Challenge the Philosophy - Commemoration of Nicholas Covelli

Nicholas Covelli, a frequent participant of Challenge the Philosophy Competition 1, was tragically killed in February, 2003. (On a very cold early morning in February 2003, Nicholas was bloody, barefoot, dazed and confused, yelling for help to get to a hospital, after having been assaulted. A Kern County Sheriff's Department deputy in Frazier Park, CA arrived before the ambulance; he shot and killed Nicholas who was totally unarmed and injured. Anyone who has ANY information regarding this tragic incident, please contact help.)

Covelli's submissions (Entries 188, 318, 319, 380, 381, 382, 383, 384) to Challenge the Philosophy Competition 1 are as follows:

188. Entry:

Nicholas Covelli March 3 2001

Supplementary Comment in reply to the initial response by the Inexpressible Committee:

"We would like to clarify that "who we are" as defined in the competition refers to our fundamental level of being. So it does not necessarily follow that we need to know who we are in order to be who we are. Though we acknowledge that we need some conception of who we are, in order to be who we are."

Comment:

"But you see... My point is that knowing who we are is part of our fundamental being...Reasoning and thinking is a human instinct. Our inability to know is our inability to be who we are. Because part of being is knowing, and part of knowing is being. This is a duality that has been separated by man's avoidance of nature; which is in part, thinking. Thought, is a human instinct. What derives from thought??? Reason. What derives from reason? Knowledge. It follows that since we are abiding by a human instinct, (thinking) then we are able to become a fundamental human being. Hence, I would also like to point out that in order for humans to achieve a "fundamental level of being" they must follow their innate natural human instinct, which is thought."

Response:

To claim that thought as form is the same as human instinct, you need to show how something conscious can be something unconscious, and explain how knowing, which is not a necessity for being, is the same as being. Also, you need to explain the origin of thought. (i.e. where does thought come from? If you claim that thought is simply part of us ourselves, you need to reconcile this claim with the apparent progressive nature of thought, the non-necessity of knowing for being as mentioned, and the fact that we appear to derive thought through our sensory of the external world.) For a similar entry see Entry 182.

Other issue:

It does not make sense that reason derives from thought, and knowledge derives from reason and thought, because we cannot have thought, reason, or knowledge, without the other two. For example, how can you have a thought, thereby know that you do, without some form of reasoning and knowing?

318. Entry:

Continuation of Entry 188

"You said ‘who we are’ refers to our fundamental level of being...

Well... Being who we are and knowing who we are is the fundamental level of a human's being..."

Nicholas Covelli February 2 2002

Response:

Being who we are and knowing who we are is a fundamental level of being in the sense that being who we are and knowing who we are are dependent on each other viz., barring particular situations like while asleep or as a fetus, we apparently cannot have one without the other, or you say in Entry 188, they are in a "co-existent relationship". However, it does not follow that we have to truly know who we are in order to be who we are. We can meet the dependency requirement by only knowing who we are with limited truth-value.

319. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 318

"The proposition states that we cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time... If we can meet the dependency requirement by only knowing who we are with limited truth value, then that would mean we are knowing and being ‘in part.’"

Nicholas Covelli February 4 2002

Response:

Yes, we agree that if we can meet the dependency requirement by only knowing with limited truth-value who we are in part, we would [not truly] know and be who we are in part. But that is basically what the proposition is saying viz., all we can more reasonably know of who we are, in part or in whole, is knowledge with limited truth-value. So your challenge if anything reinforces the proposition. However, if you take your challenge to another level, and more reasonably show that we can truly know who we are in part, the proposition would overcome. For example, if you more reasonably show that "your hand made up of four fingers and a thumb" is true part knowledge of who you are, the proposition would be overcome.

380. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 318

"Yes, we can meet the dependency requirement by only knowing who we are with limited truth-value, but that does not mean we cannot truly know and be who we are because truth is only limited to what we can know of the truth..."

covelli November 29 2002

Response:

We agree that meeting the dependency requirement with limited truth-value, does not mean that we cannot truly know and be who we are. 1 However, it does not mean we can truly know and be who we are either. We are left with the evaluation of whether or not we can truly know and be who we are, which take us to the Competition (and the more reasonable reasons). In defense of the proposition we have listed nine arguments at Defense of Proposition. Can you more reasonably refute these reasons? What is the ground for self-knowledge with absolute truth-value?

Note, it should be emphasized that our apparent inability to know with absolute truth-value and know that we do, does not establish knowledge with absolute truth-value or non-absolute truth-value. It establishes that we must determine the truth-value of knowledge from our perspective.

Also, you are assuming that "truth is only limited to what we can know of the truth". In other words, according to your position, your knowledge of truth is from a position of not knowing you know.

Further, establishing the possibility of overcoming the proposition, as you have done, falls short of actually overcoming the proposition.

_________________________

1. Dependency requirement refers to the "co-existent relationship" between being who we are and knowing who we are. Viz., barring particular situations like sleeping or existing as a fetus, we cannot have being who we are or knowing who we are without the other.

381. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 380

"I am trying to clarify that the truth value of knowledge from our perspective is only limited to what we can know of that truth value...

This position comes from knowing that we currently cannot truly know and be who we are and by understanding that we can truly know and be who we are because our truth value is only limited to what we can know of it..."

covelli November 30 2002

Response:

We would say that the truth-value of knowledge from our perspective is not "limited" to what we can know of truth-value, but is contingent on what we can know of truth-value 1, because apparently we cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are, and therefore all we can know is what we know, including what we know of the truth-value of knowledge. Also, since truth-value is a conscious phenomenon, the nature of truth-value stems from our consciousness or what we can know of truth-value.

_________________________

1. We choose the term contingent over limitation because it is possible we can know with absolute truth-value; so it follows that what we can know may not be limited.

382. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 381

"Exactly... so, if what we can know may not be limited then wouldn't it follow that we can truly know and be who we are because what we can know may not be limited???

However, it does not follow that all we can know is what we know because (as you pointed out) what we can know may not be limited..."

covelli December 1 2002

Response:

Just because what we know of who we are may have absolute truth-value, it does not follow that what we know of who we are has absolute truth-value. All that is established is that it is possible to know who we are with absolute truth-value.

Also, even though what we know may have absolute truth-value (i.e. "may not be limited"), we can still only know based on what we know. If you disagree, please explain how we can get outside of our minds and know that we are.

383. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 382

"Tis true, we can only know based on what we know... but if we know that knowing truth is not a static process, then the pursuit of constant absolute-truth will eventually bring us to absolutely, truly knowing and being who we are..."

covelli December 1 2002

Response:

Just because knowing knowledge with absolute truth-value is apparently a dynamic process (viz., we can only know based on what we know), how do you more reasonably know that the "pursuit" of a "constant absolute truth" will eventually bring us to self-knowledge with absolute truth-value? Yes, it is possible, but how is it more reasonable? How is the existence of knowledge with absolute truth-value we know more reasonable than the non-existence of knowledge with absolute truth-value we know?

384. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 383

"It is not only possible, it is inevitable because knowledge of absolute truth is not static, and so knowledge of absolute truth-value continues to grow as it is pursued..."

covelli December 2 2002

Response:

You are assuming that knowledge with absolute truth-value is not static. Yes, more reasonably knowledge with absolute truth-value, if it exists, is not static (viz., "what we can know is based on what we know..."), but you have yet to establish the existence of knowledge with absolute truth-value. In other words, your "is" is grounded on an assumption (or possibility), rather than more reasonableness.

Entries 386-396

| Competition 1 | Comp 1 Entries: 552- | Competition 2 | Competition 3 | US Pres. Deter. | US Pres. Deter. Process | | Reasons Accepted: 1-6 | MessageBoard | Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | Home | | LID 280