Is there even anything left to say?

[Magius]

Take your time Gabriel, I am patient and forgiving man. No rush. I would rather wait months to get a really good reply from someone in contrast to a quick response that consists of words that really weren’t digest or chewed, but were instead spit back out before ever going anywhere. Pardon the analogy. I just think that too many people these days are determined to speak with the status quo, because it is the status quo, and not because they have thought about what the status quo have said, thought about it, and found that they too agreed.

I digress.

I patiently await your response.

[GabrielS.A.V.E.D]

Okay, Magius, at least I can give you a first chunk of responses going back to some of your comments on my first post…

You said:

Hume didn’t say that there is very little we can know with absolute certainty.

I suppose I can concede that Hume never said, verbatim, “…there is very little we can know with absolute certainty…”, but quoting Hume is not what I was trying to do, or I would have cited a passage. I was trying to summarize in my own words the gist of Hume’s epistemology. As you pointed out, he said that we can know relations of ideas with absolute certainty but we cannot know matters of fact with absolute certainty. From where I’m sitting, the quantity of our knowledge of relations of ideas would appear to be very small (very “little”) when compared to the quantity of knowledge that we’d like to think we have of matters of fact. Thus did I make my claim…

Then you said:

…it’s not that guessing is good enough as though we understand what is outside of it - otherwise how can you judge it is good enough if there is nothing to compare it to?

How do we judge if a guess is “good enough” if we have nothing to compare it to? Well, I would argue that we do have something to compare a guess to: other guesses. Or perhaps I should I say that the results of different guesses can be compared. Which guess works best? If we apply a guess to our life experience, does it provide us with the kind of “consequences” that we find desirable/useful? If I present a guess to you that gives you a better conceptualization of what you are experiencing in this life, then the guess would have to be considered “good enough”, wouldn’t it? Good enough to replace a previously-embraced guess? Good enough to embrace as “fact” ( = a confident guess), as long as it continues to work?

In response to my statement:

Hume’s biggest mistake was to assume that any guess we cannot be 100% certain about must be considered utterly worthless (“committed to the flames”).

You said:

My memory on Hume may be a little rusty, but where exactly does he say [that]?

I believe it was in Hume’s “The Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (Section xii, part III, p. 165) that he said:

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

In light of that statement, I think my characterization of his perspective is fair.

At another point, Magius, you said of Hume:

As far as I remember he think(s) literal guessing is worthless, but a hypothesis (educated guess) is valuable indeed.

I’m not so sure that’s true. In A Treatise of Human Nature Hume said the following:

The intense view of the manifold contradictions and imperfections in human reason has so wrought upon me and heated my brain that I am ready to reject all belief and reasoning and can look upon no opinion even as more probable than another.

“…no opinion even as more probable than another…” No, I don’t think I was exaggerating Hume’s sweeping dismissal of the value of all guesses.

You also said:

…your notion of ‘guess’ is way too general. Guessing without education contains no confidence one way or another. In my opinion, whenever there is confidence either one way or another, it is based upon your experience and/or education whether you are consciously aware of it or not.

Why do you suppose Hume argued so forcefully that it is impossible for scientists to derive a “Law of Cause and Effect” from observation? (He claimed that no matter how many time you may observe a certain “effect” follow an apparent cause, it is still not possible for us to conclude that there is a “necessary connection” between the two.) Why would he then believe that we can have confidence in the reported “findings” of others [scientists] but not in our own personal observations of what we guess is some kind of “law” of cause and effect?

At another point, Magius, in response to this statement I made:

Still, we should never feel apologetic for embracing a guess that works, so long as it continues to have value to us and no one is able to point out that the guess depends on a logical contradiction.

you said:

I disagree. If I find that every time I sit down in a certain spot in my backyard that a volcano erupts in Japan - and I guess that the volcano is erupting BECAUSE I am sitting down in that spot…

If you choose to believe/guess that a volcano erupts in Japan BECAUSE you sit down in a certain spot in your backyard, I am quite confident that you will soon discover through experience that the guess will not hold up, that it will then lose its value as an explanation of what causes volcanoes to erupt. It would also be difficult to embrace your guess when/if you discovered that—as a causal explanation—it is logically contradicted by other explanations of why volcanoes erupt that you have more confidence in. Hopefully you can see that the analogy you provide is a false one that does not invalidate my statement?

In response to my statement:

It doesn’t matter if a philosopher cannot “prove” her guess. The only things we need to concern ourselves with are 1) whether or not someone’s guess works and 2) whether or not it creates/solves a logical contradiction.

You said:

In that case, I Magius/Gadfly of ILP commit you, GABRIEL, to the belief that everything in the universe is increasing in size 1.5 million times over every second of every day. If you were 6 feet tall last second, you are now 6 feet x 1.5 million : as is everything else. And because everything else is increasing in size by the same power, you don’t notice the difference. In fact, I also commit you to the belief that whenever you are not looking or touching yourself, nor is anyone else, then your face is actually in the shape of a T-Rex dinosaur.

I don’t see a problem with this. I am free to believe/choose/guess/speculate/imagine that that any of the “natural laws” that I accept without doubts today are actually suspended whenever I sleep at night if I wish. It is harmless to do so as long as it does not suggest a contradiction with other explanations that I have more confidence in.

Still another point you make:

So once again, why is it that logic supercedes conditionally accepted guesses? (according to you)

Because it works for us (explains, satisfies an internal need, etc.) in the long run.

Another:

Well based upon your explanation/definition of needs, we in fact are born with knowledge of what our needs are for the reason that when a child is born it cries when it is smacked on the back by the doctor in order to start breathing.

Not by my explanation/definition of needs. An infant becomes aware that it has needs as soon as it experiences pain or pleasure, but doesn’t know that there are things called needs. It does not have a knowledge (understanding) of what its needs are, only that it is experiencing pain/thirst/desire-for-relief.

Well I guess that’s all for now…

Gabriel
http://www.wearesaved.org

[Nientilin]

Once again Gabriel I have almost nothing but agreeance for your comments. Once again there is but one thing I must add. And once again my addition relies on your haste or at least my percieved haste. I think you have been hasty in saying or representing the idea that,

“Displays of courage always “get the attention” of the otherwise disinterested majority”

While I agree that courage does have a profound affect, I do not agree that it is the sole most imperative object of attention of the masses. Other attributes also capture the hearts of men. Such as beauty, patience, fortitude, faith, love, honesty.

Though I have myself made this distinction of courage’s role in society I ALSO realize your point seperate from the words I interpreted. In other words, even though I disagree with you on that, my disagreeance is and was simply based on a misinterpretation of the idea in your head.

I do know what you mean by courage getting peoples’ attentions. You mean that even in patience, beauty, fortitude, faith, love, and honesty…courage stands at the base of their expression. It takes courage to stand out. I understand your point perfectly, but again the words are “wrong”…at least to me. And again I have to say be careful. I am behind you 100% BUT…I am not behind the misinterpretations of those who listen to you. Indeed you seem to have been able to find the truth. Just don’t forget you can’t MAKE anybody see it all by yourself.

[Magius]

Gabriel,
you have posted your response to the wrong thread. Usually, where you start a conversation is where it continues and ends. As I have mentioned before, I devote much time to my posts as to be sure I have understood everything to the best of my ability. At the moment I don’t have the time to answer your post, though I have read it, but worry not, I will.

What’s your take?