Socrates philosophy and method

[seer]

of Socrates came out fully in the Age of Enlightenment. It is this guidance that I follow that encourages an agnostic doubt of what one believes.

Shuny, you quote skepticism of Descartes, but he solves this skepticism by appealing to the influence of God:

Read: 6.1 Establishing the Divine Guarantee of the C&D Rule in this link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/de...stemology/#6.1

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you quote skepticism of Descartes, but he solves this skepticism by appealing to the influence of God:

Read: 6.1 Establishing the Divine Guarantee of the C&D Rule in this link: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/de...stemology/#6.1

Ahhhh . . . you are able to distinguish between the skepticism of Descartes and his reason for belief, but as with the Administrators of the forum you are not acknowledging my skeptical agnosticism and my reasons for belief in God and the Baha'i Faith.

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/

Skepticism enjoys a remarkably strong place in Enlightenment philosophy, given that confidence in our intellectual capacities to achieve systematic knowledge of nature is a leading characteristic of the age. This oddity is at least softened by the point that much skepticism in the Enlightenment is merely methodological, a tool meant to serve science, rather than a philosophical position embraced on its own account. The instrumental role for skepticism is exemplified prominently in Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), in which Descartes employs radical skeptical doubt to attack prejudices derived from learning and from sense experience and to search out principles known with certainty which may serve as a secure foundation for a new system of knowledge. Given the negative, critical, suspicious attitude of the Enlightenment towards doctrines traditionally regarded as well founded, it is not surprising that Enlightenment thinkers employ skeptical tropes (drawn from the ancient skeptical tradition) to attack traditional dogmas in science, metaphysics and religion.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

Ahhhh . . . you are able to distinguish between the skepticism of Descartes and his reason for belief, but as with the Administrators of the forum you are not acknowledging my skeptical agnosticism and my reasons for belief in God and the Baha'i Faith.

What are you talking about? But I would gladly agree that you hold to solipsism.

[seer]

I'm not really worried about God being able to do so; I'm more worried about our ability to correctly perceive Him doing so. How would a fallible creature confirm that he has been giving information infallibly? To keep it topical, what would be different between Satan giving us information claiming it is absolute truth and God giving us information claiming it is absolute truth such that we could tell the difference? Less dramatically, how would we differentiate between God and some other hypothetical supernatural being giving us information? And if we confirm it's God, how do we confirm that we have understood the information infallibly?

Taking that to it's logical end how can we know that we are not brains in vats? You have to trust something (or someone) at some point. You are a Christian - correct? Why? Are there good reasons? Or did you flip a coin?

In at least one step along the way, we are just trusting our own judgment that we have gotten a message from God about absolute truth and have infallibly understood it.

Not at all. My point, at least in principle, is that it is God that communicates and God that causes us to understand. And that God can do that infallibly.

[HumbleThinker]

Taking that to it's logical end how can we know that we are not brains in vats? You have to trust something (or someone) at some point.

I would posit that you don't when it comes to absolute/infallible claims. Claiming "I believe God has revealed this truth to me" is quite different than claiming "God has infallibly revealed this absolute truth to me." The former leads to measured confidence while the latter risks fanaticism, pride, and folly.

You are a Christian - correct? Why? Are there good reasons? Or did you flip a coin?

Because I have had experiences that led me to accept Christ as my Lord and Savior. Anticipating a further reply, my faith doesn't require me to be absolutely certain about anything. Being confident without be presumptuous is enough for me.

Not at all. My point, at least in principle, is that it is God that communicates and God that causes us to understand. And that God can do that infallibly.

I understand that your point is that it is possible for God to infallibly communicate and cause us to infallibly understand a thing. Do you understand that my point is that we cannot be absolutely sure we have received something infallibly and that that should make us skeptical of any such absolute/infallible claims from ourselves and others?

[shunyadragon]

What are you talking about?

Read my posts if your reading comprehension is up to par.

But I would gladly agree that you hold to solipsism.

I never proposed such a belief. Changing the subject?

HumbleThinker is far in touch with reality.

[seer]

Read my posts if your reading comprehension is up to par.

Please Shuny, stop with comprehension thing, half the time you don't even understand your own links.

I never proposed such a belief. Changing the subject?

That is lie Shuny, did you not quote Voltaire: "The more I read, the more I meditate; and the more I acquire, the more I am enabled to affirm that I know nothing"

How is that not solipsism?

[seer]

I understand that your point is that it is possible for God to infallibly communicate and cause us to infallibly understand a thing. Do you understand that my point is that we cannot be absolutely sure we have received something infallibly and that that should make us skeptical of any such absolute/infallible claims from ourselves and others?

Humble, do you believe that we can know anything with certainty? Or is it skepticism across the board?

[shunyadragon]

Please Shuny, stop with comprehension thing, half the time you don't even understand your own links.




That is lie Shuny, did you not quote Voltaire: "The more I read, the more I meditate; and the more I acquire, the more I am enabled to affirm that I know nothing"

How is that not solipsism?

You just do not understand, Descartes like me realizes the limits of human knowledge:

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/

Skepticism enjoys a remarkably strong place in Enlightenment philosophy, given that confidence in our intellectual capacities to achieve systematic knowledge of nature is a leading characteristic of the age. This oddity is at least softened by the point that much skepticism in the Enlightenment is merely methodological, a tool meant to serve science, rather than a philosophical position embraced on its own account. The instrumental role for skepticism is exemplified prominently in Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), in which Descartes employs radical skeptical doubt to attack prejudices derived from learning and from sense experience and to search out principles known with certainty which may serve as a secure foundation for a new system of knowledge. Given the negative, critical, suspicious attitude of the Enlightenment towards doctrines traditionally regarded as well founded, it is not surprising that Enlightenment thinkers employ skeptical tropes (drawn from the ancient skeptical tradition) to attack traditional dogmas in science, metaphysics and religion.

© Copyright Original Source

You live in the illusions of a fantasy world of spiritual and physical Newtonian absolutes. HumblerThinker has a good grasp on this.

[shunyadragon]

Humble, do you believe that we can know anything with certainty? Or is it skepticism across the board?

Certainty is distinctly different from the belief in absolute truths. The real world has certainties that still comprehend the fallible human limits.

[JimL]

The philosophy of 'agnosticism' I follow is rooted in the philosophy and methods of Socrates. My Tweb moniker shunyadragon is from both the Oriental and Socratic philosophy. 'Shunya' is from the ancient pali meaning nothing, and 'dragon' is the father of China, and the wisdom of China. It also symbolizes the aggressiveness of the Socratic method questioning everything and knowing nothing.

It has become very apparent the dominant view of the Christians on this site is to absolutely reject this agnostic philosophy concerning the fallible human knowledge of God, which is the at the heart of our disagreement concerning my philosophical view toward knowledge, both theological and scientific. Some even propose to have agnostic 'doubt' concerning ones belief is the slippery slope to atheism, or they are in reality atheist anyway.

Many atheists also reject the 'agnostic view' when considering what they believe and why.

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing." and "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing." - Socrates

After the agnostic Socratic view in Greek philosophy faded when Socrates drank his Hemlock, the dark ages of philosophy and theology dominated when increasingly philosophers and theologians chose the illusion of certainty over the justifiable 'doubt' of Socrates. It rose again in the period of enlightenment in Europe and birth of the United States, and was a part of the Deist philosophy of many of our founding fathers.

This thread will discuss further the issues and problems of those who reject agnosticism as foundation view of why one believes or not believes.

"Whoever says that we know nothing does not know whether we know enough to say that this is so." Lucretius in response to Socrates.

[shunyadragon]

"Whoever says that we know nothing does not know whether we know enough to say that this is so." Lucretius in response to Socrates.

Lucretius was a great naturalist philosopher with great insight into the reality of the natural world, but unfortunately he did not remotely understand Socrates. Knowing 'Nothing' realizes the transitory nature of knowledge as in the Buddhist understanding of 'shunya,' and the illusions of absolute certainty. The methods of Socrates was a way to question the fallacies of the belief in absolutes. and question everything skeptically.

"Knowing enough to say that this is so." at any time is ok for relative certainty in any one generation, culture, or society remains 'transitory' and may be false in another time, place, or culture.

Your claim of agnosticism should acknowledge the transitory and limited nature of fallible humans to comprehend absolutes, particularly in claims of absolutes in hypothetical worlds beyond our physical existence.

[JimL]

Lucretius was a great naturalist philosopher with great insight into the reality of the natural world, but unfortunately he did not remotely understand Socrates. Knowing 'Nothing' realizes the transitory nature of knowledge as in the Buddhist understanding of 'shunya,' and the illusions of absolute certainty. The methods of Socrates was a way to question the fallacies of the belief in absolutes. and question everything skeptically.

"Knowing enough to say that this is so." at any time is ok for relative certainty in any one generation, culture, or society remains 'transitory' and may be false in another time, place, or culture.

Your claim of agnosticism should acknowledge the transitory and limited nature of fallible humans to comprehend absolutes, particularly in claims of absolutes in hypothetical worlds beyond our physical existence.

Would you change direction when approaching a cliff?

[shunyadragon]

Would you change direction when approaching a cliff?

No. if a billion years later the cliff is not there. Foolish question.

[JimL]

No. if a billion years later the cliff is not there. Foolish question.

I'm not sure that this answer even makes sense shunya. Are you saying that the approaching cliff is only a belief? That you don't "know" what will happen if you continue to walk over it? Its true that we don't know things beyond our purview, such as anything about the nature of, or even the existence of, a god, but we do know many things about the observed nature of the world.