Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Order of Rank?) (Humans)

by dhw, Friday, February 04, 2011, 12:48 (4849 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: My goal in beginning the epistemological framework thread was to ultimately build to an attempt at solving the problem of rank.-I hate to cast my sceptical shadow over your ambition, but I think there is a very good reason why this problem can never be solved, and you've summed it up at the beginning of your post:-MATT: I assert that rank begins with knowledge. [...] I've said many times that it is normative epistemology that causes disagreements between people on the issues surrounding agnosticism...QED?-Of course it's normative epistemology, and that is because we always discuss branches of philosophy for which there are no norms. Knowledge is not possible here, and without knowledge you are, whether you like it or not, stuck with subjective value judgements. That is why, in my admittedly amateurish attempt to build a framework, I've emphasized that knowledge does not require a decision whereas belief does, and belief is individual, whereas knowledge ... we have agreed ... is by general consensus. Once you have knowledge, there is nothing further to discuss except inferences, and these ... as you have repeatedly emphasized ... lead to belief and not to knowledge. Therefore our epistemological framework can only solve the problem of rank if it excludes every subject that cannot be "known"...QED?-On the subject of oneness, I had said that it was not knowable or testable. If you say that it is one of the few immutable truths revealed by science, I will take your word for it. My own focus was on the intuitive sensation of oneness with the universe and everything in it rather than on an intellectual acknowledgement through scientific information. Poetry rather than prose, if you like.-Maybe I haven't earned your thanks, though, for distinguishing between poetry and prose, because I don't understand some of your comments. I argued that I could keep whispering about the future, the past, God etc. and still have the rose in my hand. You have responded: "Philosophy serving only you! If we mean it to serve other people, we must sacrifice some things. The rose or the whisper..."-But philosophy linked to belief IS individual. And no matter whether I believe in God, believe in an impersonal universe, or have no belief at all, I can still accept and relish the reality of the present (the rose). So, I suspect, can you! Unless I've misunderstood you (and this part of your post is not easy to understand), I think it's the same problem as before: philosophy does not consist of one solid block, but is a vast collection of different subjects, some of which can't be subjected to any normative hierarchy. In terms of how to live life, reflecting on its nature, weighing up different explanations, conjectures, values (all of which = philosophy), each one of us can keep whispering AND smelling the rose. The devil's advocate has turned killjoy, because your criteria (which ultimately would turn us all into agnostics) demand a sacrifice where none is necessary. Ugh, that's normative epistemology for you!