The Joke's on Who
Our beliefs are founded upon our suppositions, our assumptions, the things we don’t question, even the things we don’t think to question. No one questions tomorrow will come, though we may believe tomorrows will eventually run out. We assume what I see you can see also, and that the laws of science do not and will not change. Laws such as the law of gravity, the laws of space and time, the ideas of distinction and causality - that when I throw a ball, the ball will follow a distinct trajectory through the air that can be predicted.
Think about it, I have this belief that I exist, though I cannot prove it irrevocably to someone who doubts me.
This is the bone I have to pick with philosophy in regards to epistemology, when you get someone to doubt their own existence, who's the victim of the joke?
The joke is - a man walks away from a philosopher in fear that somewhere along the conversation the philosopher will somehow be able to convince him that he himself doesn’t really exist. The question I have, is who gets the brunt of this cruel joke? Don’t rack yourself trying to answer that, it’s a trick question.
The philosophers job in his search for answers to epistemology is to question everything. By doing so, even to the point of questioning that which we never think of questioning like our own self-existence, the philosopher hopes to ascertain or rate the trustworthiness of the knowledge he/she possesses.
Something that is hard to accept, but is necessary to human sanity, is to let go of absolute certainty. This does not mean you cannot know anything, it simply means there is a chance you can be wrong - no matter who you are or what it is that is in question (or not in question as it may be).
The hick-up people have is that if it is in question then it cannot be trusted. I disagree. There are levels of trustworthiness. It is more trustworthy that the sun will come out tomorrow than it is that I will wake up healthy even though both are very likely, but neither are given for surely anyone can accept that the sun cannot last for forever.
All knowledge is based upon our suppositions and assumptions. Even that statement. Language itself is built upon these, there is no way around it. What are suppositions and assumptions? In essence, I would propose to you that they are beliefs. Ideas and concepts accepted upon faith alone. Faith more basic than religious beliefs.
Faith. Uncertainty, yet strong convictions of the truth of these things. What can explain it? As always there are two options. One, God. Many see that as a cop-out answer. The other is random chance. Evolution. If you think the God answer is a cop-out, let me rephrase the options we have here. One, either our belief in ourself comes from a chemical, alogical reaction (pure unadulterated chance), or our logic is derived from logic grounded outside of ourselves (coherently corresponds to reality).
Now to come back to our joke. Do you believe you exist? Or do you know you exist? Does there have to be that distinction? How strong is your faith? The philosopher is the butt of the joke, if you can believe it; he can make someone else doubt what he must necessarily believe irrevocable. You can decide if that is a laughing matter.
Jared Williams
Think about it, I have this belief that I exist, though I cannot prove it irrevocably to someone who doubts me.
This is the bone I have to pick with philosophy in regards to epistemology, when you get someone to doubt their own existence, who's the victim of the joke?
The joke is - a man walks away from a philosopher in fear that somewhere along the conversation the philosopher will somehow be able to convince him that he himself doesn’t really exist. The question I have, is who gets the brunt of this cruel joke? Don’t rack yourself trying to answer that, it’s a trick question.
The philosophers job in his search for answers to epistemology is to question everything. By doing so, even to the point of questioning that which we never think of questioning like our own self-existence, the philosopher hopes to ascertain or rate the trustworthiness of the knowledge he/she possesses.
Something that is hard to accept, but is necessary to human sanity, is to let go of absolute certainty. This does not mean you cannot know anything, it simply means there is a chance you can be wrong - no matter who you are or what it is that is in question (or not in question as it may be).
The hick-up people have is that if it is in question then it cannot be trusted. I disagree. There are levels of trustworthiness. It is more trustworthy that the sun will come out tomorrow than it is that I will wake up healthy even though both are very likely, but neither are given for surely anyone can accept that the sun cannot last for forever.
All knowledge is based upon our suppositions and assumptions. Even that statement. Language itself is built upon these, there is no way around it. What are suppositions and assumptions? In essence, I would propose to you that they are beliefs. Ideas and concepts accepted upon faith alone. Faith more basic than religious beliefs.
Faith. Uncertainty, yet strong convictions of the truth of these things. What can explain it? As always there are two options. One, God. Many see that as a cop-out answer. The other is random chance. Evolution. If you think the God answer is a cop-out, let me rephrase the options we have here. One, either our belief in ourself comes from a chemical, alogical reaction (pure unadulterated chance), or our logic is derived from logic grounded outside of ourselves (coherently corresponds to reality).
Now to come back to our joke. Do you believe you exist? Or do you know you exist? Does there have to be that distinction? How strong is your faith? The philosopher is the butt of the joke, if you can believe it; he can make someone else doubt what he must necessarily believe irrevocable. You can decide if that is a laughing matter.
Jared Williams
