|
|
#41
11-22-2005, 03:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Preface: Going Further
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] I'm nearly very happy with stance, its the one I take as well. It doesn't contradict what I said at the beginning it just means that there are no conclusions about the world. There's still a major problem though, does it just sound more reasonable to say that its is more likely your perception of the external world is not some sort of dream, or can you explain the reasoning? All the evidence you have will be the same whether its some type of dream or not. chez 
|
|
#44
11-22-2005, 07:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Preface: Going Further
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] I am not sure exactly what you mean by a "reasonably held belief," but I can think of two possibilities. The first is known as a justified true belief (JTB) in philosophy. The alternative is that you mean a belief whose conclusion is supported by reason. Though for different reasons, each type of belief will rest upon faith at some point. All of our beliefs are either assumed on faith or concluded, whether by rational or irrational means, from beliefs that are. Unless you are willing to redefine human epistemology to include properties normally reserved for the divine (i.e. omniscience), there is simply no way around this. The absolute best one could do is to assume only the law of non-contradiction, but at the very least one must assume that (if you don't want to start there, then you'll be taking a hell of a lot more on faith). Scott
|
|
#45
11-22-2005, 08:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Preface: Going Further
[ QUOTE ]
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. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry it took me so long, but I'm finally back [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]. Kierkegaard does not actually claim that it is wrong to "go further", but that faith and doubt are lifelong tasks that are being maligned by "every Privatdocent, tutor, and student, every crofter and cottar in philosophy" who jumps straight into the deep end. For example, let us take the following set of assumptions: 1. God is omniscient. 2. God is omnipotent. 3. God is omnibenevolent. 4. God exists. 5. Evil exists. Logic can neither prove nor disprove any of these assumptions, yet this board is full of posters who have claimed the latter, i.e. "gone further". Taken separately, none of these assumptions contradicts itself, and therefore cannot be disproven. However, taken collectively, they do contradict each other and logic then tells us that at least one of the five propositions should be disallowed. Keep in mind, logic cannot tell us which assumption to throw out, merely that the whole set cannot be simultaneously put forth. The problem with doubting faith is not the expectation that our beliefs be valid, but the illogical application of logic. Scott
|
|
#46
11-22-2005, 08:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Preface: Going Further
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] I am not sure exactly what you mean by a "reasonably held belief," but I can think of two possibilities. The first is known as a justified true belief (JTB) in philosophy. The alternative is that you mean a belief whose conclusion is supported by reason. Though for different reasons, each type of belief will rest upon faith at some point. All of our beliefs are either assumed on faith or concluded, whether by rational or irrational means, from beliefs that are. Unless you are willing to redefine human epistemology to include properties normally reserved for the divine (i.e. omniscience), there is simply no way around this. The absolute best one could do is to assume only the law of non-contradiction, but at the very least one must assume that (if you don't want to start there, then you'll be taking a hell of a lot more on faith). Scott [/ QUOTE ] What is the basis for the claim that all of our beliefs ultimately rest on faith?
|
|
#48
11-22-2005, 11:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Preface: Going Further
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 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. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry it took me so long, but I'm finally back [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]. Kierkegaard does not actually claim that it is wrong to "go further", but that faith and doubt are lifelong tasks that are being maligned by "every Privatdocent, tutor, and student, every crofter and cottar in philosophy" who jumps straight into the deep end. For example, let us take the following set of assumptions: 1. God is omniscient. 2. God is omnipotent. 3. God is omnibenevolent. 4. God exists. 5. Evil exists. Logic can neither prove nor disprove any of these assumptions, yet this board is full of posters who have claimed the latter, i.e. "gone further". Taken separately, none of these assumptions contradicts itself, and therefore cannot be disproven. However, taken collectively, they do contradict each other and logic then tells us that at least one of the five propositions should be disallowed. Keep in mind, logic cannot tell us which assumption to throw out, merely that the whole set cannot be simultaneously put forth. The problem with doubting faith is not the expectation that our beliefs be valid, but the illogical application of logic. Scott [/ QUOTE ] I was beginning to wonder what OSU was? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] So by 'gone further' KS is refering to throwing out one of 1-5 (usually god exists) because of the inconsistency of 1-5, when in fact all they are logically justified in doing is recognising that 1-5 are inconsistent. Is KS going further and claiming that faith in logic is required to know that 1-5 must be modified and so we can accept 1-5 and add 6. Logic consistency doesn't apply? chez
|
|
#49
11-23-2005, 12:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Preface: Going Further
[ QUOTE ]
I was beginning to wonder what OSU was? [/ QUOTE ] Since you're a pommie, I'll forgive you this once [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]. OSU is the school that pwned Michigan last weekend. [ QUOTE ] So by 'gone further' KS is refering to throwing out one of 1-5 (usually god exists) because of the inconsistency of 1-5, when in fact all they are logically justified in doing is recognising that 1-5 are inconsistent. [/ QUOTE ] In this (my) example, "going further" would mean (mis)using logic to claim that any or all of the five propositions are false. As to what SK would say . . . that's what we're discussing [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]. [ QUOTE ] Is KS going further and claiming that faith in logic is required to know that 1-5 must be modified and so we can accept 1-5 and add 6. Logic consistency doesn't apply? [/ QUOTE ] From what I remember of the selections I read in a class, this question is best left for later in the book. Scott
|
|
#50
11-23-2005, 12:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Preface: Going Further
chez,
OSU is Ohio State University. They had a big game this past weekend - OSU won. OSU is now 6th in the nation for college football. Notre Dame is #8. There is a chance that the two teams (his and mine) might play in a post regular season “Bowl” game. Btw, Bigdaddydvo’s avatar is a pic of the ND head football coach. (ND is a Catholic university.) We’ll keep you posted. RJT Sorry for talking in class, Scotch.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
