If All is Paradox Than All Contains a Degree of Truth By Virtue of Occurence

[puto]

Eodnhoj7

Well, I am not hiding behind a computer, and posting ad hominem attacks on peoples' work. Trying, at wisdom as you, so do is not narcists that is an over-used word play on five dollar words. Certainty as in reading your posts seem to be of radical skepticism, so then no, and open to Doubt: It could be wrong and apprehended, if doubted then not knowledge. Knowledge is subjective, "As in a four sided triangle," then knowledge cannot be false. Having, to be true is a 'that' proposition. Certitude is deductive '2 + 5 = 7'. A justified true belief is not a possibility, but you seem to be a radical skeptic in questioning the possibility of that knowledge. The problem with the 'true belief' analysis is that from our perspective. The epistemologist cannot just invent knowledge, which is set above mere opinion, explaining how knowledge is possible. Read Aristocles who points-out skepticism of inferred knowledge is about the possibility of knowledge. Descartes' seems to take indubitable to mean justification between knowledge and mere opinion. So, truth is indubitably certain and beyond doubt. See how many times 'possible' or 'possibility' was written. If you are going to point out others' 'mere opinions', correct them and "... Spare the rod, and spare the child."

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodnhoj7

Well, I am not hiding behind a computer, and posting ad hominem attacks on peoples' work. Trying, at wisdom as you, so do is not narcists that is an over-used word play on five dollar words. Certainty as in reading your posts seem to be of radical skepticism, so then no, and open to Doubt: It could be wrong and apprehended, if doubted then not knowledge. Knowledge is subjective, "As in a four sided triangle," then knowledge cannot be false. Having, to be true is a 'that' proposition. Certitude is deductive '2 + 5 = 7'. A justified true belief is not a possibility, but you seem to be a radical skeptic in questioning the possibility of that knowledge. The problem with the 'true belief' analysis is that from our perspective. The epistemologist cannot just invent knowledge, which is set above mere opinion, explaining how knowledge is possible. Read Aristocles who points-out skepticism of inferred knowledge is about the possibility of knowledge. Descartes' seems to take indubitable to mean justification between knowledge and mere opinion. So, truth is indubitably certain and beyond doubt. See how many times 'possible' or 'possibility' was written. If you are going to point out others' 'mere opinions', correct them and "... Spare the rod, and spare the child."

My skepticism is of such an extreme that I am skeptical of skepticism.

[puto]

So, radical skepticism of Plato is no certainty (of logic and mathematics)? Plato believed in numbers and the shadows. Justification is why a belief cannot be infallible (incapable of being wrong.) I mean at least Descartes's was a foundationalist in his methods of justification. Inference can give knowledge, but philosophical knowledge for radical sceptics is one of empiricism (though denying a priori knowledge.) You will have to explain your 'wisdom'. I am not just inventing an argument to confuse because, If I do not understand it, then I ask questions to enlighten. The stance of sceptics for me is one of possibility, and certainty is knowledge and open to doubt. I mean with the varieties of Scepticism: Still investigating. The Dogmatic: Discovered the truth. The Academics: Things cannot be apprehended (know, perceive ideas, and concepts.) Logic is the method of philosophy and mathematics is the language of God.

[Eodnhoj7]

So, radical skepticism of Plato is no certainty (of logic and mathematics)? Plato believed in numbers and the shadows. Justification is why a belief cannot be infallible (incapable of being wrong.) I mean at least Descartes's was a foundationalist in his methods of justification. Inference can give knowledge, but philosophical knowledge for radical sceptics is one of empiricism (though denying a priori knowledge.) You will have to explain your 'wisdom'. I am not just inventing an argument to confuse because, If I do not understand it, then I ask questions to enlighten. The stance of sceptics for me is one of possibility, and certainty is knowledge and open to doubt. I mean with the varieties of Scepticism: Still investigating. The Dogmatic: Discovered the truth. The Academics: Things cannot be apprehended (know, perceive ideas, and concepts.) Logic is the method of philosophy and mathematics is the language of God.

You do not get it...real skepticism is skeptical about all things including skepticism...as skepticism is a thing. Skepticism results in a paradox.

"The stance of skeptics for me", as you worded, results in an inherent bias of interpretation on your part leading to a projection of opinion, unwittingly, I am assuming.

You claim mathematics is the language of God and yet I see you using English to argue this assertion...I claim this point as I have seen it with other mathematicians both amateur and professionally oriented...they use the very same natural language, which they condemn as ambigious, to justify mathematics as the apex of precise definition and yet fail to see that is justification of mathematics, by what they claim to be ambiguous, is in fact, by their own standards, ambiguous.

Justify mathematics purely using number...or better yet provide a mathematical proof that justifies and explains the concept of proof. Show me the statement "mathematics is the language of God" purely in number.

[puto]

What? Scepticism is about possibilities. You cannot just invent an epistemological account in order to refute of what possible in knowledge. Sceptics either Doubt: Any beliefs, beliefs are true, or beliefs are justified. Gettier proved you wrong in your arguments, and he was not even a sceptic. If you are going to reject philosophical knowledge, then prove your arguments. Do not just use ad hominem attacks. Use the hypothetical question. Aristocles would just point-out you are just an mere 'opinion', and are in no-way an indicator of truth. Therefore, able to decide what is true and not true. Quit holding opinions on philosophical knowledge on the basis that you know. Socrates said something, in an academic jab, about the hypothetical question what was it? Let me help you out, it had to do with a divine plan and mechanics. 'In the recognition of truth', Sextus (40k.)

[Eodnhoj7]

What? Scepticism is about possibilities. You cannot just invent an epistemological account in order to refute of what possible in knowledge. Sceptics either Doubt: Any beliefs, beliefs are true, or beliefs are justified. Gettier proved you wrong in your arguments, and he was not even a sceptic. If you are going to reject philosophical knowledge, then prove your arguments. Do not just use ad hominem attacks. Use the hypothetical question. Aristocles would just point-out you are just an mere 'opinion', and are in no-way an indicator of truth. Therefore, able to decide what is true and not true. Quit holding opinions on philosophical knowledge on the basis that you know. Socrates said something, in an academic jab, about the hypothetical question what was it? Let me help you out, it had to do with a divine plan and mechanics. 'In the recognition of truth', Sextus (40k.)

Epistemological accounts are what they are: accounts. Accounts are subjective and quite frankly invented out of thin air in many respects by this very nature of said subjectivity.

True skepticism, that goes all the way, refutes possibilities as it doubts them as well.

My point is real simple and logical: if radical skepticism doubts everything, and radical skepticism is a thing by nature of being a concept, then radical skepticism doubts itself.

You parroting random philosophers gives the impression you doubt your own thoughts. I could be wrong...but the impression remains.

[puto]

Thinking is doubting.

[Eodnhoj7]

Thinking is doubting.

To be a true pessimist, one must be pessimistic about their pessimism...to truly doubt one must doubt all things including doubt itself.

[puto]

Eodnhoj7

Philosophy was built on giants. 'Knowing, that philosophy is not about quotes, but about believing why you believe in what' a paraphrase of Dr Ken Taylor.
My analysis of your work is the Agrippan argument. You doubt perceptual knowledge? Epistemological task is shows knowledge is possible.
I am now just studying scepticism in depth and would be educated by your input of philosophical knowledge to scepticism.
Yes, I am still searching for truth. Does this make me a sceptic? At least, in the Dogmatic, and Sceptical, not the Academic.
I just really do not know. Philosophy and not knowing do not work. I still believe that philosophical knowledge is possible.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

If all is paradoxical, and this itself is a paradox, thus leaving all as not a paradox thus a paradox is not a paradox thus resulting in a further paradox, is linguistic and conceptual observance of truth purely transformative and as such is not fixed leaving all as fundamentally a degree of truth by nature of occurence?

Yes and no.

[Eodnhoj7]

If all is paradoxical, and this itself is a paradox, thus leaving all as not a paradox thus a paradox is not a paradox thus resulting in a further paradox, is linguistic and conceptual observance of truth purely transformative and as such is not fixed leaving all as fundamentally a degree of truth by nature of occurence?

Yes and no.

Exactly. The maintenance of a thing, through the variations of time and space in which it inhabits, expands and reduces it layers, as these things must adapt and by adaptation change, thus leaving a degree of the original which eventually follows the same process. For example the growth and decline of a tree observes the core roots branches into new roots, while retaining the old, and with the death of the tree often times the last portion to die is the center wood of the trunk.

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodnhoj7

Philosophy was built on giants. 'Knowing, that philosophy is not about quotes, but about believing why you believe in what' a paraphrase of Dr Ken Taylor.
My analysis of your work is the Agrippan argument. You doubt perceptual knowledge? Epistemological task is shows knowledge is possible.
I am now just studying scepticism in depth and would be educated by your input of philosophical knowledge to scepticism.
Yes, I am still searching for truth. Does this make me a sceptic? At least, in the Dogmatic, and Sceptical, not the Academic.
I just really do not know. Philosophy and not knowing do not work. I still believe that philosophical knowledge is possible.

If one knows that they do not know then they know something, hence knowledge is possible...but it's possibility, as far as I am currently aware, is not the conceptual framework we necessarily desire. Why?

Philosophical knowledge is possible through paradox. Thesis and antithesis exist simultaneously. Just read any philosophical work, thesis, and you will find counter arguments, antithesis.

Now this simultaneous thesis and antithesis, is a thesis, with the antithesis being: neither thesis nor antithesis. This is the Buddhist tetralemma.

A paradox within a paradox as you can see.

And the paradox goes even further as the tetralemma has an antithesis, the tetralemma not existing. So the distinctions progress as the paradox can go forth infinitely, but a deeper paradox occurs in the respect that the thetical and antithetical trilemma resorts back to square one, thesis and antithesis (but the tetralemma did this prior as well with thetical thesis and antithesis and antithetical neither thesis nor antithesis).

So there is a circularity where thesis and antithesis are maintained, and a progressive linearism where how they occur changes (this linearism and circularity can be viewed as a thesis and antithesis as well). So knowledge, the act of observing and making distinctions, has a dualistic nature of circularity and linearism. This there are forms that occur as the act of consciousness itself (evidence by the act of self-reflection being circular identity maintainance and linear identity adaptation). So there are absolutes by condition of consciousness form and function, and these absolutes exist within the context of consciousness, thus resulting in relative truth by degree of conditionality.

There is my two cents, for now, and take all of this with a grain of salt...don't necessarily agree or disagree but observe these patterns for what they are.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

If all is paradoxical, and this itself is a paradox, thus leaving all as not a paradox thus a paradox is not a paradox thus resulting in a further paradox, is linguistic and conceptual observance of truth purely transformative and as such is not fixed leaving all as fundamentally a degree of truth by nature of occurence?

Yes and no.

Exactly. The maintenance of a thing, through the variations of time and space in which it inhabits, expands and reduces it layers, as these things must adapt and by adaptation change, thus leaving a degree of the original which eventually follows the same process. For example the growth and decline of a tree observes the core roots branches into new roots, while retaining the old, and with the death of the tree often times the last portion to die is the center wood of the trunk.

As you look up in to a tree, you see the future from its past and vice versa, looking down.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes and no.

Exactly. The maintenance of a thing, through the variations of time and space in which it inhabits, expands and reduces it layers, as these things must adapt and by adaptation change, thus leaving a degree of the original which eventually follows the same process. For example the growth and decline of a tree observes the core roots branches into new roots, while retaining the old, and with the death of the tree often times the last portion to die is the center wood of the trunk.

As you look up in to a tree, you see the future from its past and vice versa, looking down.

Time is non-linear. Example. There is a particle at point A in time A. The particle moves. It is at point B in time B. The time and space are different. The particle is relatively the same. The particle in the relative past determined the future, for the future exists because of the past particle. The future particle allows the past to be for the particle in the future is the bridge to the past and allows its existence. The future and past are united by the particle thus a meta transcendence of time occurs.

[puto]

Eodnhoj7,

What is an objective statement, it could be proven false. If not proven false, it is not an arguable statement. It has to be proven false, then it becomes arguable.
A thesis is an objective statement, then we can argue. A thesis is arguable. Objective statements can be arguable.
Having, studied the Paradox. Being, taken back by religions Paradox, which has a different meaning altogether. I am looking for meaning in Truth. Two contradictory truths just become riddles, then puzzles needing solving. What looking for, is objectivity.
The Academy, as you know, taught truth-values in propositions. Does this make me an internalist in truth?