Posts

Epistemology, Descartes, Kant, and subjectivity (unedited)

 As my last post explained, we all live life believing that some things are really true objectively and in order for us to be consistent with our actions, we have to assume that absolute truth does exist. But now we should revisit where the relativists are correct. Talking about Rene Descartes and Immanuel Kant will help support one of the points the relativists make. The relativists are correct in saying that we cannot absolutely be sure that what we believe to be true is really true. Descartes aids along the argument by explaining that, if there was a evil demon god, then this god could make a cereal bowl seem like it was in front of us in a situation where a cereal bowl was actually not in front of us. Kant helps further make sense of this claim. Immanuel Kant's explanation of epistemology is explained by good old wikipedia as a Copernican Revolution in philosophy. The reason he seems to be on the "Mount Rushmore" of philosophers is that, he completely revolutionized h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Brief Digression Relating to Socrates and Not Knowing (unedited)

 Today, I want to briefly take a pause from continuing my step by step explanation of epistemology (in order to discuss determinism and free will) and talk about Socrates' statement " "For I was conscious that I knew practically nothing..."  (Plato, Apology 22d, translated by Harold North Fowler, 1966). Like many things, this statement is very much related to epistemology.  (I also want to quickly note that I'm not editing these posts as much as I want to just because I'm already spending a lot of time on them and have to focus on other things.) Unfortunately, I would not be surprised if some people misuse Socrates' statement above in the following way. "Socrates' statement about knowing emphasizes how everyone knows nothing and, therefore, even if someone else provides a stronger argument, I will just believe my weaker argument and highlight how the person presenting the stronger argument is arrogant for thinking he or she knows something" ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Epistemology (unedited and uncompleted)

   Before I present arguments for free will and deconstruct Sam Harris’ arguments against free will, I want to first start by talking about epistemology. The reason for this is that we have to first be aware of the proper way of figuring out what is true and not true before we actually assess truth claims. Though it can be expressed very simply, to fully understand how it works, it has to be hashed out. Most people believe, not what the evidence suggests, but what they want to believe. A proper understanding of how we should decide what is true helps us counteract this tendency. With epistemology, I like to start with the relativists. Most people that you seem to meet today are relativists. This is reflected in this Oxford University lecture (45:05), where most people in the crowd put up their hand when asked if they are relativists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efVM0jaJ7Dk   But if I remember correctly, the Oxford professor dismantles relativism as a shallow philosoph...
Post a Comment
Read more