Skip to main content
5 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Oct 27, 2015 at 12:39 comment added Nelson Alexander Hmm. I don't know which philosophies you refer to. But "self" and "God" are not stable, obvious terms of reference, so much of the argument may hinge on those concepts and their meanings. And culture comes into it. Some of the critical attacks on the "self" and defense of "God" may be acting as correctives to a modern society with an unexamined and unbalanced emphasis on the "individual," utilitarianism, and consumerism.
Oct 27, 2015 at 8:25 comment added John Am I started the whole thread as a reaction to repetitive statements driven by "modern empiricism" that refute knowledge of one's self but affirm a god with easiness. I will continue to attack this type of humanitarian obsolescence.
Oct 27, 2015 at 1:01 comment added Nelson Alexander Kant thought that skepticism was entirely necessary, but most necessary in defending against skepticism itself. You cannot win against the skeptic, but you can always fight skepticism to a draw and turn to other matters. Skepticism itself is not a belief system. So most "skeptics" are simply posting warnings against hasty acceptance of certain "truths" or ways of reasoning. In Hume's Scotland, for example, people could still be hung for refuting the "truths" of the church. His attack on "truth" was a humane endeavor.
Oct 26, 2015 at 23:43 comment added John Am Thanks for the answer. It seems to me that in relation to some "modern" trends in epistemology Descartes position "close to solipsism" and the "great mental labors and a deity to arrive back at things" are worth the effort because at the end you get minds, things and even a deity. I admire skepticism as a knowledge tool, but careless usage is like putting your finger down the drill.
Oct 26, 2015 at 22:26 history answered Nelson Alexander CC BY-SA 3.0