| Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | Home |
|
|
inexpressible.com |
|
| Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | Home | | |
| Challenge the Philosophy - Entries 379-384 |
Definitions of the principal terms used in the competition:
"We cannot truly know": our inability to more reasonably show how we can know something in entirety. For further explanation, and explanation of "know", see "we cannot truly know".
"If you have not received this message, please place an 'x'
in the box below:
"Who we are": the entire make-up of ourselves as human beings, including the fundamental level of our being (viz., essence, life-force) from our limited perspective.
For further explanation see who we are.
"Be": the state of living or existing with who we are, as in fundamental level of being (viz., essence, life-force), as the basis.
"Existence": things and life-forms occupying space.
"We": all Homo sapiens who are existing, regardless of level of functionality.
"Overcome": more reasonable refutation of the proposition, "we cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time". "More reasonable refutation" entails using reason in the most objective manner possible, and includes the arguments stated in the entries and
disputes submitted to the "Challenge the Philosophy" competition, and the arguments stated in the responses to them. Also, one idea or position is deemed more reasonable than another idea or position if it is more sound and consistent. (Overcoming the proposition can entail more reasonably refuting its terms and the concepts behind them.)
379. Entry:
Uncle Al November 27 2002
Supplementary explanation as requested by the Inexpressible Committee:
"Recursion, cf: recursion. If a village barber shaves every man who does not shave himself, who shaves the barber? Does the null set contain itself?
The question you pose is not unanswerable for its content, it is not answerable for its form.
If you have not received this message, please place an 'x' in the box below:
Etc."
The question the Challenge is posing is how can the proposition, "we cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time" be more reasonably overcome. It is a question of "content" because the question is based on "how" with no fixed premises. Viz., the only requirement for overcoming the proposition is establishing more reasonable (antagonistic) reasons, (and since you think the proposition can be overcome based on "content", we would like to know how).
To illustrate further, your examples of recursion are based partly on the subordinating conjunction "if" (or fixed premise), which establishes the ground for recursion. However, the challenge question is not based on "if", but is based solely on "how".
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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
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 375-378 Entries 385-389
| Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | Home | |