|
Posted by stan on August 21, 2008, 7:14 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Publius wrote:
> 806e-dc4d6d752c84@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>> 7. So, there can be no basic empirical beliefs.
>>
>> This seems to eliminate the possibility of emperical justification of
>> any and all emperical beliefs. But it can lead to this untruthfullness
>> of human beliefs in three ways which deal with the apparent "regress"
>> of one belief depending upon another which depends upon another and so
>> on:
>>
>> If the regress of emperical justification does not terminate in basic
>> emperical beliefs, then it must either:
>>
>> (1) terminate in unjustified beleifs
>>
>> (2) go on infinitely (without circularity)
>>
>> (3) circle back upon itself in some way.
Why do you think beliefs move? A quick look at the news would seem to
indicate that many or even most people are completely impervious to
thought and that would surely limit this movement significantly. If
there were any doubt about the inability of thought to travel I would
think even a few minutes with usenet would surely remove all doubt.
> The argument goes astray with #4. If I perceive a red apple, then I believe
> the apple perceived is red. That belief is not a conclusion derived from
> any premises, but from the percept itself. Empirical beliefs are self-
> justifying; I cannot doubt that I am perceiving something red in the shape
> of an apple. I may well have doubts about what causes that percept, but I
> cannot doubt that I have it. What may be causing it is another question.
Cogito ergo sum? Or for those of you who didn't ride a chariot to
school; I think therefore I am? Isn't it surprising how hard it is to
come up with a truly original idea or question?
|