Philosophy Now Forum

Hello all. I've come to these forums because I have a knowledge theory I've been working on for years. I would like others to take a look at it and give their thoughts. Its uh, a little big so I'm dividing it into 4 parts.

Part 1: Length 4 pages
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17cH ... sp=sharing

Edit 2: Discussion finally started around page 3. It looks like the conclusions are a slight problem I had with Descartes which I fixed, and an accusation that this first part is identical to Locke. I analyzed Locke and noted where we agreed, and where we diverted.

So Why Should I Read This?

1. This theory recognizes and finds a solution to the age old problem: "How do I reconcile the idea of an objective methodology of knowledge within a subjective world?"

2. The theory attempts to take no liberties or assumptions about knowledge as is, but attempts to look at it from a foundationalist viewpoint. This "fresh" viewpoint about knowledge may at the least, be mentally stimulating to consider.

3. If the theory is correct, it should easily solve epistemological problems such as, "Theseus' Ship", "Brain in a Vat arguments", and "Gretzky's Gadwall Ducks," and "The problem of Induction". Sounds too good to be true? Then read it and prove me wrong!

4. You would be doing me a huge favor. I've wanted someone to come along and show the idea to be wrong. Then I could leave it alone and pursue other avenues in my life. I WILL listen to your criticism, respond respectfully, and if you have shown clear counterpoints, thank you for your excellent contribution.

Thank you for reading, I'm not sure where else I could take such a lengthy paper!

Edti3: I'm posting a summary of points that I make in the paper. Hopefully this will give you an idea of what to expect. Details are of course in the paper.


BOLDED SECTION IS COVERED IN THIS POST:
Part 1: Link if you need a refresh https://docs.google.com/document/d/17cH ... sp=sharing
1. Beliefs are inductions. Knowledge is a rational analysis of beliefs to determine whether our beliefs are contradicted by reality.
2. Justification for a belief cannot be inductive. If a belief is inductive, and justification is inductive, then a belief that is not rationally ascertained is used to argue for another belief that is not rationally ascertained.
3. Conclusion: A theory of knowledge which uses deductive Justification should be a rational argument for one's beliefs not being contradicted by reality.

4. I must demonstrate deductive justification is possible.
5. Descartes Cogito comes close, but misses the mark.
6. Taking my own Descartes like turn, I discover "I discretely experience" is deductively justified.
7. Conclusion: An awareness of a discrete experience I call, cognitive knowledge.

Part 2
8. How do I take cognitive knowledge and apply it to reality without contradiction? I know the identity of what I call a sheep, how do I know "that thing" is a sheep?
9. There are two types of knowledge. There is cognitive knowledge, or the ability to create discrete experiences. The second is applicable knowledge, or an attempt to match one's cognitive knowledge to reality without contradiction. Cognitve=image of what I call a sheep Applicable=that thing over there matches my Cognitive sheep with deductive justification.
10.Conclusion: If my observations match to the properties in my identity which I have defined as essential, and my observation can match to no other non-synonymous identities, I applicably know my identity matches reality without contradiction through deductive justification.


Part 3
11. How do multiple people reconcile contradictory cognitive knowledge?
12. People must first agree on a cognitive context, such as definitions, and an applicable context such as senses or measurement used.
13. Conclusion: Once the contexts are established, the same deductive process is used to applicably know things as a group.

Part 4-End
14. Not everything can be deduced, is there a way to use the understanding of deductive justification to establish a cogent method of induction?
15. I demonstrate a hierarchy of induction based on its distinct level of separation from deductively justified cognitive and applicable knowledge.
16. Conclusion: The hierarchy can be used as a rational dismissal of "counter arguments" from a lower level of the hierarchy. This solves the brain in a vat argument.

Sounds adventurous.
I am unfamiliar with the duck problem and my Google Fu is letting me down
Can anyone enlighten me?*





* This offer excludes Bob, Walker and Nick

How do you do, wirius. I agree with Flashdangerpants, it's very ambitious (and I don't know the duck problem either). Might be able to save you a bit of time. You say:

wirius wrote:2. The theory attempts to take no liberties or assumptions about knowledge as is, but attempts to look at it from a foundationalist viewpoint.

So what are your foundations?

wirius wrote:Hello all. I've come to these forums because I have a knowledge theory I've been working on for years. I would like others to take a look at it and give their thoughts. Its uh, a little big so I'm dividing it into two parts.

So Why Should I Read This?

1. This theory recognizes and finds a solution to the age old problem: "How do I reconcile the idea of an objective methodology of knowledge within a subjective world?"

2. The theory attempts to take no liberties or assumptions about knowledge as is, but attempts to look at it from a foundationalist viewpoint. This "fresh" viewpoint about knowledge may at the least, be mentally stimulating to consider.

3. If the theory is correct, it should easily solve epistemological problems such as, "Theseus' Ship", "Brain in a Vat arguments", and "Gretzky's Gadwall Ducks," and "The problem of Induction". Sounds too good to be true? Then read it and prove me wrong!

4. You would be doing me a huge favor. I've wanted someone to come along and show the idea to be wrong. Then I could leave it alone and pursue other avenues in my life. I WILL listen to your criticism, respond respectfully, and if you have shown clear counterpoints, thank you for your excellent contribution.

Section Division

The first part covers the problem with knowledge proposals as I see them, and introduces a Descartes-like build up of a deductive knowledge through only the self-subjective. This is the core introduction to the theory, and must be understood before the full finalization of the theory can be covered.

The second part will cover how to extend the initial idea of "subjective deduction", into the multi-subjective. I finish this second part by examining how induction works within a subjective deduction context. Once all of these main points are addressed, the total theory can work. I will post this second part in an entirely different forum post. Thank you for reading, I'm not sure where else I could take such a lengthy paper!

Descartes is certainly the best place to start in any philosophical system. First one must challenge everything and begin doing so by dismissing it all out of hand. From there one can build up step by step to a stable thinking system with a firm foundation.

Descartes comes up with his two-clock system, which is a way bunch fantastical.

He also stumbles with the idea of God-ness and so he invents his own version of Anselm's "ontological proof" vis a vis "if I can imagine it then it must exist" -- unfortunately unicorns rule this out.

I also don't believe any of Descartes crap about animals. Animals are no different than we are. Chimps and apes and whales and horses and dogs and cats are most like us -- they sleep and dream -- they plan -- the love and they fear.

I'll look at your paper later and give you my feed back as I come across notions of yours that I do not agree with and/or believe are fallacies.

WHERE is the LINK ??

yiostheoy wrote: Descartes is certainly the best place to start in any philosophical system. First one must challenge everything and begin doing so by dismissing it all out of hand. From there one can build up step by step to a stable thinking system with a firm foundation.

Where do you stand on the Wittgensteinian position that it is literally nonsensical to do that?

If its long, it's probably wrong.

FlashDangerpants wrote:

yiostheoy wrote: Descartes is certainly the best place to start in any philosophical system. First one must challenge everything and begin doing so by dismissing it all out of hand. From there one can build up step by step to a stable thinking system with a firm foundation.

Where do you stand on the Wittgensteinian position that it is literally nonsensical to do that?

Personally, I agree with yio here.

Dalek Prime wrote:

FlashDangerpants wrote:

yiostheoy wrote: Descartes is certainly the best place to start in any philosophical system. First one must challenge everything and begin doing so by dismissing it all out of hand. From there one can build up step by step to a stable thinking system with a firm foundation.

Where do you stand on the Wittgensteinian position that it is literally nonsensical to do that?

Personally, I agree with yio here.

In Philosophy 101 in college, which was a survey course of the history of Philosophy, as usual, Descartes shocked most of the kids in the class because they simply could not answer the question "how do you know you exist?"

Descartes did a nice job of dealing with that. He inherited so he was rich, so he had a lot of rich French friends, and they were bugging him all the time, so he got away from them and hid in a big coal oven, and thought everything through.

Skepticism is only good if it is useful. For Descartes skepticism was useful because he used it as his starting point.

We certainly can tell -- feel -- that we have consciousness.

And we can conclude that with our consciousness we can think and plan and move and do things and change the environment around us same as a beaver can build a dam and thus dam up the stream and make itself a nice habitat while changing the habitat completely around it. We can do that as well as human animals. Since I am thinking, someone must exist to do the thinking. Since my thinking results in plans and actions and a change in the environment around me, obviously I exist, and obviously the environment exists as well.

That's an excellent starting point for any philosophy. And it shows the foolishness of complete skepticism and denial of reality.

Modern Empiricism accepts that existence of the self, since Descartes has proved it and settled it once and for all. Empiricism also accepts the reality of all things around us, the Earth, and everything on the Earth, and in the sky, and below the surface of the Earth, and in the seas, and the Moon, and the planets, and of course the Sun where we get all our energy from ultimately, and our fellow beings which are merely one kind of many things around us on the Earth.

Good Philosophy. Excellent indeed.

From there you can struggle with the other issues of Epistemology, Metaphysics, Teleology, Language, Logic, Rhetoric, Ethics, Morality, and every decision and choice you ever need to make.

Empiricism rules. But you cannot let your philosophical Empiricism become your Religion because Empiricism is only a tool. Same with Science -- it is only an Empirical tool of the physical world. Same with math -- it is only an Empirical tool of the analytical measuring world.

You also cannot let Religion become your Philosophy because then the shoe would be on the wrong foot and it would not fit. It is with Philosophy that we judge and evaluate Religion and not the other way around.

You also cannot let Religion become your Science, because Zoroaster, and Moses, and Buddha, and Confucius, and Jesus, and Peter, and Paul, and Muhammad/Mohammad were NOT scientists and did not talk about anything scientific except in illustrative stories called parables -- that which comes out of your mouth defiles the soul whereas that which goes into the mouth goes into the stomach and passes through the bowels.

yiostheoy wrote:... For Descartes skepticism was useful because he used it as his starting point.

no, he never doubted god.

yiostheoy wrote:...
You also cannot let Religion become your Philosophy because then the shoe would be on the wrong foot and it would not fit. It is with Philosophy that we judge and evaluate Religion and not the other way around.

and you miss the point of the meditations...

ignore me too

finis

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:

yiostheoy wrote:... For Descartes skepticism was useful because he used it as his starting point.

no, he never doubted god.

yiostheoy wrote:...
You also cannot let Religion become your Philosophy because then the shoe would be on the wrong foot and it would not fit. It is with Philosophy that we judge and evaluate Religion and not the other way around.

and you miss the point of the meditations...

ignore me too

finis

-Imp

Descartes began his analysis doubting everything including God.

In the 3rd stage of his analysis he created his own version of Anselm's ontological proof for God as well.

But not until AFTER Descartes first affirmed his own existence and then the nonexistence of the Evil Genius.

You need to read about Descartes again and this time pay closer attention.

Just to clarify, I don't agree where Descartes went with his philosophy, but I do agree with the starting point. As uwot and I have said before, there is thought, and there are things. And speaking for myself, the further one goes, the further one strays into territory we are only guessing at. So the steps must be well reasoned.

yiostheoy wrote: Descartes is certainly the best place to start in any philosophical system. First one must challenge everything and begin doing so by dismissing it all out of hand.

OK. Done that. That was easy, this philosophy thing isn't as difficult as people would have you believe.

The link has been put in the post. You don't have to debate Descartes anymore. =)

Harbal wrote:

yiostheoy wrote: Descartes is certainly the best place to start in any philosophical system. First one must challenge everything and begin doing so by dismissing it all out of hand.

OK. Done that. That was easy, this philosophy thing isn't as difficult as people would have you believe.

Yet they'll have you believe you're doing it wrong, anyways.

Dalek Prime wrote:Just to clarify, I don't agree where Descartes went with his philosophy, but I do agree with the starting point. As uwot and I have said before, there is thought, and there are things. And speaking for myself, the further one goes, the further one strays into territory we are only guessing at. So the steps must be well reasoned.

Correct. I agree as well.