The Paradox of Agnosticism

[Eodnhoj7]

Information that is unknowable is a known.

Ugh. What is known is one's own inability to know.

Just because negation is constructive, doesn't mean you will attain knowledge of that which you want to know about.

It is antithetical thus defining the thetical by what the thetical is not, we know through what we do not know as what we do not know defines what is known.

[Immanuel Can]

It is a viewpoint about the nature of ultimate reality, as an ultimate reality.

Hey, I proved you wrong with the definition you cited as if it proved your case.

If you can't be corrected after that, you just can't be corrected.

[Skepdick]

It is antithetical thus defining the thetical by what the thetical is not.

Obviously. That's a key element of epistemology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophatic_theology

Or... The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao

[Eodnhoj7]

It is a viewpoint about the nature of ultimate reality, as an ultimate reality.

Hey, I proved you wrong with the definition you cited as if it proved your case.

If you can't be corrected after that, you just can't be corrected.

I stated that definition third post down prior to you stating it. You can look for yourself, it is unedited.

[Immanuel Can]

I stated that definition third post down prior to you stating it. You can look for yourself, it is unedited.

You should maybe have read it first.

[Eodnhoj7]

I stated that definition third post down prior to you stating it. You can look for yourself, it is unedited.

You should maybe have read it first.

Agnostic: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable".


I have, thank you. Agnosticism is a view "that any ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknown". If fails itself as it takes a stance as to what we ultimately can know: partials.

[Immanuel Can]

Agnostic: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable".

Are you familiar with the word "probably"? It means, "I don't know for sure, but I think this is likely to be so." It's not a universal claim to knowledge. It's a claim of ignorance...which is the closest English synonym, by the way, to the word "agnostic." It comes from the Greek "a + gnosis". In other words, it's a claim "not to know."

Literally, that's what it means.

Of course, in the next stage, one has to justify that claim: "Why do you think it's probably the case that there could be no God?"

And the answer, of course, is "No reason: I just think that." So you're not wrong about it being an irrational position...you're just wrong about the reasons you give for it being irrational. It doesn't claim what you say it claims.

[Eodnhoj7]

Agnostic: "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable".

Are you familiar with the word "probably"? It means, "I don't know for sure, but I think this is likely to be so." It's not a universal claim to knowledge. It's a claim of ignorance...which is the closest English synonym, by the way, to the word "agnostic." It comes from the Greek "a + gnosis". In other words, it's a claim "not to know."

Literally, that's what it means.

Of course, in the next stage, one has to justify that claim: "Why do you think it's probably the case that there could be no God?"

And the answer, of course, is "No reason: I just think that." So you're not wrong about it being an irrational position...you're just wrong about the reasons you give for it being irrational. It doesn't claim what you say it claims.

You forgot this portion:

"a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown"

Agnosticism claims an ultimate definition of reality: partials. Thus the paradox.

[Immanuel Can]

You forgot this portion:

"a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown"

It does not support your case.

It does not specify to whom...for the very good reason that it does not matter whether the agnostic is speaking of himself or of what he irrationally supposes of others. Either way, it's agnosticism. The claim of universality is not necessary for him to be that.

Which is my point.

[Eodnhoj7]

You forgot this portion:

"a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown"

It does not support your case.

It does not specify to whom...for the very good reason that it does not matter whether the agnostic is speaking of himself or of what he irrationally supposes of others. Either way, it's agnosticism. The claim of universality is not necessary for him to be that.

Which is my point.

But "agnosticism" is that viewpoint. As a viewpoint it claims an ultimate truth of partial knowledge alone.

[Immanuel Can]

But "agnosticism" is that viewpoint. As a viewpoint it claims an ultimate truth of partial knowledge alone.

Yeah, I know you think so...but you're wrong, and demonstrably so.

That you won't admit it doesn't really matter much, once the evidence is in.

[Eodnhoj7]

But "agnosticism" is that viewpoint. As a viewpoint it claims an ultimate truth of partial knowledge alone.

Yeah, I know you think so...but you're wrong, and demonstrably so.

That you won't admit it doesn't really matter much, once the evidence is in.

So the view point that ultimate reality cannot be known is not an ultimate viewpoint?

[uwot]

So the view point that ultimate reality cannot be known is not an ultimate viewpoint?

Hi Eodnhoj7, it's me towu of no particular number. Yeah, you could say that the view point that ultimate reality cannot be known is an ultimate viewpoint, but that is not what agnostics claim. As I mentioned, the meaning intended by the guy who invented the word was that people shouldn't make claims they couldn't support with evidence. Granted the definition has become very flabby and now includes pretty much anyone who doesn't take a particular view, but even in its original form it is not a viewpoint that ultimate reality cannot be known. It is, or was, the viewpoint that any proposition for which there is fuck all evidence cannot be known. Dunno if you've noticed but when you ask someone who claims to know ultimate reality how they know it, the answer is frequently 'Because some god told me'/'It says so in a book', which is rotten evidence, or 'It makes sense', which is a rotten reason.

[Eodnhoj7]

So the view point that ultimate reality cannot be known is not an ultimate viewpoint?

Hi Eodnhoj7, it's me towu of no particular number. Yeah, you could say that the view point that ultimate reality cannot be known is an ultimate viewpoint, but that is not what agnostics claim. As I mentioned, the meaning intended by the guy who invented the word was that people shouldn't make claims they couldn't support with evidence. Granted the definition has become very flabby and now includes pretty much anyone who doesn't take a particular view, but even in its original form it is not a viewpoint that ultimate reality cannot be known. It is, or was, the viewpoint that any proposition for which there is fuck all evidence cannot be known. Dunno if you've noticed but when you ask someone who claims to know ultimate reality how they know it, the answer is frequently 'Because some god told me'/'It says so in a book', which is rotten evidence, or 'It makes sense', which is a rotten reason.

The most accurate thing to say, how one "knows" truth, is by stating "I assumed a pattern imprinted upon me".

[Immanuel Can]

So the view point that ultimate reality cannot be known is not an ultimate viewpoint?

I'll say it one more time.

The claim that ultimate reality CANNOT be known is optional for an agnostic. A person can be an agnostic without it. He can simply say, "I don't know if there is an ultimate reality, but I'm not rationally able to say whether that's true for anybody but me." That's one form of agnosticism.

Sure, he can go on to try to argue that other people cannot know what he does not know. But that's silly. He has no warrant for that claim, other than his assumption that he is as wise and experienced as anybody else can possibly be...which is, I think you'll agree, highly implausible.

But the point is that agnosticism does not require the second claim. Just the first.