(July 20, 2012 at 1:24 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I really read your post and tried to respond honestly. I am sorry if I overlooked something. I appreciate you taking the time to respond again, but I do not agree with you that you assume certain basic beliefs simply because you must do so to live your life. I think you accept these beliefs because you actually think they are true, not just because you think that they are practical to accept. Even if it is only .0000000001% of your beliefs that you accept as assumption, you must build upon this .000000001% just about every belief you hold, so it is quite significant.
By basic logical truths I mean things like the law of non-contradiction--probably the most basic of all logical laws. It states that A cannot be both A and not-A in the same time and in the same sense. It seems to me, and I believe most all philosophers agree with me that logical laws like this law cannot be demonstrated without assuming it.
You are actually more right than wrong. I feel these beliefs to be true, to an extent. They are the weakest beliefs I have, but like you said, they constitute a huge portion of my belief structure. The justification for the belief is typically the need for the belief because the belief in question is an a priori issue. Sometimes that issue is self evidence. Meanings of words, memory, perception- these are things that can't be justified.
Derrida and Rorty have ripped some foundationalist principals to shreds, being post structuralist.
Regardless, either you suppose these truths with me, or you live in the world of a radical skeptic.
(July 20, 2012 at 1:24 am)Jeffonthenet Wrote: I read your post. Please stop accusing me. You keep claiming I am ignoring your points, and I am really trying to do the exact opposite, so I don't think discussing with you is really helpful for either of us so I cannot promise more responses to you.
I was being quite humble, I felt. that wasn't a challenge to your reading abilities nor your comprehension. I genuinely thought you and I had either read different things or that I simply didn't understand what you were trying to say. I still don't know.
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
