The peculiarity of knowledge.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Philosophy is often defined much like other academic subjects. However, there is a huge difference between philosophy and any other subject (at least any other subject I know of). Philosophy is the subject upon which all knowledge is based upon. With this in mind it is interesting to note that the foundations of philosophy are not even established. Here are some examples.

Metaphysics-Inherently unknowable due to our limitations in epistemology.
Ethics-Several well known problems exist in this field that will need to be resolved until we can accept any ethical system as valid.
Logic-Why should we accept logic as valid? Any attempt to explain this logically is circular.

Now for some examples of how other subjects are based on philosophy.

Science in general-Why should we accept the scientific method (which is based on logic) as valid? The philosophy of science attempts to answer this with the very same method that is in question.
Literature-This is not really a matter of knowledge but the philosophy of language comes into play here.
Math-Is possibly the only real knowledge we can have. But, don’t we need to know if reality exists to know if this math is representing anything real?

Yet consider this, if it is so hard to know things then how can we know that it is hard to know things? Is the only attainable knowledge the fact that we can not know things? My query is this. Is there any reason I should accept logic as valid? If one can prove this then you could build off of that foundation. Can anyone meet the challenge? :slight_smile:

P.S. I actually do believe in the validity of logic for my own sanity. I have my own reason to believe that it is valid which I will post at a later time.

2

Logic is a demand that arises within the voice of the questioner; but the curious thing is that a response is met with, a response to this demand, and that this entire exchange is played out before logic has been located- that is to say, fixed, by either the questioner or answerer.

3

Q: Should you use logic as a starting ground?
A: I can think of a reason not to use logic as a starting ground. The only problem is that if logic is not true then my answer is not true.
I would say that you can not trust logic because a hypothetical situation can be thought in which you could be mistaken. For example on
day you might think that 2+2=10, the next day an apple, then nothing at all. Logic says that all of these can’t be true. The problem is that reality is
riddled with assumptions which may be all false. The problem is that all assumptions can be doubted. Then the assumptions of doubt can
be doubted. It seems as though things are many ways. Right, wrong, right and wrong, and neither. You should stay in suspense thinking nothing.
For in thinking nothing you can not be wrong.

4

Philosophy is the parent of all specialized studies, but I do not really see any great difference…If you want to be a philosopher then learn a little of everything else…I don’t mind the company of fools…I was once an Ironworker; but youth is worse than foolish because it is confident ignorance…Age is a better place from which to explore philosophy because while we do not know more what is true than others we know more what is false… Some times life, if not philosophy, is a process of elimination…