= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Carinthium comments on Skepticism about Probability - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (129)
But you are not applying it to everything. You have a strong belief in a platonic ideal of rationality on which you base your concept.
Take the buddhists who actually don't attach themselves to mental concepts. They have sayings such as: "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him".
You are not willing that you don't know what skepticism happens to be because you have attachement to it. This is exactly what Wittengsteins sentence is about. We shouldn't talk about those concepts.
The buddhists also don't take in a rational sense about it. They meditate and have a bunch of koans but they are mystics. You just don't get to be a platonic idealist and no mystic and have skepticism be valid.
Not exactly Platonic- I have no belief whatsoever, on faith or reason, in ideal forms. As for why rationalism, I believe in it because rationalist arguments in this sense can be inherently self-justifying. This comes from starting from no assumptions.
However, I then show that such rationality fails in the long run to skeptical arguments of it's own sort, just as other types of rationality do. I focus on it because it is the only one with a halfway credible answer to skepticism.
I have already shown I know what skepticism is- not knowing anything whatsoever. You haven't refuted this argument, given that "I don't know" is a valid Epistemic state.
Those two positions contradict each other. You can't have both. You claim at the same time to believe that you know what skepticism happens to be and that you know nothing.
I said earlier that I believe that rationally speaking, skepticism proves itself correct and ordinary ideas of rationalism prove themselves self-refuting. However, I believe on faith (in the religious sense) that skepticism is false, and have beliefs on faith accordingly.
Therefore, I sort of believe in a double truth, but in a coherent fashion.