RyanDeBENNETT wrote: ↑Sat May 09, 2020 12:11 am
No and pointedly, my position is quite the opposite. If one were to state what Knowledge is, that a Knowledge Framework is 'of higher degree of objectivity', or that Knowledge is of -
the horrifying epistemological villian - 'fact' , one is stating that one has solved the Problem of Criterion; that is they have 'found' the divine starting point of Knowledge. To decree Knowledge proceeding this, note I would term this Knowledge "Knowledge proceeding a solved Problem of Criterion".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 8:05 am
I believe the Problem of Criterion faces the Meno's Paradox, i.e.
"how can one know when what one do not know cannot be known."
agree.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 8:05 am
Let me finish reading this;
https://www.iep.utm.edu/criterio/
Chisholm claimed to be able to resolve the Problem of the Criterion?
However on first impression, the Problem of the Criterion do not appear to be leading to anything fundamental with knowledge.
Perhaps you can add more details to facilitate for me to understand [not necessary agree] the issue.
Ok here goes.
Object/subject is one of the most highly used frameworks of any knowledge epoch. The wiki definition alone (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity) is baked with confusion and dissonance…"
which has been variously defined by sources"...and here is an experiment to expose why.
A thought experiment. Please try contemplation of the following:
The object/subject is a continuum of contraries, agree?
Tell me, what is the object/subject continuum - principly - denominating?
Discern this principle, and one is presented with an epoch’s primordial origin of knowledge, it’s first object, it’s ‘Super’ Axiom if you will. Discern short of this principle, and one is presented with (
and only with) ONE’S primordial origin of knowledge, one’s first object, one’s ‘Super’ Axiom.
The truest primordial origin of an epochs knowledge will be awarded to that which is most radical to the epochs knowledge. My current position falls under what i have termed the mind/Mind* Problem/continuum, my current position is
the Mind (
caps intended). Mind (
caps intended) is this epochs principle radical, it’s Super Axiom.
Do you see it?
*
one may find more recognition of this via contemplation with the following substitutes (i/I problem, self/Self problem, objective(subjective)/Objective problem, essence/Essence problem, not-Form/Form Problem and so on...)
Note: Johann Gottlieb Fichte offers an enjoyable allegory offering one a glimpse premonition of the a. the mind/Mind Problem (in his case the 'i/I Problem' and b. it's 'feeling' precedes
Johann Gottlieb Fichte:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Go ... ral_theory
Note Note: haha this does not make me a German Idealists no, I recognise this knowledge and it's precedes
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 8:05 am
Btw, just to clear the point.
Are you theistic or non-theistic?
a wonderful question
Noted your points above but I still cannot understand your basic position;
I asked;
Are you theistic or non-theistic?
No direct answer from you but merely you replied "a wonderful question."
No and pointedly, my position is quite the opposite.
If one were to state what Knowledge is, that a Knowledge Framework is 'of higher degree of objectivity', or that Knowledge is of - the horrifying epistemological villian - 'fact' , one is stating that one has solved the Problem of Criterion; that is they have 'found' the divine starting point of Knowledge. To decree Knowledge proceeding this, note I would term this Knowledge "Knowledge proceeding a solved Problem of Criterion".
I guess your mention of 'divine' 'super axiom'
the Mind (
caps intended) allude to theism?
Instead of me guessing, why not present your philosophical stance/position and support it with arguments - that would be the more proper philosophical approach.
A thought experiment. Please try contemplation of the following:
The object/subject is a continuum of contraries, agree?
Tell me, what is the object/subject continuum - principaly - denominating?
This subject/object dichotomy can easily explained via evolutionary psychology.
To ensure survival, the individuals of the past* are "programmed" to focus their attention outward from themselves to elements that will facilitate their survival, i.e. food and external threats to their lives.
* inheriting traits from our ancient ancestor since 4 billions years ago.
This is why the "programmed" individual humans are habitualized to view themselves [subjects] as independent of the external objects.
Such "programs" are embedded deep in the basement of the primal brain and they cannot be reprogrammed easily.
Note Hume's on Causation as being driven by constant conjunction originating from customs, habits and conventions, i.e. psychological which is related to my explanation above.
Re the Problem of Criterion;
I prefer the Dissolution Approach;
Robert Amico (1988a, 1993, and 1996) offers a very different response to the Problem of the Criterion.
Rather than attempting to solve the Problem of the Criterion, Amico attempts to “
dissolve” it.
It is because of the role of rational doubt that Amico distinguishes between solutions to problems and dissolutions of problems.
A
solution to a problem is a set of true statements that answer the question that generates the problem and removes the rational doubt concerning the answer to the question.
Dissolution occurs when the rational doubt is removed, not by an answer to the question, but rather by recognition that it is impossible to adequately answer the question.
- For example, Amico claims that the problem of how to square a circle is dissolved as soon as one recognizes that it is impossible to make a circular square.
Once someone sees that it is impossible to make a circular square, the question “How do you square a circle?” does not generate any rational doubt for h
er.
Without rational doubt, Amico claims that the problem has been dissolved and there is no need to look for a solution.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/criterio/#SH3b
The indirect solution why the Problem of Criterion is raised in the first place is again due to psychology, i.e as in the evolutionary psychology basis of how the subject is habituated to view objects as external to oneself to facilitate survival.
This has its pros and cons.
The object/subject distinction was net-positive in the ancient days in alignment with the average psychological states, but we are not in a transition where its cons are not outweighing the pros.
As such as we move into the future, humanity must understand the subject/object dichotomy and not be dogmatic about it.
I note Johann Gottlieb Fichte's theory is still caught by the subject/object dichotomy in a more refined way.
The fact is,
You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29272
as such, there is no way the subjects can be independent of whatever is of reality [all there is].
If you posit Mind [with cap] that 'Mind' is intersubjective and inevitably 'co-created' by subjects.
Could your be the Philosophy of Non-Duality - no-me, no-I etc.?
Nondual Philosophy
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=29218