What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: December 6th, 2015, 9:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
- Alec Smart
- Posts: 671
- Joined: June 28th, 2015, 12:28 pm
Re: What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
For me, it's not knowing what it is.Wirius wrote:What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
-
- Posts: 545
- Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm
Re: What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
Damned clever. In fact, too clever. There's nothing left to say.Alec Smart wrote:For me, it's not knowing what it is.Wirius wrote:What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
- Alec Smart
- Posts: 671
- Joined: June 28th, 2015, 12:28 pm
Re: What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
Actually, I seem to have acquired a reputation for profundity, based entirely on people mistaking my ignorance for insight.Platos stepchild wrote: Damned clever. In fact, too clever. There's nothing left to say.
-
- Posts: 545
- Joined: July 19th, 2014, 9:58 pm
Re: What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
I believe it's better to hit a target, dead-on in the darkness, than to come close, in the light.Alec Smart wrote:Actually, I seem to have acquired a reputation for profundity, based entirely on people mistaking my ignorance for insight.Plato's stepchild wrote: Damned clever. In fact, too clever. There's nothing left to say.
- roberthv12
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 1
- Joined: February 25th, 2018, 5:46 am
Re: What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
(I'm also thinking that it's very difficult to make the transition between a state of mind and the written word, so defining belief would be difficult, a problem bypassed in most epistemology when the concentration is on the definition of knowledge, where we are allowed to use this term belief, meaning we've already made the leap between a subjective experience and a written proposition)..but anyway, I recently heard Lawrence Krauss on a podcast say that we should do away with the term belief, and simply use probabilities that something will be true. Another problem is that, Epistemologists often debate about the two, (strong and weak) conceptions of knowledge, but I think that, because what they are trying to do is give words to define a generally accepted intuition, they could simply survey people about it. I have done the survey myself, and it seems that people will use the weak conception most of the time, but when pressed, asked "do you really really know that?".. like, my wife is teaching a class right now, I know because she does every week at this time, but what if there was a fire drill that day, I didn't know about and she was actually standing in the courtyard waiting for the fire dept.? People will switch to the hard conception of knowledge (one that requires no doubt)...so really I deduce that the term "know" is an ambiguous term, and actually we'd be better off without it, if we wanted to be rigorous, technically correct robots. I say deem "know" to have a strong conception, and stop using it in every day language, come up with different words, one for "almost certain" and one for "certain barring extreme cases such as that I'm being controlled by an evil demon or that I'm a brain in a vat". We could go one step further and give words for cases in which we don't know but the probability is such and such, in that way, we wouldn't need the word believe either. First time I've written down my thoughts, so there may be issues, but that's my opinion atm, that's "where I'm at" with regards to them.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am
Re: What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
"Talent is hitting a target no one else can hit; genius is hitting a target no one else can see."Platos stepchild wrote: ↑July 16th, 2016, 4:35 pm I believe it's better to hit a target, dead-on in the darkness, than to come close, in the light.
*__-
-
- Posts: 25
- Joined: March 25th, 2018, 12:06 pm
Re: What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
An example is the following:
Reality is known to is through a medium, this medium being our sensory impressions and ultimately, the mind(Ideas). Therefore reality is mental, because it cannot see what "is", the true nature/substance of the external world. If somehow we had full contact with it(External world), without being separated by a brain that arranges the contents for us, then this problem should not arise at all. This leads to absolute idealism. A world that is purely mental and, therefore, reality cannot even be validated as another thing that is "not mental", because were are analyzing ideas themselves to reach another plain(Reality). And that reality's substance is something not mental, not knowable by ideas(External world).
From this notion people can say that the world doesn't really exist, it is just ideas of the mind. But these ideas must come from somewhere right? There has to be an "external world" from which these "ideas" or sensory impressions come from. It leaves the mind being something capable of creating ideas out of nothingness, if we follow these conclusions.
Another problem in epistemology I would say is not addressing the implications and complexity of language and how it forges our thought. Before philosophizing about anything.
Language are the "Signs"(Words) that we use to name phenomena from the external world. We put meaning to these signs as well. Many signs used together, (sentences) creates complex forms of thinking, a property of the mind. I am more concerned about the language that we use in Metaphysics or Ontology. I mean, Language IS one of the properties of how the mind "knows". Recalling words take you to a signification of something. Philosophical words with high content like dualism, substance, being, is, idea, thing, mind, body, reality, external, internal, becoming, entity, one, many, nature, eternal..... All of these words/signs convey SOMETHING, according the the meaning that has been arbitrarily established for it. How can each philosopher grasp a sign like "substance" or being, and know that they are thinking about the object of thought? What do we refer to when we say "thing"? What is precisely the object of thought in philosophical abstractions? And how do these signs, that we fundamentally use to even refer to those abstractions, actually relate to reality ? (This implies the nature of how the meaning of words(semantics) can make the mind think of things that one cannot see empirically; the logical reasoning of meanings I would call it) How can two minds, those two minds having an aspect of individuality in how it correlates its contents, can make abstractions of things they cannot see/feel by sense impressions and understand each other? (In Metaphysics or Ontology) This problem started with language and ended with other implications. More fundamental problems can arise from this. This showcases how complex reason is.
There are many, many other problems, but for me personally the main dilemma is how epistemological conclusions can lead to an absolute reductionism.
-
- Posts: 948
- Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am
Re: What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
And this is not just an issue that kind of epistemology faces. All of them are on paper, and they you wake up in the morning....
- ReasonMadeFlesh
- Posts: 744
- Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 11:07 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Jesus Christ
- Location: Here & Now
Re: What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
Then again for me there is no such thing as epistemology, there is only ontology, and all we can do is investigate the nature of being more closely, and realise that this Being is the being of ourselves, the Godhead, getting lost in each of us, only to return again.
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
It is not intuition which leads us to deduce the sun will rise tomorrow, it is rational thinking. To rationalise something is to understand the ratio of one thing compared to the other in order to determine which is most likely to be true. This is litterally the process of a rational construct, however it is not epistemologically valid because although it is logical to believe for example that the sun will rise tomorrow, we can not know this to be true until it has happened.Wirius wrote: ↑July 16th, 2016, 1:31 pm Sure, intuitively we believe it is more reasonable that the sun will rise again tomorrow, than the sun will not rise again tomorrow. But, rationally, why is this? If we could discover a rational construct of thought which could evaluate the rationality of inductions, I believe epistemology would be in a better place.
- ReasonMadeFlesh
- Posts: 744
- Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 11:07 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Jesus Christ
- Location: Here & Now
Re: What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
End of story. Also known as "Munchaüssen's trilemma" or the "regress argument". That's all there is to it dude.
- Thinking critical
- Posts: 1793
- Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
- Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)
Re: What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
Trilema had three alternatives to justify true knowledge - circular, regress or axiomatic. Problem is, the trilemma caim creates a double sided sword......how do you know wether this is actually the case or not?ReasonMadeFlesh wrote: ↑June 9th, 2018, 1:42 pm Mate... Agrippa's trilemma.
End of story. Also known as "Munchaüssen's trilemma" or the "regress argument". That's all there is to it dude.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
What you’re wanting is idealism.Wirius wrote: ↑July 16th, 2016, 1:31 pm For me, I believe it is the problem of induction. How do I rationally demonstrate that one induction is more logical or reasonable than another? Sure, intuitively we believe it is more reasonable that the sun will rise again tomorrow, than the sun will not rise again tomorrow. But, rationally, why is this? If we could discover a rational construct of thought which could evaluate the rationality of inductions, I believe epistemology would be in a better place.
The Sun (whatever that is?) doesn’t “rise” anyhoo.
The distinction between epistemology and ontology is one of logical convenience - it’s a useful distinction though, as without distinction what is there for us to claim as being “useful” in the first instance (when/where ever such an “item” of an “instance” may rest its sleepy head!?)
- ReasonMadeFlesh
- Posts: 744
- Joined: September 2nd, 2013, 11:07 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Jesus Christ
- Location: Here & Now
Re: What is the greatest problem in epistemology?
Even doubt is recursively applied to itself.Thinking critical wrote: ↑June 9th, 2018, 3:27 pmTrilema had three alternatives to justify true knowledge - circular, regress or axiomatic. Problem is, the trilemma caim creates a double sided sword......how do you know wether this is actually the case or not?ReasonMadeFlesh wrote: ↑June 9th, 2018, 1:42 pm Mate... Agrippa's trilemma.
End of story. Also known as "Munchaüssen's trilemma" or the "regress argument". That's all there is to it dude.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023