Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:50 am 1. To argue through pure doubt alone results in something which cannot be doubted.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Fri Jul 16, 2021 7:13 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 13, 2021 2:50 am 1. To argue through pure doubt alone results in something which cannot be doubted.

Why?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:47 pm Because to continual doubt is to result in a regress resulting in the form of a line. This form cannot be doubt as it is accepted as is. To doubt the line results in further linear regress only proving the line to exist. This form, which underlies all of reasoning, acts as a filter in the respect is seperates some things from another.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 4:57 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:47 pm Because to continual doubt is to result in a regress resulting in the form of a line. This form cannot be doubt as it is accepted as is. To doubt the line results in further linear regress only proving the line to exist. This form, which underlies all of reasoning, acts as a filter in the respect is seperates some things from another.

Are you sure that it has the form of a line? Why should I accept it as is? You can think that now I am doing a linear regress, but this is just your opinion, not mine. I don’t think at all that the line exists: for me it is just your way of thinking. If you decide that your way of thinking is out of doubt, this doesn’t make it objectively out of doubt: it is just your decision not to exit from your perspective. When somebody makes this decision, it is really impossibile to doubt about it, simply because that person decides not to consider the doubt. I don’t keep myself closed in my perspective of doubting, because I doubt about it: I am not sure at all that now I am doubting and even the statement “I am not sure” is only apparently a certain statement because it forced by the structures if the language; so, I would like everybody do consider my words not as statements, but just as instintive expressions of a feeling, I am not sure at all what they are, if they exist, and I am not sure that I am not sure.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 4:16 pm This means assuming that what is logic is real and what is not logic is not real. In other words, you assume that reality obeys to human logic, while, actually, what happens is the opposite: we observe reality and try to build this mental isntrument, that we call “logic”, to understand it, because our brain is too limited, and without instruments like logic, language, reasoning, it would just feel confused, overwelmed by the complexity, richness and inconsistency of what we call “reality”, but actually we don’t know what it is.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 4:16 pm This means assuming that what is logic is real and what is not logic is not real. In other words, you assume that reality obeys to human logic, while, actually, what happens is the opposite: we observe reality and try to build this mental isntrument, that we call “logic”, to understand it, because our brain is too limited, and without instruments like logic, language, reasoning, it would just feel confused, overwelmed by the complexity, richness and inconsistency of what we call “reality”, but actually we don’t know what it is.

Angelo Cannata wrote: ↑Tue Aug 17, 2021 8:42 pm When I use the word “reality”, I refer to the human illusion of being able to think of a world external and independent from our mind. It is an illusion, because it is based on ignoring the dependence of this idea from our brain.