Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12/13/02 9:21am
In reply to:
Damoclese
's message, "Philosophy invitational" on 12/12/02 2:07pm
>>Again, that need not necessarily be the case. I have
>>yet to see any identifiable logical reason for this
>>being so. (It is logically conceivable for everyone
>>being mad and thinking that 2 + 2 = 5, but that still
>>wouldn't change the objective truth.)
>>
>
>Or would it? If I redefine a word to mean something
>else the old defintion of the word becomes defunct.
I wasn’t talking about the re-definition of words. In the scenario I was talking about, 2 and 5 have the same “definition” as they do in normal mathematics. Obviously, 2 +2 = 5 is a false statement.
>Is there any objective truth to begin with?
Yes. 2 + 2 = 4 is an example.
>>Believe it or not Ben, we both rationally
>>accept beliefs without proof or evidence. We
>>both base our beliefs on what we intuitively
>>“feel” to be true.
>>
>>A quick example. How do we know that memory is ever
>>reliable? One could try to justify belief in memory by
>>saying something like, “I remember many times when I
>>recall where I parked my car. When I went to the place
>>where my memory told me I parked my car, it was
>>there.” One could also say, “I remember people telling
>>me my memory is sometimes reliable.” Yet, since those
>>responses would be using memory to justify the
>>reliability of memory, there is the logical fallacy of
>>circular reasoning (assuming the truth of
>>something that the argument is supposed to establish).
>>Consequently, we have yet to provide any real evidence
>>to support the reliability of memory. We can go and
>>do the same for testimony and sense experience. No
>>proof. Not one shred. I suggest you go to this brief web page of mine for
>>further elucidation on this matter. Feel free to
>>comment on it if you wish. I’d like to hear your
>>input.
>
>It is one thing to suppose that because you've stepped
>out in front of a car in the past, and you got hurt
>you shouldn't do it again. It's quite another when
>someone asserts moral truisms.
True, but you seem to be missing the point of what I wrote here. I was talking about the fundamental basis of beliefs. Suppose you are hurt right now and your memory tells you it was the result of getting hit by a car. Well, how do you know you’re memory is ever reliable (confer the link)? Is the basis for that belief the same foundation for the belief in moral truths? Methinks so. Now if you don’t agree with what I believe to be the basic principle of belief, I’m welcome to suggestions.
>The logical extension
>of your argument is that we should admit every and any
>belief as a possible truism.
That is not the logical extension of my argument at all. I think you may have misconstrued me. What exactly do you believe my argument is?
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 