| > Given we assume Kantian the framework you just outlined Do you have an alternate theory, something like a central broadcasting station of reality and the mind is a receiver? I'm open to the idea, but it is pseudo-scientific and therefore incorrect (or so it is regularly implied and perceived, if not outright asserted as fact). [Disclosure: here (and therefore incorrect) I am making a joke.] > The usual response to this is that if you can't possess omniscient knowledge of reality, how could you possibly make a statement about reality a) Because absolute knowledge is not a requirement for some knowledge. b) Statements do not have to be true (in fact, most aren't absolutely true in a JTB sense) > Imo the way out of this: talk about things being true in the context of logic only... How do you account for: a) the unknown? b) the known delusional nature of the mind? I'm not saying that it can't be done, but I'm curious how you would go about it. > the second causality comes into the picture the word "true" means something entirely different. At runtime yes, but philosophy has gone through this problem with extreme diligence - using logic, epistemology, and a few other techniques, it would be pretty easy to eliminate most flawed arguments and propositions (I bet 5 rules/methods would be enough to eliminate 80%). Eliminating incorrectness or unsoundness does not mean that you will convince everyone to realign their beliefs, but that is not a requirement for arriving at maximally possible correctness....and, "unknown" is a valid and very common form of correctness, that most people are not able to reach on certain topics. > Trying to reconcile the two is like trying to write a mathematical proof of the existence of God A whale and a mouse are both mammals, but a whale is not equal to a mouse. Also: arguments like this (which tend to be extremely persuasive, and often account for a non-trivial amount of arguments) could be easily eliminated with a simple rule. |
I wasn't really trying to make an argument, it's more of a heuristic if anything
> How do you account for...
> a) the unknown?
just do whatever habit says to do (and don't call it the truth)
> b) the known delusional nature of the mind?
this is a fun one. give the delusional mind a pen, paper, and 20 years and maybe they'll write the next phenomenology of spirit and trigger world war III