Edward Feser

[GioD]

At least by now, you are sort of just beginning to slightly understand why I disagree with you. Or maybe not.

You already clearly stated why you "disagree" with me - your assumptions are different. I then demonstrated that your different assumptions were either question-begging or irrelevant to the soundness of the argument, and that's where we left off.

[firstfloor]

I then demonstrated that your different assumptions were either question-begging or irrelevant to the soundness of the argument

But we disagree on that too. This could go on forever. It’s a sort of infinite regress of disagreement. Do you see? Perhaps God is the unagreed agreement, or something.

[GioD]

But we disagree on that too. This could go on forever. It’s a sort of infinite regress of disagreement. Do you see? Perhaps God is the unagreed agreement, or something.

The only trouble is at some point or another our "disagreements" become objectively verifiable or falsifiable and do one of us (or somebody else) ends up being right, setting of a chain reaction based on that...

[David Hayward]

There's more ways to knowledge than our senses.

There are?

The obvious one is mathematical proofs. Logic's another.

Even the strictest empiricist cannot rely solely on the senses; one has to add rationality.

David

[firstfloor]

The obvious one is mathematical proofs. Logic's another.

Even the strictest empiricist cannot rely solely on the senses; one has to add rationality.

David

Seems very fair I thought.
Hello David,
It’s nearly impossible to say “Welsh Feserist” so I expect you’re immune. Hoping that you are in fact a Welshman and not just in Wales.

[Soyeong]

I agree. For the same reasons in the post immediately above, I do not think that Aquinas gets to “being” either. Just substitute “being” for “God”.

Aquinas does get into whether this being should be called God and discusses "being" in great detail, which you would know if you would bother to try to understand what it is you are arguing against. My point was that your objection to the Five Ways is really an objection to a separate issue.

[firstfloor]

Aquinas does get into whether this being should be called God and discusses "being" in great detail, which you would know if you would bother to try to understand what it is you are arguing against. My point was that your objection to the Five Ways is really an objection to a separate issue.

So, what is it more exactly that you think I am missing?

[robertb]

The obvious one is mathematical proofs. Logic's another.

Even the strictest empiricist cannot rely solely on the senses; one has to add rationality.

David

Perhaps these are not so obvious once you actually consider how one knows math or logic in the first place.

What informs our rationality?

I seems to me that at the root of knowledge is the senses, the proof of which is the brain in the black box.

I am not sure that Aquinas would completely disagree.

"Through the action of sensible objects on his senses, to the act of sensation; by instruction or discovery, to the act of understanding."

[David Hayward]

Perhaps these are not so obvious once you actually consider how one knows math or logic in the first place.
What informs our rationality?
I seems to me that at the root of knowledge is the senses, the proof of which is the brain in the black box.

The meaning of the phrase "the brain in the black box" eludes me. I'll have a stab that you are referring to sensory deprivation, in which case I would predict that there would be nothing present to interact with and learn from, or even think about, hence no possibility (that I can discern) of knowledge even of maths, logic, etc.

It works both ways, though, in that a person with learning difficulties may sense everything you and I sense, but fail to acquire (much) knowledge. So surely understanding IS essential to acquiring knowledge.

I am not sure that Aquinas would completely disagree.

I will have to take your word for that, as pre-enlightenment philosophy is all Greek to me: I get Aquinas'd and Fesered very very quickly.

Added: Sorry, going back to your original post, I reckon that once one has a sufficient level of understanding based on (sensory) experience, one can then start deriving new knowledge in and via maths and logic.

David

[robertb]

The meaning of the phrase "the brain in the black box" eludes me. I'll have a stab that you are referring to sensory deprivation, in which case I would predict that there would be nothing present to interact with and learn from, or even think about, hence no possibility (that I can discern) of knowledge even of maths, logic, etc.

Yes.

It works both ways, though, in that a person with learning difficulties may sense everything you and I sense, but fail to acquire (much) knowledge. So surely understanding IS essential to acquiring knowledge.

I wouldn't argue with this in principle?

I will have to take your word for that, as pre-enlightenment philosophy is all Greek to me: I get Aquinas'd and Fesered very very quickly.

Salad is good for you. :) (Though sometimes it is just rabbit food, I suppose.)

Added: Sorry, going back to your original post, I reckon that once one has a sufficient level of understanding based on (sensory) experience, one can then start deriving new knowledge in and via maths and logic.

David

Indeed, the key word being derived.