Oooo, someone's been on the Krishnamurti again. Truth is one but many. Love is truth. Truth is a tapeworm peeking out the bum of the cat of reality. T...
It isn't inconsistent at all. It is philosophy. And also, inconsistency is not inconsistent with philosophy - philosophers are inconsistent all the ti...
I'm not defining truth, as I've already said. And you're begging the question. Sometimes it is useful to dig a hole and fill it in again (for instance...
Er, what? So you now agree that a belief can be useful yet false? Yes, I know. So, this thread is about what truth is. It's not about whatever pseudo ...
You're just thoroughly confused. First, you have suggested that if a belief is 'useful' then it is true. Now, that's obviously false, as false as sayi...
See the thread on Truth! And our evidence that such claims are true is that our reason represents them to be. For example, if you think the walls are ...
What's unclear about my reasoning? Is there a universal consensus among those who use their reason to figure out what truth is (philosophers) about wh...
No, I have never tried LSD. Why would I want to try something that might change my reason? That would be like rubbing salt in my eyes in order to see ...
This doesn't seem to be on topic - which is knowledge, not time - but even if time is not experienced, it would not follow that it can't be known. I d...
Oh, okay then. What a good point!! You're not arguing, you're just making false statements. You just don't know what a normative reason is. They're no...
Okaay. Yes she can and does. Yes she is. This claim: Reason asserts, requires, demands, bids, favours, values is 'true'. This claim: Reason does not a...
That's obviously false. It's as obviously false as saying "truth is a table. Anything that is a table is true". It's just confused. "Useful" and 'true...
Reason is a person. That's not reification. Reification involves making a mistake - the concept incorporates the idea of error. But Reason 'is' a pers...
I don't even know what the question is - it's like asking "is it true that blue?" "And what does its truth depend on (apart from an appeal to Reason, ...
No, because now we can recognise that there are two distinct questions here - "what is knowledge?" and "when do we have knowledge?" The answer to the ...
I am not sure what you mean when you say that "Reason has no reasons", for the second word 'reason' is ambiguous. If it is an 'explanatory' reason - s...
I didn't say that - I didn't say it couldn't be known (I know there is time, for instance). I said that it is not an abstract concept. An abstract con...
If 'warrant' means 'has normative reason to believe' then yes, but then 'warrant' means nothing distinct from 'justification'. Whatever warrant means,...
No, by offering an example of a case in which a person has a 'well-grounded' belief yet fails to have knowledge. If 'well-grounded' just means 'justif...
I am not sure what you're asking - I was giving a definition of a normative reason. It isn't in dispute that justifications must involve them - they'r...
yes, but with that example I was refuting the theory that knowledge is well-grounded true belief. Add anything (aside from my thesis, of course) to 't...
No, a normative reason can also be called a 'justifying' reason. It has nothing to do with conventional standards - indeed, we judge the appropriatene...
I am using 'justified' far more broadly to mean just 'a belief that there is a normative reason for the person to believe'. So that it includes belief...
I don't see a difference - for they are all cases in which a person acquires a true belief in an epistemically responsible fashion, yet does not appea...
I am not sure, but I am also not sure I see a distinction between the two. I take it that a belief is justified when there is a normative reason to be...
But if Reason asserts, directs, prescribes, and so on, then Reason must be a person, for it is a self-evident truth that persons and persons alone do ...
That's just a string of false claims, not an analysis of knowledge. I don't know what 'knowledge should work all of the time" means? It's confused. It...
I don't know what point you're making. Time is not an abstract concept, but what time is is not the topic of this thread. This thread is about what kn...
that's not an answer to my question. You've just told me it is against the law. Er, yes, I know. It is against the law because it would be grossly irr...
Why don't you answer the questions? Are you a complete anarchist where procreation is concerned? Should it not be regulated in any way at all? Should ...
I just did. How about you address something I've argued. I assume you now agree that eugenics is not always and everywhere wrong and that your 'that's...
Ah, the random unexpected spark - the last resort of someone who's totally lost the argument. Should children be allowed to breed? I mean, it isn't cu...
No. Did you read anything I wrote about it - anything? Are you a pigeon? Everything is black and white. Eugenics = bad. Gassing = bad. Crumbs = good. ...
What's your point? I know. Your point? Is your point that the Nazis practiced a form of eugenics and that therefore it must always and everywhere be w...
Question begging. I am not misunderstanding anything. I am just saying things you - you - disagree with. That is not equivalent to being mistaken. Rea...
Evidence? Again, you have no justification for these claims. I am justifying mine. You have agreed that my example was an example of an assertion. Now...
What do you mean? I am asking what knowledge is - literally what it is made of. So, take someone who knows something. Don't question whether they have...
No, that's quite wrong. It's not a 'definition'. It is a thesis. It was Plato's thesis. And it seems true for the most part. But then counterexamples ...
I do not think those are the same question. The latter has as no definitive answer - it would be like asking me why I find delicious what I find delic...
No, not 'reifying' because that term means 'mistakenly treating as a thing'. I am treating Reason as a thing, but there is no mistake. And I am person...
Well, because it is true and has been acquired in a manner she approves of. But beyond that we do not need to know why she has adopted it, for my poin...
No, that's clearly false. Merely being confident about a belief is not sufficient for knowledge (it may not even be necessary). If I am confident I wi...
No. Why not just say that, then? And, like I say, where is the inconsistency between these two claims? How are they 'in disagreement'?? I can have a j...
How on earth does that follow? I think people should be prevented from breaking other people's arms. By your logic that means my sole valuation of hum...
Just to be clear - you are in favour of eugenics, then. Yes? By your definition of eugenics, you. are. in. favour. of. it. My proposal is not based on...
Oh, are you disappointed in me. I am not playing games. Now, I've answered your questions, answer mine. If - if - a couple knew that any child they ha...
Comments