Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.
I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.
I certainly agree with the statement. Did Rorty say no explicitly? I’m almost afraid to ask, not wanting my illusions shattered.
Anecdotes like that are worth the price of admission. That was my suspicion prior to your confirmation. It was as if Rorty had done Peirce an injustice which it was her mission to put right.
I don’t think it is revelation all the way down for him either, at least not always (he isn’t very consistent in his claims). Sometimes he brings up his foundational axiom of the existence of the Christian God. That is where the revelation starts (and ends). Once you start from there I can’t fault his justification of knowledge.
Where he goes wrong I think is in the idea that his foundational axiom is the only possible valid one. He appeals to ‘self-authentication’ which is rubbish. Or, he will say that a presupposition doesn’t need to be justified precisely because it is a presupposition, which makes more sense. At other times he uses revelation to justify revelation, which is where he goes circular.
The thing he doesn’t see is that there are an infinite number of possible foundational axioms, some of which can justify knowledge just as well as his.
Plus, simply picking a particular axiom doesn’t actually make it true. You can’t prove them to be true – if you could, they wouldn’t be foundational. It is always possible to have picked a wrong one, in which case everything you derive from it, e.g. justification of knowledge, may be wrong too. You may never know.
I find Rorty difficult to read (because he never seems to get to the point). But I would also say “NO”. And the reason that I would say “no” is that there are no underlying real patterns. What’s a pattern depends on how we look at it. So patterns cannot be real if that implies human-independent.
Nope, fifth does not presuppose God exists, he knows it. I believe he presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation, the Word of God. From there knowing both that God exists and is omnipotent by definition, it follows that an omnipotent being can reveal stuff so it can be known if He chooses . What He makes known is the Bible is revelation, self-authenticating the Bible by the Word of God, providing support for the presupposition the Bible is Revelation. And you are off to the races.
Fifth has never been too clear about exactly what he presupposes, but since he loves Biblical quotes, best guess is Bible = Word of God,
Unless yours gives you an Omniscient ,Omnipotent Being choosing to reveal stuff in a way that it can be known as Truth without a doubt to a finite mind , his view is his is better.
😞
Regularities perhaps a better choice of word.
Let me try and clear that up. I presuppose the Christian God of scripture.
At the same time the Christian God of scripture reveals himself to me (and everyone else). He has been doing just that since the creation of the world
and since God is the creator and sovereign Lord of the universe everything I know or could hope to know is ultimately knowledge about him.
Those three things are intertwined in my thinking so tightly that it is impossible to tease them apart.
When I focus on my presupposition my mind goes immediately to Gods revelation and my knowledge of it.
When I focus on what I know my mind drifts right away to the necessity of God and his revelation to me.
When I focus on God’s revelation to me I just can’t help but think about who he is and be grateful and awestruck that I can know stuff about him,
Earlier we discussed how presuppositions don’t precede knowledge, I would add that neither of these things precede revelation. They are all a package deal
As God reveals more of himself to me and I know more about him the content and depth of my presupposition deepens and enriches.
I could go on for hours about this stuff but you all are not really interested in my epistemology except to look for ways to poke holes in it. On the other hand I am very interested in yours.
So in hopes of keeping the inevitable mockery to a minimum I will stop there
peace
God’s reveals the truth of my presupposition all the time and in every way, my increasing knowledge is the proof.
He truly is the Alpha and the Omega. He is the foundation and the conclusion and the argument.
peace
My question is what reasons do you have for assuming that reality has regularities and logical relations that you can know through your senses and reasoning?
Especially given things like BBs and Plantinga’s EAAN and Descartes brain in a vat and possible mental illness and sensory disability and etc etc etc.
It seems to me that if you add them all up the likelihood that your senses and reasoning reflect reality are vanishingly small sans God.
peace
It’s not my “idea” that my presupposition is the only possible valid one. It’s just a tentative conclusion based on the fact that no one has offered an axiom that is able to justify knowledge.
That tentative conclusion is reinforced when folks suggest presuppositions like the one you just did.
When I try to use my reasoning without presupposing God I am forced to conclude that I have no good reason to trust my reasoning and senses unless God exists and we are back to square one
Yes, he’s quite explicit in denying the idea that what makes science different from poetry is that the former gets a grip on how the world really is, whereas poetry is merely metaphorical or expressive. A good deal of what’s intriguing to me about Rorty is that he marshals quite difficult technical arguments from analytic epistemology and philosophy of language in order to produce a transition from pragmatism to postmodernism.
Thanks, how close was the rest?
And this God of Scripture differs in which way from the God you know exists, which you do not presuppose? This has been a point of confusion for me.
And this is a presupposition,correct?
Presupposition three.
Ok.
And the knowledge is the attenuated because of your presuppositions. But is not necessary for the revelation. God chooses to bestow you with richer version revelation?
Sounds comforting and peaceful , like mediation.
Could you know stuff about Him without the presuppositions in place? If so ,how would it be different?
Knowledge exists without presuppositions.
Does God not reveal the He is the Christian God of the Scriptures, that He is the Sovereign Lord of the Universe, and that He reveals Himself?
If so what is the purpose of presupposing what God reveals ,what you know? Are the presuppositions more an act of faith and obedience , a pledge of devotion, sign of commitment?
Personally ,still like to know how things work.
Sorry to disappoint.
peace
The rest of what? If you mean the rest of your comment it was not very close to my understanding but it did rhyme in places. 😉
let me try and help.
I was trying to explain that I presuppose God and God reveals his existence to me and I know God exists.
I don’t know God exists because I presuppose it, I know God exists because he has revealed himself to me.
I don’t presuppose God’s existence in order to conclude that God exists, I presuppose God’s existence in order to justify the existence of knowledge.
God does not reveal himself to me because I presuppose that he exists. He reveals himself to me and this lets me know my presupposition is valid.
Knowledge is not justified without valid presuppositions.
Nope just the one.
The Christian God of Scripture is the sovereign Lord and Creator of the universe
peace
I want to know how given your worldview you can know how things work.
I’m not disappointed I don’t think you’ve gotten to deep into the mockery just yet. So my brevity might be working
peace
No, it’s knowledge revealed by God.
On the other hand I can know stuff like this because the Christian God of Scripture exists and can reveal things so that I can know them.
peace
It is knowledge revealed by your presupposition.
You presuppose the Christian God of Scripture, but “At the same time my presupposition (Christian God of scripture )reveals himself to me (and everyone else). He has been doing just that since the creation of the world” .
Then why do you feel it is necessary to presuppose that which exists?
peace
I think I am relieved, it is beginning to occur to me when you start to make sense I am in trouble.
l
Seems senseless, if you know God exists, knowledge exists. If you know you need to justify knowledge, knowledge exists. You could presuppose God doesn’t exist, knowledge still exists.
You can know if God chooses to reveal. And you claim you know He does, knowledge exists.
If he chooses to reveal Himself, He should reveal your presupposition is pointless.Unless you think there is a possibility He does not exist, and you need justification.
How do you know?
If you know that without a presupposition , then knowledge does not require a presupposition. Knowledge exists
peace
It is a choice fifth. Truth takes many forms.
Interesting! I never considered Rorty as other than pragmatic but a search of “Rorty postmodernism” throws up a considerable amount of material.
I gave you one.
What is wrong with it?
That may be the case in the world based on your presupposition, but it is not the case in the world based on my presupposition.
How do you decide between presuppositions? Would you not need a separate, independent presupposition to construct a framework in which to judge between yours and mine?
Now we are getting some where.
What exactly is it about your “world” that leads you to believe that knowledge is possible given the overwhelming likelihood of things like BBs that would make knowledge impossible.
It seems to me that you trust your senses and reasoning ability up until you don’t like the conclusion they inevitably lead you too then you balk.
What am I missing?
One way is to choose presuppositions that don’t lead to internal contradictions like the one I just pointed out.
I think that internal consistency works just fine for a framework don’t you? If not why not?
peace
Nope revealed by God.
Suppose you presuppose that you have eyes. Does that mean that your presupposition sees things? Of course not.
In order to justify knowledge.
Suppose that you presupposed that your eyesight was functioning correctly. You would do that in order to say you could trust what your eyes saw but not to see things
revelation
Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.
(Psa 119:105)
and
The way of the wicked is like deep darkness; they do not know over what they stumble.
(Pro 4:19)
peace
but you can’t know that it exists (AFAIK)
Again,
I don’t know it with out the presupposition but I don’t know it because of the presupposition either.
It’s a package deal…
presupposition—– knowledge —-revelation
IOW
condition for knowing—-thing that is known—-how things are known
peace
“Postmodern” is a squishy word that’s thrown about with reckless abandon, so I don’t really like using it. But there’s something in the vicinity that gets at Rorty’s views. And that sheds some light on Haack’s animus against Rorty, because she (as a good Peircean) thinks that pragmatists must be committed to objectivity and the epistemic authority of science.
I’d be willing to do an OP on all this stuff rather than take up Sandbox with it, but I fear that it would be a self-indulgent exercise that wouldn’t be of any interest to the rest of TSZ.
Yes, please do.
I’d add my encouragement to Neil’s. Why shouldn’t philosophy be a topic for general discussion?
My presupposition, stated above, leads directly to this. Plus, BB’s are the wrong example of ‘knowledge’. The conviction of not being a BB is not knowledge, it is a judgement. You too could be a BB, one that presupposes the Christian God, with revelations and all, and you would never know it.
I certainly accept the possibility that my senses and/or reasoning are faulty. This is why I test my conclusions against reality. Not all the time though – sometimes one test is enough to know that it hurts when I hit my thumb with a hammer. I see no need to continually repeat that test just to be sure of my senses in this respect.
What you are missing is that you are in the exact same position as I am. Your presupposition can be wrong too. Consistency may make something possible, but it doesn’t make something necessarily true. It is not actually possible to decide on the veracity of a presupposition without invoking other presuppositions, which of course leads to an infinite regress. Such is the nature of axioms – they are arbitrary.
I don’t think you understand, because of things like BBs and EAAN and mental illness and optical illusion it’s a near certainty that your senses and/or reasoning are faulty at many or all points sans God.
How do you know that that pain correlates to anything real and are not just a drug induced dream of a madman strapped to a bed in a mental hospital?
I’m serious about that question. I’m not trying to be flippant.
It seems very likely to me that sans God all your thoughts and perceptions are just the mind trying to bring temporary comfort in an absurd universe where nothing is as it seems.
There are an infinite number of ways to be mistaken and only one to be correct. What are the odds you just happened on the one correct one that leads to knowledge rather than deception?
I don’t think so.
If knowledge is possible God can do it. I know that and so do you. We are both in agreement here.
What I don’t know is how knowledge is possible if God does not exist.
You haven’t explained how you can know things if God does not exist, all you have done is presuppose that you can know things with out God.
Both of us can think of all kinds of plausible reasons to doubt that presumption.
peace
Again my presupposition is unique in that God reveals himself to me.
We both agree that if knowledge is possible God can reveal stuff so that I can know it……….He has done just that when it comes to the veracity of my presupposition no other presuppositions are involved.
peace
[booming voice]
FIFTH, YOU ARE A BOLTZMANN BRAIN.
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
fifthmonarchyman,
You haven’t really responded to the thrust of my argument.
Respond to this please:
“You too could be a BB, one that presupposes the Christian God, with revelations and all, and you would never know it.”
and
“What you are missing is that you are in the exact same position as I am. Your presupposition can be wrong too. Consistency may make something possible, but it doesn’t make something necessarily true.”
You forgot that God has shown that he loves me and at great cost has made it so that I can experience his glorious reality along with him even though I don’t deserve it……… That is the Gospel
peace
Aw. How did you know it was me?
BTW. faded_Glory is right that you haven’t responded to his questions yet. I don’t see how you can escape the faulty perception thing that you threw at him yourself.
No I could not, Because the God you reject a prori has revealed himself to me so that I can know it……..for certain…….. there is no doubt about it.
No it can’t because what you yourself grant can happen has indeed happened.
God has revealed himself so that I can know
peace
You all haven’t responded to my question and it’s been years. I’ll ask it again in case you have forgotten.
“How do you know??”
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Let’s try it this way then:
Assume a Boltzmann Brain that presupposes the Christian God and believes to know that he is actually a human being. How would such a BB go about demonstrating to himself that he is wrong, that he is not a human being but a Boltzmann Brain?
http://nautil.us/blog/heres-how-well-know-an-ai-is-conscious
I don’t think I am part of that “you all”. I don’t recall you ever asking this of me.
EAAN demonstrates that Plantinga’s reasoning is faulty.
You know knowledge is possible and justified without a presupposition.
Of course not. Assuming the knowledge of eyes is not how one sees, though assuming the knowledge of the possibility of Knowledge is how one knows is slightly different.
One must know one possible way to have knowledge. Whether that possibility exists does not matter, knowledge exists. The question becomes how you knew it was a possibility. Your answer is It choose to tell me.
This is unlike eyes, the possibility of eyes does not allow you to see, the existence of eyes do.
newton: Then why do you feel it is necessary to presuppose that which exists?
If I knew by an infallible way from an infallible source my eyes were functioning correctly ,I would not need first presuppose that my eyes were functioning in order to justify the knowledge. I would say I know because an infallible source choose to tell me in an infallible way.
If someone ask how to justify how I knew It was infallible, I could say because It choose to tell me that It is infallible by definition.
You sure about that?
https://www.quantamagazine.org/neuroscience-readies-for-a-showdown-over-consciousness-ideas-20190306/
If this is an operational definition, it is achievable in AI.
For details on Chomsky’s current minimalist version of Universal Grammar (mainly just recursion) and its evolutionary and genetic basis, see this review of Chomsky’s latest (with co-author Berwick)
https://inference-review.com/article/not-only-us
along with Berwisk and Chomsky’s reply
https://inference-review.com/article/the-siege-of-paris
And for much more Gillian Anderson, see this (eg on Netflix)
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_fall
IIT is one of the contenders in the above. Scott A wrote a critique of that theory on his blog. It is slightly mathy, and quite long , especially if one includes the comments which are well worth it for the dedicated.
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799
Tononi (originator of IIT) wrote a long document in response
https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1823
Cute, but unfortunately not quite true. Plantinga’s claim in the EAAN is that a belief in naturalism without a belief in God is self-undermining: it’s incoherent as a system of belief. Platinga’s wrong about that, of course, and his argument has been endlessly picked apart by many others (including a whole thread we had about it here a few years ago).
An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance (‘ignorance’ stands for “lack of evidence to the contrary”), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false.
ETA: …or false because it has not yet been proved true, or unknown because it has not yet been proved known.
I think the bitchiness of her take on Rorty only adds to its wonderfulness.
walto,
🔫💭
ETA 😘
There’s a lot about Rorty that I’m really quite critical of, but Haack’s distaste for him leads her badly astray. To be somewhat glib and not chasing down every citation, notice the contrast between:
1. Rorty presents himself as a faithful Davidsonian, but deep down he’s in league with Heidegger and Derrida!
and
2. Rorty presents himself as in league with Heidegger and Derrida, but deep down he’s a faithful Davidsonian!
The former is Haack’s criticism of Rorty; the latter is Joe Margolis’s criticism of Rorty. I think Margolis is much closer to understanding what’s really going on in Rorty, and why it’s philosophically disastrous.
Well, I suppose I should get working on that OP on pragmatism and postmodernism!