New answers tagged

1

I saw a video of a philosopher (Robert Audi) who said that common sense is the best response we can give to global skepticism. I would agree, but it's not clear to me what the nature of common sense is. Is it a set of intuitive beliefs? No, it is very rational. But in order to see it, we need to take a step back out of the epistemological haze; and maybe ...


1

I haven't read Audi, but I'll put this extended comment on 'common sense' out for consideration... All of philosophy begins at prima facie experience. We have prima facie experiences we attribute to the external world, usually derived from our physical senses; we have prima facie experiences we attribute to an internal, subjective world, such as thoughts, ...


1

GE Moore, Moorean facts. “Here is one hand”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand. There is a paper there in “External Links” you may want to read by Thomas Kelly.


1

In my opinion it must be about the "I" and the point is important today. Some think that the universe and/or our minds are computer programs or computations running in some kind of cosmic computer, or a simulator. Or an evil daemon as Descartes would have said. But even if this is true; even if we're just programs in some cosmic computer, or an &...


2

The bottom line is that, like knowledge [commonly defined as "warranted or justified true belief"], to be "interesting" [sticking to your lecturer's postmodern argot], skepticism must also be justified, be warranted [using the non-postmodern argot]. That is, my claim to know, or doubt [be skeptical about] claim C is justified/warranted, ...


-2

why would Descartes bring "I think" in "Cogito ergo sum"? The reason Descartes didn't see the controversy, is that "I think" was an accurate description of how the mind works in some people. Descartes would not experience "thoughts", there would be no automatic thought process for him. Rather, the thinking was a ...


1

It is advisable to distinguish two types of scepticism towards our knowledge, viz. the theory with which we describe the world: the world could be principally different (or not even exist) to any of our theories that ever describe it and thus we could be doomed to know nothing our (human) sensory and notional access to the world is so limited that it must ...


1

One might say that the argument is a very straightforward reason to believe, not that epistemology is meaningless, but that its concept (knowledge) is irreducible to other concepts. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses this, at least in the article on John Cook Wilson (I thought I could find a reference to Timothy Williamson's statement of the ...


Top 50 recent answers are included