On Tuesday, August 28, 2001 7:54 PM David G. McDivitt dmcdivitt@yahoo.com
wrote:
> >But are you not making the claim here that this is objective truth? You
are
> >making claims about knowledge that are either true or false. If they are
> >true, how can you know it, since you are conditioned by the same things.
> >(Knowledge is knowledge -- even knowledge about other knowledge.) Thus,
> >they're would be refuted. If they are false, then ditto.
[snip]
> >This by no means solves all epistemological problems, but it clears the
path
> >to better understanding.
...
> I don't think your comments "clear the path to better understanding at
> all". Your comments are nihilistic, only. They offer no new inspiration.
> You are simply saying I cannot know anything from my metaphysical model
> because you don't know anything from yours.
Not at all. What I am saying is that your view contradicts itself. Ergo,
it is wrong -- at least, when taken to its radical extreme. If it does so,
then it must be rejected.
I make no claims to ignorance. Nor do I see your claims as sound. You
build on the foundations you seek to undermine. This is similar to what
pancritical rationalism does. (See "Comments on Pancritical Rationalism" at
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/PCR.html)
> If my view is in error, give me something to replace it with.
You must replace it yourself.
> I do give
> the realist something to replace realism with.
You offer only a contradiction to replace a form of naive realism. Do you
believe this refutes all realism?
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
See "A Dialogue On Happiness" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Dialogue.html
"One should judge a man mainly from his depravities. Virtues can be faked.
Depravities are real." -- Klaus Kinski
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:20 MDT