F & T. I am going to give the Prelude another go later on this evening. I suggest that we discuss this a bit longer - (Scotch, you set the timetable) - but not get bogged down in it quite yet, as it seems this might be what the whole book deals with in various ways.

I don’t mean to suggest that if someone has a good idea so far that they should refrain from posting it. I certainly will post if I have something to add after my re-read. “Not bloody well likely.” (That last sentence is a quote from Seinfeld. I’ll probably allude to him often as we get into existentialism. Thought I should disclose this from the onset. The Bible, Godfather I and II, To Kill a Mockingbird, Seinfeld and a dictionary - my essential reference material in my life thus far. Mosquito, your use of the word fluff - is that an homage to Seinfeld, too? )

[/ QUOTE ]
Version are vital. When I refer to the godfather it will mean the book.

[ QUOTE ]
In these and similar ways this man of whom we speak thought about these events. Every time he came home from a journey to the mountain in Moriah he collapsed in weariness, clasped his hands, and said: "Yet no one was as great as Abraham; who is able to understand him?"

[/ QUOTE ]
I've re-read the prelude again and can't make any other sense of it. This quote clearly? refers to this man who immersed himself so deeply in the story of Abraham that each time he visited the story it was like being on the journey himself, and that it was very difficult to understand what was transpiring.

chez

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

A few comments from reading both the passage and this thread:

1) Great idea to start this book club Scotch - good pick too (especially with the anniversary and all) [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

2) RJT - Good find on the four different works of art depicting the four different interpretations.

3) The Milgram experiment was interesting - hadn't heard of it before yet it totally reminded me of Ghostbusters

4) I also found the following commentary interesting Storm's Commentary. The number of levels that this text is operating on is quite extraordinary. I especially liked the analogy between the reader and the baby and the mother and SK. Very interesting indeed. In that case, let the weening continue!

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
In our time nobody is content to stop with faith but wants to go further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people think Kierkegaard takes issue with people subjecting faith to doubt?

In logical terminology, what is the parallel of "faith"?

Scott

edit: And as a further hint, why do people think that I, an agnostic and a skeptic, agree with Kierkegaard?

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In our time nobody is content to stop with faith but wants to go further.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people think Kierkegaard takes issue with people subjecting faith to doubt?

In logical terminology, what is the parallel of "faith"?

Scott

edit: And as a further hint, why do people think that I, an agnostic and a skeptic, agree with Kierkegaard?

[/ QUOTE ]

Paradox. Maybe, I should say: Paradox?

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why do people think Kierkegaard takes issue with people subjecting faith to doubt?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could it be that the terms are mutually exclusive? That once you subject it to doubt, it ceases to be faith?

-McGee

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that the terms are mutually exclusive? That once you subject it to doubt, it ceases to be faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct that doubt fundamentally undermines faith, but I don't think that is what Kierkegaard's getting at, so I'll throw out another question/clue: If faith and doubt are mutually exclusive, why aren't faith and logic also mutually exclusive?

Scott

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could it be that the terms are mutually exclusive? That once you subject it to doubt, it ceases to be faith?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct that doubt fundamentally undermines faith, but I don't think that is what Kierkegaard's getting at, so I'll throw out another question/clue: If faith and doubt are mutually exclusive, why aren't faith and logic also mutually exclusive?

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm on a roll at missing the point today so I'll have a stab at this, knowing I'm unsure about your point.

Faith and doubt are two different states of mind that refer to the nature of the world. If you have faith that P is the case then you accept that P is the case and hence don't doubt that P is the case. Therefore faith and doubt are mutually excusive.

Logic is not a state of mind about the nature of the world. Its a way of understanding what faith that P is the case means about the world e.g if you have faith the world is flat then logically that means you believe the world isn't banana shaped.

Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.

chez

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Partial credit. Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions. The basis for these deductions might be an accumulation of known facts, rather than assumptions. Assumptions are frequently used to create a theory or thesis which then they may attempt to prove logically from facts known or derived. Only in pure philosphy, maybe, are deductions made from assumptions.

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Partial credit. Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions. The basis for these deductions might be an accumulation of known facts , rather than assumptions. Assumptions are frequently used to create a theory or thesis which then they may attempt to prove logically from facts known or derived. Only in pure philosphy, maybe, are deductions made from assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I want my full credit. What are these known facts from which you start?

chez

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a premise used in logic but a premise used in a logical argument.

If you conclude with a statement about the nature of the world then you sarted from at least one premise that is about the world. Where do the initial premises come from?

An example of an initial premise might be that you are observing a real external world. Try proving that you're not dreaming it all.

chez

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Partial credit. Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions. The basis for these deductions might be an accumulation of known facts , rather than assumptions. Assumptions are frequently used to create a theory or thesis which then they may attempt to prove logically from facts known or derived. Only in pure philosphy, maybe, are deductions made from assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I want my full credit. What are these known facts from which you start?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. Okay, some things have to start out as definitions. That 'color' is 'red'. We assume everyone agrees with these 'universal' definitions. From that standpoint everything might be considered an assumption. We assume that since gravity seems to always work, that it is a constant, and it has been measured to be that way. What is acceptable to you as a proof may not be acceptable to sometone else. Semantics will bog down anything.

Partial credit only.

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Partial credit. Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions. The basis for these deductions might be an accumulation of known facts , rather than assumptions. Assumptions are frequently used to create a theory or thesis which then they may attempt to prove logically from facts known or derived. Only in pure philosphy, maybe, are deductions made from assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I want my full credit. What are these known facts from which you start?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. Okay, some things have to start out as definitions. That 'color' is 'red'. We assume everyone agrees with these 'universal' definitions. From that standpoint everything might be considered an assumption. We assume that since gravity seems to always work, that it is a constant, and it has been measured to be that way. What is acceptable to you as a proof may not be acceptable to sometone else. Semantics will bog down anything.

Partial credit only.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not being picky but we're talking about deductive logic and no way is gravity a known fact as a conclusion of deductive logic without some premise which its itself based on prior premises in a chain that leads back to something unknown.

Unless you can start from an unassumed premise about the world then the initial premise must be taken on faith. The claim from KS is that it cant be done and faith is required.

chez

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

hi, actually deductions can be made from any system of logic that has been proved to be consistent and complete. if what you mean is that all formal reasoning is analytic---that's correct.............b

Re: Philosophy Book Club: Ribbon Cutting
 

Great book. I may chime in at some point if I have some time. Kierkegaard is my fav.

I'd have gone with Either/Or though.

I helped a peer with his undergraduate thesis talk/paper on Fear and Trembling....it's very easy for thinking to get way too uptight on this one, so I may want to go back and look at what we discussed for later in your book club discussion.

Very good book, IMO. I should reread it....got it lying right next to my bed, lol.

Oh, btw, it's also useful to keep in the back of your mind the Continental tradition Kierkegaard fit into....most of the way he presents and elucidates his insights (and why he goes to great lengths to use telling pseudonyms and make fun of/belittle his contemporaries) was directly impacted by the juggernaut of the day that was Hegel.

Yugoslav

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Partial credit. Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions. The basis for these deductions might be an accumulation of known facts , rather than assumptions. Assumptions are frequently used to create a theory or thesis which then they may attempt to prove logically from facts known or derived. Only in pure philosphy, maybe, are deductions made from assumptions.

[/ QUOTE ]
I want my full credit. What are these known facts from which you start?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh. Okay, some things have to start out as definitions. That 'color' is 'red'. We assume everyone agrees with these 'universal' definitions. From that standpoint everything might be considered an assumption. We assume that since gravity seems to always work, that it is a constant, and it has been measured to be that way. What is acceptable to you as a proof may not be acceptable to sometone else. Semantics will bog down anything.

Partial credit only.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not being picky but we're talking about deductive logic and no way is gravity a known fact as a conclusion of deductive logic without some premise which its itself based on prior premises in a chain that leads back to something unknown.

Unless you can start from an unassumed premise about the world then the initial premise must be taken on faith. The claim from KS is that it cant be done and faith is required.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Never made gravity an example to prove my point, it was just an example of possible controversy that was the first thing into my head in the wee hours. I was trying to give you more credit, actually.

As far as unassumed premises go, my point was that there will always be argument about these things. Which is why it is still debated. Your definition of an unassumed premise will differ from mine or KS's. The fact that I was too tired to get that across clearly is my problem, not yours.

Also I get less joy from these arguments than you, so don't mind me if I drop out for awhile. Multiple responses to a post where I find out we are talking about apples vs oranges was not my intent.

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
As far as unassumed premises go, my point was that there will always be argument about these things. Which is why it is still debated. Your definition of an unassumed premise will differ from mine or KS's. The fact that I was too tired to get that across clearly is my problem, not yours.

[/ QUOTE ]
even if there is an argument for any premise, as finite beings we are always going to have starts somewhere. So if we end with beliefs about the world then we started from something assumed.

[ QUOTE ]
Also I get less joy from these arguments than you, so don't mind me if I drop out for awhile. Multiple responses to a post where I find out we are talking about apples vs oranges was not my intent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your perogative but I thought we wre trying to get at what KS meant. Don't know where the apples vs oranges comes in.

chez

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a premise used in logic but a premise used in a logical argument.

If you conclude with a statement about the nature of the world then you sarted from at least one premise that is about the world. Where do the initial premises come from?

An example of an initial premise might be that you are observing a real external world. Try proving that you're not dreaming it all.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a premise used in logic but a premise used in a logical argument.

If you conclude with a statement about the nature of the world then you sarted from at least one premise that is about the world. Where do the initial premises come from?

An example of an initial premise might be that you are observing a real external world. Try proving that you're not dreaming it all.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before we get into the thorny paradise of reasonable belief, is KS talking about about reasonable belief or undoubted truth?

chez

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a premise used in logic but a premise used in a logical argument.

If you conclude with a statement about the nature of the world then you sarted from at least one premise that is about the world. Where do the initial premises come from?

An example of an initial premise might be that you are observing a real external world. Try proving that you're not dreaming it all.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before we get into the thorny paradise of reasonable belief, is KS talking about about reasonable belief or undoubted truth?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what K is talking about, but I was responding to your statement that arguments are based on premises taken on faith. You gave the example of a belief in the external world, and said "try proving that you're not dreaming at all."

My point is that a premise that says there is an external world does not have to rely on faith but by contrast can be a reasonably held belief, and it does not have to be based on a 'proof' in order for it to be a reasonably held belief.

Hence a premise that says that the external world exists is not a premise that we must accept on faith.

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a premise used in logic but a premise used in a logical argument.

If you conclude with a statement about the nature of the world then you sarted from at least one premise that is about the world. Where do the initial premises come from?

An example of an initial premise might be that you are observing a real external world. Try proving that you're not dreaming it all.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before we get into the thorny paradise of reasonable belief, is KS talking about about reasonable belief or undoubted truth?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what K is talking about, but I was responding to your statement that arguments are based on premises taken on faith. You gave the example of a belief in the external world, and said "try proving that you're not dreaming at all."

My point is that a premise that says there is an external world does not have to rely on faith but by contrast can be a reasonably held belief, and it does not have to be based on a 'proof' in order for it to be a reasonably held belief.

Hence a premise that says that the external world exists is not a premise that we must accept on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
but not all our reasonable beliefs are true so either you have to have some doubt that your reasonable belief about the external world is one of the true ones or you need some faith.

btw what in the nature of the reasonable belief that gets you to your conclusion that the external world exists?

chez

Re: Preface: Going Further
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is SK pointing out that to conclude P about the world using logic requires starting with some premise that is not logically deduced and has to be taken on faith.


[/ QUOTE ]

DING!DING!DING!DING!DING!

Logic is a set of rules for making valid deductions from assumptions, i.e. premisses accepted on faith. This does not mean that faith is, or should be, immune to the judgments of logic, but there is a certain art to such endeavors ("What [doubting] those ancient Greeks . . . regarded as a task for a whole lifetime . . . . faith was a task for a whole lifetime").

I'm leaving for OSU in a couple minutes, but I'll get back to this after the game.

Scott

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give an example of a premise used in logic that is based on faith?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a premise used in logic but a premise used in a logical argument.

If you conclude with a statement about the nature of the world then you sarted from at least one premise that is about the world. Where do the initial premises come from?

An example of an initial premise might be that you are observing a real external world. Try proving that you're not dreaming it all.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a vast epistemic middleground between accepting a premise on faith and proving the premise. Skepticism about the external world notwithstanding, it can be perfectly reasonable to believe that the external world exists. Meeting the challenge of philosophical skepticism about the existence of the external world may ultimately require some sort of proof, but reasonable belief in the existence of the external world does not.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before we get into the thorny paradise of reasonable belief, is KS talking about about reasonable belief or undoubted truth?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what K is talking about, but I was responding to your statement that arguments are based on premises taken on faith. You gave the example of a belief in the external world, and said "try proving that you're not dreaming at all."

My point is that a premise that says there is an external world does not have to rely on faith but by contrast can be a reasonably held belief, and it does not have to be based on a 'proof' in order for it to be a reasonably held belief.

Hence a premise that says that the external world exists is not a premise that we must accept on faith.

[/ QUOTE ]
but not all our reasonable beliefs are true so either you have to have some doubt that your reasonable belief about the external world is one of the true ones or you need some faith.

btw what in the nature of the reasonable belief that gets you to your conclusion that the external world exists?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I would reject the dilemma you pose--that you either have to have some doubt that your reasonable belief is true or you have to take it partly on faith.

I agree that any belief 'about the external world' (not just the belief that there is an external world) is subject to some, however minute, degree of doubt, but that does not mean that we 'fill in' the remainder with faith.

As Hume said, the reasonable man proportions his belief to the evidence, which I take to mean that we can rationally hold beliefs to varying degrees. I am more sure that the sun will rise tomorrow than I am that the Colts will win the Super Bowl, because the evidence suggests that the former belief is on firmer ground. This does not mean that any element of faith is a part of my holding either belief, just that I hold one belief more strongly in terms of its likelihood of being true than the other.