RE: Question about "faith"
September 11, 2020 at 2:05 pm
(This post was last modified: September 11, 2020 at 2:20 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
I think that you and I can do better than some boilerplate emotivist/cognitivist bit
You answered your own question in asking it, anyway. -If- we have no other way of "knowing", than feeling like we know, then we don't know anything. There are no true cognitive statements. "I am alive" is not knowledge, it's not true - it's just a feeling.
Again, knowledge and faith are not equivalent, and no amount of unfortunate mistakes or happy accidents of knowledge and faith could make it otherwise. Even in the case of our having nothing other than feelings - that would be us being incapable of knowledge, not the two being equivalent. There's more than a little bit of irony in a disagreement (or in questions over a disagreement) from a non-cognitivist pov, don't you think? Are you expecting a position informed by facts from a creature incapable of knowledge? Something logical that proceeds from true (or at least sound) cognitive propositions?
Engaging in the discussion, all by itself, reduces the objection to a stolen concept. Requiring the truth of what we're arguing against. We'd have to require the proposition "we know what we know on account of feeling like we know" to be cognitively true. This sort of objection well and truly reduces to a comment on how, on account of some people being bad at math, there is no fact of two and two. It's true enough of people, but not true of facts, or of two and two.
You answered your own question in asking it, anyway. -If- we have no other way of "knowing", than feeling like we know, then we don't know anything. There are no true cognitive statements. "I am alive" is not knowledge, it's not true - it's just a feeling.
Again, knowledge and faith are not equivalent, and no amount of unfortunate mistakes or happy accidents of knowledge and faith could make it otherwise. Even in the case of our having nothing other than feelings - that would be us being incapable of knowledge, not the two being equivalent. There's more than a little bit of irony in a disagreement (or in questions over a disagreement) from a non-cognitivist pov, don't you think? Are you expecting a position informed by facts from a creature incapable of knowledge? Something logical that proceeds from true (or at least sound) cognitive propositions?
Engaging in the discussion, all by itself, reduces the objection to a stolen concept. Requiring the truth of what we're arguing against. We'd have to require the proposition "we know what we know on account of feeling like we know" to be cognitively true. This sort of objection well and truly reduces to a comment on how, on account of some people being bad at math, there is no fact of two and two. It's true enough of people, but not true of facts, or of two and two.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
