Yeah, I lost a ‘NOT’ while editing my post.
It should have been : "You claim NOT to believe things because you associate belief with irrational religious nuts and you don’t want to think of yourself in those terms. "
He’s come to the same conclusion about you that I and Moreno did. In fact I think phyllo came to it first. Seems reasonable enough to me- it’s the most justified conclusion based on reading what you write.
Empiricism utilizes logic and reason - through testing and experimentation. I’m not referring to scientific empiricism - in that a 3 year old utilizes empiricism. 3 year olds test and produce logical reasons of why things are the way they sense them.
That is all we can have knowledge from, our senses, essentially. If we had no senses, how could we have logic? Reason? Math? I don’t know the answer to that question. Maybe we would understand logic and reason and math tabula rasa.
So you can claim knowledge is not justified and that we really don’t know anything because its all based on senses, ultimately. Maybe you belong to the questionable “quote” of Socrates in that you think along the lines of “I only know I know nothing.”? I don’t know what you think on the matter. Empiricism allows us to recognize consistency, patterns, for justification, logically and reasonably.
How could you test or verify anything if your senses don’t work? Even Helen Keller needed the sense of touch.
That fallacy plays against your argument. Logic does not depend upon senses. But logic requires axioms. Until a high degree of mental understanding is reached, those axioms come from the probability that the senses are reasonably accurate (a belief in the senses).
Ok I didn’t claim "not to believe things because I associate belief with irrational religious nuts.
I claimed not to believe things because I have developed a discipline of weeding out belief in my life, becoming agnostic about more things than would be considered normal and by obtaining knowledge.
That was my claim. You misinterpreted the claim because you and Uccisore seem to have a preconceived notion that you cannot shake from your mentality no matter what is stated. I suspect it may be due to your mental faculties operating from belief based frameworks.
Empiricism is knowledge dervied from sense experience. Justifying the general reliability of sense experience through knowledge derived from sense experience is circular.
If by ‘empiricism’ you meant ‘rationalism’, that isn’t my problem. Maybe don’t use words you don’t know the meanings of.
Who the fuck knows? If somebody tries to answer that, you’ll just say “By logic I didn’t mean philosophical logic, I meant musical logic. By Math I didn’t mean mathematical math, I meant counting on my fingers. By reason I didn’t mean rational reason, I meant dried grapes”. You give the exact same response every time somebody corrects you on anything.
James, How would a human who is tabula rasa, with no senses, understand what logic is?
Hellen Keller had the sense of touch, so I don’t know why you are bringing her up.
Jesus Christ. If a person can’t understand logic without their senses, then justifying the reliability of your senses in terms of logic is back to being a circular argument again. You’re arguing with me that you justify the senses through logic, and arguing with James that logic is justified through the senses.
Again, it’s like justifying math with a math equation.
"Empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. This broad definition accords with the derivation of the term empiricism from the ancient Greek word empeiria, “experience.”
Which means logic and reason is developed through experience. So as stated previously, why cannot one be agnostic of sensory experience until logic and reason are conceived? Or would you say we have logic and reason from birth, and tabula rasa, without sensory experience?
You claim not to believe things and I am giving my reasons for why you are making the claim.
I think that is a rationalization which is used to satisfy your ego.
You seem to be off to a poor start. The first time that I did that, I refused to say anything at all until I knew without doubt that whatever I said had to be 100% accurate (aka “knowledge”). For two weeks, I couldn’t say anything at all. Yet here you are blabbing all kinds of beliefs while claiming that you have none.
If you want to go that route, you can actually do it. But not like you have been. Try not saying anything at all until you cannot possibly doubt the absolute certainty of what you are going to say.
A cat doesn’t know what logic is, yet uses it every second of its life. So do plants for that matter. But if you remove all senses from any creature before its birth, it dies without artificial help.
You’re trying to answer a question that isn’t possible to know. There is nobody with tabula rasa that we can confirm has logic. You don’t understand the hypothetical here
Why should I care how you acted, based on what you are telling me how you thought, considering your tone? What do I believe James? if you don’t want to have a philosophical discussion and denigrate, go ahead. But we can end it now. Me and you have already been down this path as well. But if you’re going to argue with assumptions, there’s no reason to discuss.
What I am going to “mean” is not a matter of belief, its a matter of knowledge. Please see the thread on language. Perhaps you need to brush up on what it is to mean something, as opposed to “say” something. Take a gander…
Yes. That is one of the main themes he does not understand. Unfortunately.
I disagree. But it depends on what justify is, justify as knowledge? Keep in mind that knowledge is only true until it is not true, but can be justified. As all knowledge is justified subjectively, ultimately. I already explained this previously. Thus, why I don’t agree or accept how knowledge is necessarily truth.
Sure, no problem there
I am not sure what you’re referring to. Having doubt of precepts is not denying them. Deny is a harsh word.
At the end of the day, when ANGRY says “belief” he means “unjustified certainty”. He claims not to have any unjustified certainties, he claims knowledge is not an unjustified certainty. I told him a month ago that using the term in that way to say things like “I don’t have any beliefs” would lead to endless confusion and people thinking he’s out of his mind. It has been explained to him all the various reasons why his obtuse way of using the word isn’t going to catch on outside the anti-theist circles where he picked it up.
He jumps from non-knowing to knowing without an in-between state. That’s how I would describe it.
He would probably say that there are only the two states of knowing or non-knowing.
Yet he manages to act in that non-knowing state as though he has reasonable knowledge or belief of what to do. How does he manage that? Will.
What’s will in that situation? And how does will act without selecting between options?
You’re getting closer, you are now reasonable - but not fully accurate. Somewhat of a half truth. Keep in mind my definition 1a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept something as true, genuine, or real - in that acceptance is also a state of certainty, but not so much in that it is related to knowledge as one of the central points of this thesis, in that knowledge is understood, not “accepted” through justification. In that a state of knowing becomes, not a state of “belief” as defined in the OP and here.
Jumping from Non knowing to knowing without an in between state? Isn’t uncertainty and doubt an inbetween state? As opposed to your in between state, of belief, apparently?
I don’t have an idea of what your second sentence means though.
Again the word ‘understood’. 