| Challenge the Philosophy Competition 1 - Entries 533-537 |
Definitions of the principal terms used in the competition:
"We cannot [more reasonably] truly know": our inability to more soundly and consistently show how we can know something in entirety. For further explanation, and explanation of "know", see "cannot truly know".
Reply to the response to Entry 531
Jack Ferguson March 6 2005
How are limited (i.e. incomplete) perspectives overcome by “reason, logic and evidence”? What is your basis for correlating “reason, logic and evidence” with completion?
Why is it necessary that “any statements are true, false, or nonsense”? What is this “true” and “false” you are referring to in terms of completion/incompletion?
In response to your question “how do you know your knowledge is incomplete or not when all you know is incomplete?”, we answer that we more reasonably know our knowledge (of who we are) is incomplete, and therefore, it is possible that our knowledge may be complete without us knowing that it is.
Since Challenge Proposition 1 is based on our limited (i.e. incomplete) perspective, we make no claim that Proposition 1 is “true”. We claim that Proposition 1 is more reasonable than antagonistic propositions.
We do not claim with “certainty”, as you contend, that Proposition 1 is limited/uncertain. We claim more reasonably that Proposition 1 is limited/uncertain, which means as mentioned it is possible Proposition 1 is not limited/uncertain.
Reply to the response to Entry 532
“All our (yours as well) propositions being limited in their scope owing to the standpoint of shortsighted and peripheral vision would be like a flawed or defective measuring device. If the same defective device were used obviously the measurements made subsequently also end up being defective. We also see time and again new theories emerging in areas of science to describe the objective phenomena. In so doing all one has to do is to pick up the shortcomings or discrepancies in the old theory and try to look into them more fundamentally. Thus Quantum Mechanics came into being while looking into black body radiation, for example. It does not mean that the old theory is entirely wrong altogether. While it may explain things in general it might be inadequate and far from being exact and may be incapable of dealing with certain situations. It does not mean that the new theory ought to be perfect. Not at all - it may have to be less imperfect only and ride high for a while, to get modified by yet another new theory once again! This process can be never-ending indeed. Similarly one can deal with matters which you have brought up through your propositions. What I have tried to do so far in many different ways is just to highlight the deficiency or inadequacy therein and possible flawed method of evaluation using a defective yardstick. All your (or anybody else's) propositions imply is NOT the impossibility or insurmountability of some truth but only the underlying inadequacy in the logic itself. In a nutshell, a serious scholar who has all the tools of science and logic at his/her disposal could do better only with an open mind willing to look at things more fundamentally as much as possible and reject his/her method if absurd results emerge. All fields of objective inquiry or sciences or subjective inquiry or philosophy, metaphysics, psychology, etc… try to merge asymptotically at the state prior to the arising of ‘I’ in a never-ending process. As explained before, such an ultimate state is rather a dynamic state where there is no observer and nothing to be observed. Only ‘observing’ or unwavering total ‘attention’ remains which would be neither subjective nor objective. When our inquiry starts and ends with the conviction. ‘I know’ then the downfall starts as ‘I’ is eluding and what can be known becomes easily disputable owing to infinite variations as perceived by very many. On the other hand ‘Don't Know’ would be the attitude (similar to what happens in our childhood) nothing is known neither I nor anything implying humility and notionless state of a pure mind retaing its sense of wonders of the unknown with infinte inherent possibilities and highest potential for creativity. That is how the state of ‘still mind’ and childhood state of fearlessness, spontaeinity and purity and innocence all fit in. In such an attitude, the veil covering the truth as void or ignorance is transparent. The slightest movement due to ‘I’ preceding seeds of action as thoughts or actions themselves cause agitation thereof or our notions keep coating layers over this veil. While meditation, prayer or social service may help to minimize the agitations or clean up the transparency must be restored by a change in the attitude towards one's own childhood. Such attempts being analog in nature, yet, it does not guarantee the quantum leap of a digital transformation of being at the state prior to ‘I’ which happens in everyone's life every day while in a state of deep sleep. It may just happen in a flash anytime only effortlessly and until then any proposition is all right. It does not really matter.”
R. Rangan March 8 2005
Your contentions that human conscious awareness vis-à-vis conscious knowledge is a “defective measuring device”, and logic itself is “inadequate”, are only valid (in terms of Competition 1) if you can more reasonably demonstrate another measuring device devoid of similar defections. Viz., if human conscious awareness is all we have to know from, then its flaws or defections are non-existent because that is all we can know from.
Regarding your description (from your limited conscious perspective) of an “observing” outside of the realm of conscious knowledge, you have yet to more reasonably explain how you or anyone else can observe if there is “nothing” to observe, and be attentive if there is “nothing” to be attentive to. Moreover, it is unclear to us how you or anyone else can know without the so-called arising of “I” or similar conception. How do you more reasonably know without “I”? If you refer to your experience in a moment of deep meditation whereby your mind is still, then we respond that your experience is necessarily contingent on your subjective interpretation. (Viz., there is no experience without our interpretation of sensations, feelings etc. Response to Entry 524).
Note, “a childhood state of fearlessness, spontaneity, and purity and innocence”, being conscious phenomenon, can only be known from the realm of conscious knowledge, and thereby according to your position the childhood state is tainted by “I”. This point applies to anything we know. So you are left with the challenge of more reasonably demonstrating how you can get outside of the realm of conscious knowledge and know that you are. If you cannot, then your position is grounded on your subjective interpretation of experience, which relegates your position to a mere possibility.
Reply to the response to Entry 533
Jack Ferguson March 9 2005
Proposition 1 is asserted not as a “true” or “false” statement, but as a more reasonable statement. (I.e. a statement which is more sound and consistent than antagonistic statements.) Therefore, in the context of Competition 1, reason refers to degrees of reasonableness (i.e. more, less, or equal) based on comparative soundness and consistency. There is no necessity that reason refers to truth or falsity, especially when no complete truth or falsity can more reasonably be established.
Your contention that verification necessarily corresponds to truth or falsity, overlooks that there is (apparently) no absolute or complete verification, and therefore unless proven otherwise, there will always be doubt or uncertainty, no matter how insignificant, regarding verification.
Just because we claim Proposition 1 is uncertain, it does not necessarily follow that Proposition 1 is certain (in the sense that Proposition 1 is uncertain). No. We are not claiming Proposition 1 is (completely) uncertain; we are claiming that Proposition 1 is (more reasonably) uncertain, and therefore, Proposition 1 is only certain in its uncertainty within limits (or the comparative soundness and consistency of the arguments for and against the proposition).
In short, based on Proposition 1 and the arguments supporting it, we do not (more reasonably) completely know who we are. We have (more reasonably) no (complete) certainty of who we are, just as we have (more reasonably) no (complete) uncertainty of who we are. We have more reasonable reasons that we do not (completely) know who we are.
The challenge you face is to more reasonably demonstrate that “true” and “false” are necessary aspects of reason, and it would help clarify your position if you define true and false. The fact that you have declined on defining these principle terms of your argument suggests weakness in your position. Perhaps, you realize that as soon as you define true and false, your position from lack of a complete ground succumbs to contradiction.
Reply to the response to Entry 535
Jack Ferguson March 11 2005
Your criticism of Proposition 1 for its circularity (i.e. “P is uncertain, therefore P is uncertain in the sense that P is uncertain. Tautology.”) is cancelled out by the (apparent) circularity of any other proposition.
Proposition 1 is asserted from our limited, incomplete perspective, and therefore, the proposition is not an assertion of truth (or complete knowledge). It is an assertion of more reasonable knowledge (whereby more reasonable refers to Proposition 1 itself being more sound and consistent than antagonistic propositions).
Your challenge which centers on the notions of truth and false, and verification (the defining term for true and false), falls short of overcoming Proposition 1, because (a) you have not more reasonably established that true and false are necessary aspects of reason, and (b) there is apparently no complete, absolute verification (from our perspective), and therefore, there is apparently no complete, absolute truth or falsity (from our perspective).
Reasonableness, in the context of Competition 1, refers to possibility. So more reasonableness refers to more possibility, which is established through a comparison of positions based on soundness and consistency. Therefore, we are proposing that Proposition 1 is more possible than antagonistic propositions.
Reply to the response to Entry 536
Jack Ferguson March 13 2005
Your interpretation of our usage of reasonableness as defined by possibility is incorrect. Reasonableness or possibility is not exclusive to imagination as you contend. Rather, reasonableness is inclusive of all human thought, whether it is imagined or verified, so that the main determinate of reasonableness is our conscious awareness of a thought. Therefore, reasonableness or possibility refers to what is reasoned, regardless of the apparent absurdity of what is reasoned like a billion angels standing on one’s fingertip. Consequently, the notion of unreasonableness refers to what is not reasoned, and therefore to what does not exist from our perspective. Hence, unreasonableness is neither possible nor impossible. And the notion of more or less reasonableness takes us beyond simply possibility.
In contrast, your notion of “truth and falsity through verification” is grounded on the apparent incompletion of verification, thereby erroneously equates true and false with verification or the lack of. Moreover, as mentioned in the response to Entry 536, the apparent incompletion of verification self-defeats your challenge of Proposition 1. Viz., since verification is apparently incomplete and a basis for establishing true and false, it follows that any claim of true knowledge of who we are is either incorrect or the notion of true refers to verified incompleteness.
"Who we are": the entire make-up of ourselves as human beings. For further explanation see who we are.
"Be": the state of living or existing.
"Existence": things and life-forms occupying space.
"We": all Homo sapiens who are existing, regardless of level of functionality.
"At the same time": the simultaneous occurrence of true knowledge of who we are, in part or in whole, and being who we are.
"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 this "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, if the meaning of the proposition itself is significantly altered through the incorporation of new terms and concepts.)
533. Entry:
“Because Challenge proposition 1 is asserted from our limited (or incomplete) perspective*, the proposition makes no claim of truth or falsity. Therefore, your argument premised on Proposition 1 making true and false claims is not correct. (Excerpt from the response to Entry 531)
Limited perspectives are overcome through reason, logic and evidence, and any statement is either true, false, or nonsense. We can know the truth from our limited perspectives. Your statements are claims of truth and falsity, else your above statements are neither true or false, hence nonsense. So are the above statements true, false or nonsense?
In short, Challenge Proposition 1 proposes that we cannot more reasonably completely know who we are. But in doing so, the proposition proposes as well that we can know who we are in a limited, incomplete sense. So if Proposition 1 is valid within limits, we have incomplete knowledge of who we are, with the possibility that we may have complete knowledge of who we are without (completely) knowing that we do. In other words, Proposition 1 is proposing within limits that more reasonably all knowledge of who we are is incomplete, or more reasonably there is no complete knowledge of who we are. (Excerpt from the response to Entry 531)
How do you know your knowledge is incomplete or not when all you know is incomplete? By your own admissions, all you know are your limited statements, but then you will remember that since they are neither true or false, they are nonsense. Your statements are analytic by definition and consistency and are meaningless because they are neither true nor false, else nonsense, or synthetic and are a claim to explain reality or not, then false or not, or meaningless nonsense.
From the definitions of the principle terms (of Proposition 1), it states that "we cannot [more reasonably] truly know" refers to our inability to more soundly and consistently show we can know something in entirety. Also, the concept of more reasonableness, an integral part of Proposition 1, refers to the (more or less) soundness and consistency of a reason/position based on comparison to other reasons/positions. Hence, more reasonableness due to its comparative aspect, is limited. (I.e. there is no claim of truth or falsity.) (Excerpt from the response to Entry 531)
If neither true nor false, your statements are entirely self-referencing or meaningless linguistic constructions. Since your statements are limited to your perspective, then on what basis do you make the above statements are true? Perhaps they are somewhat true and somewhat false, but you are not sure.
Further, in the opening statement of Proposition 1, it states by the author of the proposition that he is "not fully certain" of the proposition’s validity, which then implies that the proposition is asserted within limits. (Excerpt from the response to Entry 531)
Limits are established by truth or falsity, else the limits vary and cannot be established or known. If they are not known, they are not limits but meaningless fuzz.
By asserting [Proposition 1] within limits (or with incompletion), we avoid the skeptical contradiction of claiming to not know anything from a position of knowing, and the contradiction of claiming to not truly know who we are from a position of truly knowing who we are. Also, the criticism that the proposition is limited or incomplete, thereby uncertain, is cancelled out because apparently all propositions from our perspective are (more reasonably) limited or incomplete. (Excerpt from the response to Entry 531)
No, not that easy. You argued in a circle: the proposition is limited and uncertain because human beings are limited and uncertain. You claim this with certainty you do not have because you are limited. Your foundation is incoherent from contradictions.
Response:
534. Entry:
Response:
535. Entry:
“How are limited (i.e. incomplete) perspectives overcome by ‘reason, logic and evidence’? What is your basis for correlating ‘reason, logic and evidence’ with completion? (Except from the response to Entry 533)
Your entire reality is built upon reason, logic and evidence. Its not faith that guides airplanes from point x to point y at such an altitude requiring so much energy, nor is it trial and error. Limited to your perspective, you are stuck in your sensory fields and this is inadequate on a stormy night. Reason follows deduction, evidence from epagogic induction and they are both necessary.
Why is it necessary that ‘any statements are true, false, or nonsense’? What is this ‘true’ and ‘false’ you are referring to in terms of completion/incompletion? Since Challenge Proposition 1 is based on our limited (i.e. incomplete) perspective, we make no claim that Proposition 1 is ‘true’. We claim that Proposition 1 is more reasonable than antagonistic propositions. (Except from the response to Entry 533)
For example, you state/claim/propose (below) that ‘we more reasonably know our knowledge (of who we are) is incomplete.’ Are you asserting a ‘true’ statement? If reason has nothing to do with truth or falsity, what does it refer to, and what other basis is there? For example, you state: ‘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.’ Are you asserting a ‘true’ statement? The term ‘proposition’ is a claim to truth or falsity. This is your argument/context, and any statement in this context is a claim to truth or falsity. You mention terms such as argument, reasonableness, truly, sound, etc., and this is the context of logical arguments. If you admit that your propositions have no claim to truth or falsity, then this is no longer an argument where your premises can be verified, and all of this activity is meaningless jabber.
In response to your question ‘how do you know your knowledge is incomplete or not when all you know is incomplete?’, we answer that we more reasonably know our knowledge (of who we are) is incomplete, and therefore, it is possible that our knowledge may be complete without us knowing that it is. (Except from the response to Entry 533)
So you don’t know if you are a human being (who you are) or not? You have no certainty of this a priori fact?
We do not claim with ‘certainty’, as you contend, that Proposition 1 is limited/uncertain.
We claim more reasonably that Proposition 1 is limited/uncertain, which means as mentioned it is possible Proposition 1 is not limited/uncertain. ‘not limited/uncertain’ [~ limited/uncertain] (Except from the response to Entry 533)
Obviously, you need help: ‘not uncertain’ = ~ uncertain = ~~certain = certain ‘We claim…Proposition 1 is uncertain…which means….Proposition 1 is certain.’ Is a contradiction. It is no wonder that you cannot grasp what you propose. It all comes to this: A contradiction is the foundation of your argument. Absurdity.”
Response:
It is only you who can resolve this ambiguity by defining the principle terms of your argument.
536. Entry:
“Proposition 1 is asserted not as a ‘true’ or ‘false’ statement, but as a more reasonable statement. (I.e. a statement which is more sound and consistent than antagonistic statements.) Therefore, in the context of Competition 1, reason refers to degrees of reasonableness (i.e. more, less, or equal) based on comparative soundness and consistency. There is no necessity that reason refers to truth or falsity, especially when no complete truth or falsity can more reasonably be established. Your contention that verification necessarily corresponds to truth or falsity, overlooks that there is (apparently) no absolute or complete verification, and therefore unless proven otherwise, there will always be doubt or uncertainty, no matter how insignificant, regarding verification. Just because we claim Proposition 1 is uncertain, it does not necessarily follow that Proposition 1 is certain (in the sense that Proposition 1 is uncertain). No. (Excerpt from the response to Entry 535)
Translation: P is uncertain, therefore P is uncertain in the sense that P is uncertain. Tautology.
We are not claiming Proposition 1 is (completely) uncertain; we are claiming that Proposition 1 is (more reasonably) uncertain, and therefore, Proposition 1 is only certain in its uncertainty within limits (or the comparative soundness and consistency of the arguments for and against the proposition). (Excerpt from the response to Entry 535)
Translation: P is more or less uncertain and P is more reasonably uncertain, therefore P is certain in its uncertainty within limits of consistency for or against P. Nonsense.
In short, based on Proposition 1 and the arguments supporting it, we do not (more reasonably) completely know who we are. We have (more reasonably) no (complete) certainty of who we are, just as we have (more reasonably) no (complete) uncertainty of who we are. We have more reasonable reasons that we do not (completely) know who we are. (Excerpt from the response to Entry 535)
What a mess. Why not substitute unreasonably for reasonable?
The challenge you face is to more reasonably demonstrate that ‘true’ and ‘false’ are necessary aspects of reason, and it would help clarify your position if you define true and false. The fact that you have declined on defining these principle terms of your argument suggests weakness in your position. Perhaps, you realize that as soon as you define true and false, your position from lack of a complete ground succumbs to contradiction. It is only you who can resolve this ambiguity by defining the principle terms of your argument. (Excerpt from the response to Entry 535)
Truth by claim and definition both based on verification. Your own argument requires a definition of reasonable.”
Response:
Other issue:
537. Entry:
“Reasonableness, in the context of Competition 1, refers to possibility. (Excerpt from the response to Entry 536)
If it is possible, then it is reasonable. It is possible to interact with angels. It is possible for millions of angels to dance on a pen head. If it can be imagined, then it is possible. It is both possible and reasonable because they are identical (in this case). Reasonable is that which is imagined. Unreasonable is that which is not imagined and impossible. Unreasonable is opposite the imagined, i.e., fact, the case Facts are impossible. Reasonable is that which is fiction, neither true nor false, only possible, i.e., imaginary. This is the consequence of your rejection of truth and falsity through verification.”
Response:
Entries 528-532 Entries 538-542