Agrippa's trilemma and the impossibility of knoweldge

[littlebabyjesus]

it is only enough to show that you can believe that they exist

But your belief can only exist if these concepts are true. You have shown that you can believe that there is something rather than nothing. This belief constitutes something and so proves the statement that there is something rather than nothing.

 

[treefrog]

There is a place for this you know.

www.livejournal.com.

I think a blog is better suited to your rather unique needs.

 

[Crispy]

There is a place for this you know.

www.livejournal.com.

I think a blog is better suited to your rather unique needs.

Actually, all that's needed is a single static page with 'nothing' in 72pt arial in the middle of it.

 

[Dillinger4]

Max flips through another philosophy text book.

 

[treefrog]

ah, if only he heeded his own words and wrote and did nothing...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Actually, all that's needed is a single static page with 'nothing' in 72pt arial in the middle of it.

Written in white on a white background.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

Written in white on a white background.

still not nearly minimalist enough

 

[max_freakout]

There is a place for this you know.

www.livejournal.com.

I think a blog is better suited to your rather unique needs.

id rather do a podcast than a blog

 

[Dillinger4]

Look, i-have-no-idea can use font formatting and the dictionary! isn't she clever?

*pat on her head*

Run along

 

[Dillinger4]

id rather do a podcast than a blog

Why don't you just do something, ANYTHING else than spam your bullshit nonsense?

 

[max_freakout]

But your belief can only exist if these concepts are true. You have shown that you can believe that there is something rather than nothing. This belief constitutes something and so proves the statement that there is something rather than nothing.

but you could also believe that there is nothing rather than something

 

[Dillinger4]

*sob*

 

[littlebabyjesus]

but you could also believe that there is nothing rather than something

You could. This belief would still constitute something and therefore show that there is something rather than nothing.

 

[moomoo]

Max, could you explain very simply what on earth you are going on about please?

 

[max_freakout]

You could. This belief would still constitute something and therefore show that there is something rather than nothing.

if that is the case, then how could you believe it?


ie how can you believe something which 'shows' itself not to be true?

 

[Crispy]

Max, could you explain very simply what on earth you are going on about please?

He can't, because it's all self-refferential onanistic bullshit with no basis in, or affect on, the real world.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

if that is the case, then how could you believe it?


ie how can you believe something which 'shows' itself not to be true?

You appear capable of believing all kinds of things that are not true - yet you continue believing them.

 

[max_freakout]

Max, could you explain very simply what on earth you are going on about please?

agrippa's trilemma, which is a major cornerstone in the study of epistemology, seems to demonstrate very succinctly why knowledge is impossible

 

[El Jefe]

agrippa's trilemma, which is a major cornerstone in the study of epistemology, seems to demonstrate very succinctly why knowledge is impossible

And yet, even that sentence contains an untenable contradiction.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

Look, i-have-no-idea can use font formatting and the dictionary! isn't she clever?

*pat on her head*

Run along

!

 

[max_freakout]

He can't, because it's all self-refferential onanistic bullshit with no basis in, or affect on, the real world.

agrippa's trilemma had a major effect on the 'real world' of academic epistemology

 

[rover07]

And yet, even that sentence contains an untenable contradiction.

Exactly right, Agrippas theory is plain wrong.

A bit like starting a mathematical theory by saying,

"Zero equals one therefore....."

 

[nosos]

Why is it 'plain wrong'? I think Max is talking shit on this thread but I think the trillema is a pretty good indication of how all argument is situated. Claims are always made by specific people in specific ways in specific contexts. Any claim to universality - to absolute and unquestionable foundations, as opposed to justification by way of other claims or rearticulation of the same claim - is suspect because it renders this social dimension opaque. There can never be foundational claims because we never start from scratch. Knowledge is a collaborative project that emerges through shared rational endevour. It's not a zero-sum property of isolated claims.

 

[Crispy]

Why is it 'plain wrong'? I think Max is talking shit on this thread but I think the trillema is a pretty good indication of how all argument is situated. Claims are always made by specific people in specific ways in specific contexts. Any claim to universality - to absolute and unquestionable foundations, as opposed to justification by way of other claims or rearticulation of the same claim - is suspect because it renders this social dimension opaque. There can never be foundational claims because we never start from scratch. Knowledge is a collaborative project that emerges through shared rational endevour. It's not a zero-sum property of isolated claims.

well, quite. 'it's all relative'
which is not the same as 'it's all meaningless'

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Why is it 'plain wrong'? I think Max is talking shit on this thread but I think the trillema is a pretty good indication of how all argument is situated. Claims are always made by specific people in specific ways in specific contexts. Any claim to universality - to absolute and unquestionable foundations, as opposed to justification by way of other claims or rearticulation of the same claim - is suspect because it renders this social dimension opaque.

What about the universality of the claim that there is something rather than nothing, a claim that is proved by the fact that the claim can be made.

 

[nosos]

which is not the same as 'it's all meaningless'

Yeah completely. In fact the vacuous universalism drives moral relativism, when people fixated on a universalistic and certain criterion of knowledge see, in the absense of such a criterion, meaninglessness and nihilism. We can have perfectly rational arguments. It's just that reality (formerly God) is a pretty poor choice as a final and absolute ajudicator.

 

[nosos]

What about the universality of the claim that there is something rather than nothing, a claim that is proved by the fact that the claim can be made.

I agree with it. I think that sort of transcendental argument provide the firmest foundations you can get.

 

[rover07]

Reality is a perfectly good choice for deciding knowledge.

 

[rover07]

Ignoring reality is Agrippas error.

 

[nosos]

But data underdetermines theory. If two people generate different theories from the same set of data, reality isn't going to decide which is the better theory. That only happens when one party persuades the other of its superiority on the basis of rational criteria e.g. simplicity, generalisabiility, coherence etc.