= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Ishaan comments on My Skepticism - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (100)
Yes, that is precisely the relevant question - and my answer is that there's no non-circular justification for a mind's thoughts and preferences (moral or otherwise), and so for both practical and theoretical purposes we must operate on a sort of "faith" that there is some validity to at least some of our faculties, admitting that it is ultimately just simple faith that lies at the bottom of it all. (Not faith as in "believing without evidence", but faith as in "there shall never be any further evidence or justification for this, yet I find that I am pursuaded of it / do believe it is really good.)
It's not really that bad or complex - all you have to believe in is the concept of justification and evidence itself. To attempt to go deeper is to ask justification for the concept of justification, and evidence for what is or is not evidence, and that's nonsense.
Ostensibly, those are meaningful questions. It would be comvemeimt if any question you couldn't answer was nonsense, but...
Agreed, I don't think the question is meaningless. I do, however, think that it's "provably" unanswerable (assuming you provisionally accept all the premises that go into proving things)
But that isn't the same thing at all. If you have a fiundationalistic epistemic structure resting on proveably unprovable foundations, you are in big trouble.