9/8/1997 Tony
Query to website: Who was right? Hume or Descartes?
9/14/1997 Thomas' Philosophy
Page
As for epistemology, neither Hume nor Descartes was right. Hume's whole system
depends on the assumption that 'we cannot know something that isn't grounded in
sense experience'. That very statement cannot itself be verified by experience,
so I find Hume's view unsatisfying.
9/18/1997 Tony
I have strong disagreements with Hume's views, but your disagreement with Hume
is unfounded. The idea that knowledge is dependent on sense experience is
verifiable if you count the satisfaction/dissatisfaction of the experience of
thinking.
9/18/1997 Thomas
Please clarify what is meant by satisfaction/dissatisfaction of the experience
of thinking.
Regardless, it is false that the proposition "all that we know comes from sense
experience" can be verified by either sense experience or thought [since, within
an empirical context, all thought is derived from {and inferior to} sense
experience]. How is it that thought verifies experience when, within Hume's
system, the content of thought comes from experience? You are in a catch-22.
Besides, Hume's view doesn't acknowledge certain a priori truths, that we know
intuitively [e.g. the maxim: "from nothing, nothing comes" is a
metaphysically necessary truth that need not refer to an inductive sample of
empirical data - I know this by philosophical reflection].
9/24/1997 Tony
The one word "regardless" with which you begin your next sentence is sufficient
for me to realize that my satisfaction/dissatisfaction is an unnecessary
complication. It would have been sufficient to merely assert that I consider
thinking to be an experience, a point which was not contested.
I don't see any catch-22 because I do not speak from within Hume's system,
nor from within an empirical context. At this time, I am not particularly
interested in academic debate. Hume and I can no longer help one another to a
better understanding. You and I can.
When I refer to another philosopher's work, I do so as a starting point to
find "common ground" and to establish an initial context in which my ideas will
be least distorted.
In my view, "sense" and "thought" are different aspects of the experience of
consciousness. They are interpreted as one or the other depending on the focus
of attention in any given experience. Since they are dependent on a focus of
attention for their interpretation, they are dependent on the values and value
judgments which constitute the evaluations that form the interpretation. The
implication, of course, is that they are dependent on "will" in whose domain
values and value judgments fall.
We agree that we can know things by philosophical reflection. But does such
reflection produce knowledge, does it merely acknowledge what has been produced
by other means, or is it a combination of the two? Doesn't philosophical
reflection [thought], at the very least, verify the knowledge of prior
experience?
I can understand and accept the maxim you present:
"from nothing, nothing comes"
within a certain context. But I can also reject that maxim, as I do, in a more
general frame of reference that I suggest in my metaphysics. I therefore, do not accept the maxim as metaphysically
necessary but merely as "physically necessary".
There is a much more important maxim that is true in any frame of reference
since it deals with changes of reference, and that is:
When a reference changes, or "shifts", so do associated values.
With a change in values, there could follow a change in evaluations and
interpretations.
I try to get at that relationship in several ways in my work. In one example,
the end justifies the means. I show that 2 people
can say the exact same thing while intending opposite meanings.
* * * * * * *
9/14/1997 Thomas
I also find Descartes epistemology lacking for he confuses logical necessity
with undeniability. It is not logically necessary that I exist, since there is a
logically possible world where nothing exists including God. It is actually
undeniable that I exist [i.e., the denial of my existence affirms
my existence] and this is the methodology I use to arrive at truths:
unaffirmability = falsity
Undeniability = truth
But this method is not totally adequate, because undeniability cannot
encompass the entire realm of truth claims [e.g., historical inquiry]. Thus,
undeniability/unaffirmability as a test of truth must be used in conjunction
with other methodologies to produce a well rounded "vehicle" to evaluating
worldviews.
9/18/1997 Tony
Except for complications, I don't see much difference in your formulation and
Descartes'. To affirm, or deny, is the result of a decision, or value judgement,
based on a thinking process.
9/18/1997 Thomas
Undeniability/unaffirmability is different to Descartes system. In my view, many
things are undeniable [the fact that I exist, that there is change, that there
is contingent existence, etc.], yet Descartes says thought is the only
undeniable thing. Furthermore, I do not posit the existence of God to bridge the
gap between thought and reality. Sure there are similarities, but my method is
certainly not rationalist in nature.
* * * * * * *
9/18/1997 Tony
I find it inconceivable that:
'It is not logically necessary that I exist, since there is a logically
possible world where nothing exists including God.'
Out of necessity, whoever postulates such an idea, exists.
9/18/1997 Thomas
Yes. Because I do exist, It is undeniable that I exist. But existence itself is
not logically necessary. For there is a possible world in which nothing exists,
neither me nor God. So all existence is logically contingent [contra some forms
of traditional rationalism]. It is necessary that, if I deny my existence, I am
affirming it. But this doesn't at all imply that my being is logically
necessary. Descartes and other rationalists made this false equation.
* * * * * * *
9/18/1997 Tony
I find my knowability/conceivability heuristic most useful. It shifts the focus
of attention from the unproductive question "Does it exist?", to more fruitful
questions dealing with the nature of "its" existence in terms of who, or what,
it can effect/affect, or how well/poorly its conception represents a reality
that can be known and/or conceived in other ways.
