(January 15, 2018 at 1:47 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Read John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding . In it Locke uses LOGIC to support the epistemological value of empiricism--not evidence.I've read Locke before. Eh, not super impressed. Anyway, I'm not challenging the value of empiricism. All I did was make a joke, which seems to be hard to understand for some reason.
Quote:I disagree. Objective people can know things. Why do you think otherwise?
How can you know something to be true and be objective at the same time?
2+2=4 is true, so are you open to other interpretations? Are you seeking evidence to disprove the assertion? Why would you when you know it to be true? If you were seeking contrary evidence, then that action would be evidence that you do not know it to be true.
You can't know atheism to be true and be skeptical of it at the same time because it's a contradiction in terms and would constitute cognitive dissonance. Either you're agnostic and you don't know for sure or you're atheist and you know for sure.
There is a lot of wisdom in not clinging to ideologies. If nothing else, when you're wrong, it's a cinch to admit it. But if you're married to your ideas, the divorce is rough.
Quote:Have you ever studied ancient Greek skepticism? I think you'd like it.Maybe I would, but I usually prefer to reason on my own.
