New answers tagged

0

Philosophy can learn how to reach the heart of people It is basically about how to write truth in a way that reaches and permeates the public sphere, connecting reason with aesthetics. Heidegger is deeply indebted to Hölderlin here and I'm surprised Badiou does not offer this obvious link himself. The main idea has been around since Hegel, Schelling, and ...


0

'Rediscovery' I think clearly applies to: from Romanticism - which was far more dominant and lasting in philosophy in Germany than in England. John Vervaeke has a great lecture on Romanticism in the context of the history of philosophy, which was all news to me. I can't think of a figure like Goethe in the English speaking world, able to contribute ...


0

It’s evidential and will suggest towards something so in that case, yes. But in terms of knowledge, no. A suggestion that something is true due to evidence does not lead to proof of it being true. That is the nature of the legal system, ‘If you believe beyond reasonable doubt...’ I think the premises JD mentioned above need tweaking but I don’t know how to ...


2

This one is right in the WP article on Alvin Plantinga: Plantinga discusses his view of Reformed epistemology and proper functionalism in a three-volume series. In the first book of the trilogy, Warrant: The Current Debate, Plantinga introduces, analyzes, and criticizes 20th-century developments in analytic epistemology, particularly the works of Chisholm, ...


3

This is an excellent question, which brings into focus many challenging questions of modern philosophy. As a spiritual dualist myself, I have trod this path, and can offer pointers. First, and an aside, the reference to "extraordinary claim", is a red herring, and represents a fallacy which must be disposed of. To do empiricism properly, there is ...


1

Short Answer Of course, your question depends on metaphysical presuppositions. But from a scientific perspective, no. But that is because how you use 'to give account' is synonymous with 'to explain', and explanations range from hypotheses to theories, and questions regarding underdetermination of even the best theories are a philosophical problem. Thus, the ...


2

No, at least not given those assumptions. Given a set of facts, if we have several sets of hypotheses that each explains the facts, then there is no theoretical means to decide which set of hypotheses is true, if any, and which is false. However, it is always possible, at least in principle, to falsify the hypotheses that are false by uncovering, or ...


1

I will assume that by A being logical, you are tacitly implying that one can deduce A from certain established premises. When you say that B is proven to be logical, that is a dubious claim. Let us first define when we mean as being 'logical' in this exigent. The proper language is 'sound'. Suppose there are certain true facts about the world (suppose). You ...


0

@მამუკა ჯიბლაძე What follows addresses the issue at the heart of your question about the nature of truth; "Right now I am listening to a talk on youtube which starts with the declaration "of course we all know truth is a relative notion"." This confusion over the possibility of the existence of 'certainty' is age old and still undecided. ...


1

This is a big question, and drives at the heart of one of the major unresolved issues in Western philosophy. It is also a multi-part question, which makes it difficult to answer fully. One part -- the categories of philosophies/philosophers -- is not answerable validly. While a significant fraction of philosophers will admit to being part of a "school&...


0

Short Answer There is no material-constitution model of truth because the material constitution is an ontological consideration, whereas truth the concern of epistemology. Is it viable for material constitution to inform a theory on belief, knowledge, and truth? I don't see why not, particularly because ontology and epistemology are tightly bound, but there ...


3

Drilling down into the two major conceptual bifurcations on the 'nature' of truth may ultimately answer your question. Treating first of relativity, all of the categories under subdivisions 1 through 3 can be grouped as 'relative'. The commonalities they share are; they all hold to some variation on Descartes duality in which mind/body or thought/experience ...


Top 50 recent answers are included