• Punshhh
    531
    Are "natural principles" all there is? What about the natural principles which fall into category x?



    (To recap, I have categorised what we are presented with upon birth as "y". And whatever exists, but we are not presented with at birth as "x").
  • apokrisis
    1.4k
    It doesn't make sense for you to classify x as the unknown unknowns and then start to tell me about all the known unknowns that constitute x. Besides which, even knowing there could be unknown unknowns constitutes the pragmatic beginnings of knowledge.

    So in dividing knowledge this way - into y and not-y - you remain completely in the ambit of scientific reasoning as practiced by Peirce.
  • Punshhh
    531
    It doesn't make sense for you to classify x as the unknown unknowns and then start to tell me about all the known unknowns that constitute x. Besides which, even knowing there could be unknown unknowns constitutes the pragmatic beginnings of knowledge.
    But I have not done that. What I have done is delineated nature into two areas. The area within the purview of people "y" and the area not within the purview of people "x".

    I have done this because there is an implication that the whole of nature is within the purview of people, in scientism, or materials based philosophies.


    Yes it could be said that the "unknown unknowns constitutes the pragmatic beginnings of knowledge". But that is not saying much, because those unknown unknowns appear to be an entirely undefined and unconsidered region, reality, of existence.

    So in dividing knowledge this way - into y and not-y - you remain completely in the ambit of scientific reasoning as practiced by Peirce.
    I have not divided knowledge into y and not y, this is my charge, that scientism etc, does just this and then ignores the not y.

    I am dividing what exists (comes to pass), into what we are aware of and what we are not. I'm not commenting on knowledge in this division, that is concerned with the intellectualisation of y and x.

    Anyway, presumably metaphysics as a philosophical inquiry is concerned with what exists, rather than knowledge. This being the case, presumably it makes the same distinction that I am making.
    If it claims that epistemology is ontology as you do, then it is, as I say, susceptible to solipsism and appears to be making an assumption about the actual ontology we are sustained by, subject to our minds. Something which we cannot do due to our limitations
  • apokrisis
    1.4k
    Anyway, presumably metaphysics as a philosophical inquiry is concerned with what exists, rather than knowledge.Punshhh

    Metaphysics includes both epistemology and ontology usually.

    I have not divided knowledge into y and not y, this is my charge, that scientism etc, does just this and then ignores the not y.Punshhh

    Yeah. But ever since Kant....

    I have done this because there is an implication that the whole of nature is within the purview of people, in scientism, or materials based philosophies.Punshhh

    So your beef is against Scientism and not science. Cool.
  • Punshhh
    531
    Quite I'm critical of scientism and pseudo philosophies along the same lines. Science does include the philosophy of science, which may on occasion result in statements restricting existence to "y". Indeed you yourself said that, "We know how and when the Universe began, how and when it will die". I would agree that science and the accompanying philosophy of science has enabled us to say this of y and only y. So in reality we have no idea how and when the universe began, or how and when it will die, if atall. Because we are not in the full possession of the facts, or the extent to which we are in ignorance of them.

    For example in a world in which there is a fascination with the moustache, all might to viewed as intrinsic and contingent on moustaches. It might all make perfect sense even mathematically. But those people would be wrong if they said the universe began as a moustache and will become a moustache again at the end of time.

    Likewise the bacteria living on the surface of your eye, might not be aware of what information passes by, indeed it might say, if told, how absurd it would be to suggest such a thing.
  • apokrisis
    1.4k
    So in reality we have no idea how and when the universe began, or how and when it will die, if atall. Because we are not in the full possession of the facts, or the extent to which we are in ignorance of them.Punshhh

    It is silly to claim we have "no idea" when patently we have very a clear and empirically supported set of ideas. There are many things we can speak with definiteness about because they have been established by counterfactual inquiry.

    And yes, there are always the unknown unknowns. We even know that too - if you accept Kant and Peirce's approach to knowledge. Inquiry is epistemically open ended and can only indeed target nature in light of actual concerns.

    It is not just that there is no complete knowledge of the thing in itself. We don't even really care. What matters is the intellectual relation we form with the world - which itself is a two-way street in that discovering what matters to "us" is how "we" are formed.

    So the epistemology of Kant and Peirce is extremely sophisticated. We construct ourselves via our concerns - our modelling relation with reality.

    I'm not here to defend the naive realism of Scientism or Reductionism any more that I'm here to defend the naive idealism of Romanticism or Theism.

    It would be nice if you finally realised that.
  • Punshhh
    531
    Yes I realise that and value the philosophies you propose here. However I return to my original observation, that there doesn't appear to be much metaphysics going on. I know that pragmatically this is irrelevant, but I will usually point out our degree of ignorance when either claims are made that we know anything fundamental. Or that conceptual knowledge which is not pragmatically relevant ( relevant to what I wonder), or have some utility (likewise) is meaningless, fanciful, or of no interest to the intellect. In favour of a science led hard pragmatism.
  • TheWillowOfDarkness
    1.2k


    The problem with the appeal us not really knowing anything is its intent. What are we aiming for in making such an argument? Some sort of perfect knowledge which gives us all the answers. The limited scope of any instance of knowledge is considered a problem we must get past if we want to understand existence-- it's still aiming for an account of everything, the impossible one, given the uncertainty of the world.

    Knowledge is still understood to be some exhaustive account we are meant to obtain, rather than being realised as necessarily limited and incapable of giving a full account. If we are making the demand of an exaustive account, we have failed to understand stand the limit of knowledge and what that means.

    Apo's argument doesn't specifically point out a metaphysicsl point, but there is plenty going on. The understanding that knowledge is necessarily limited is a metaphysical point.

    To set aside the question of an exaustive account, as it's realised as impossible, and point out that knowledge is only ever limited, is a metaphysical culling-- any postion which appeals to an exaustive account is revealed to be incohrent. Logically, we can only have limited knowledge. Not only is our knowledge limited, but there's no exaustive account to aim for.
  • Punshhh
    531

    The problem with the appeal us not really knowing anything is its intent.
    Actually its more about a realisation of our limitations, if it is then found that knowing nothing is the consequence, this is a side issue, to be considered separately.

    What are we aiming for in making such an argument?
    To realise our position.
    Some sort of perfect knowledge which gives us all the answers. The limited scope of any instance of knowledge is considered a problem we must get past if we want to understand existence-- it's still aiming for an account of everything, the impossible one, given the uncertainty of the world.
    No, as I pointed out, I am not discussing knowledge, this is because knowledge is an intellectual abstraction, taking the form of a linguistic (in the broadest sense) concept. As such it is only an interpretation, an interpretation in and of my category "y". So my point in making these categories is to consider "x", rather than y( I know that intellect and knowledge are required to perform this task, but this can be achieved, by putting epistemology to side for the purposes of the enquiry).

    Knowledge is still understood to be some exhaustive account we are meant to obtain, rather than being realised as necessarily limited and incapable of giving a full account. If we are making the demand of an exaustive account, we have failed to understand stand the limit of knowledge and what that means.
    As I said above, I am not refering to or appealing to an exhaustive account at all. But rather considering both x and our limited understanding, of our metaphysical, or ontological predicament.
    Apo's argument doesn't specifically point out a metaphysicsl point, but there is plenty going on. The understanding that knowledge is necessarily limited is a metaphysical point.
    Yes I agree on both points. However I am specifically considering Ontology and as I said, I would expect x to be considered equally as y in such an inquiry.

    To set aside the question of an exaustive account, as it's realised as impossible, and point out that knowledge is only ever limited, is a metaphysical culling-- any postion which appeals to an exaustive account is revealed to be incohrent. Logically, we can only have limited knowledge. Not only is our knowledge limited, but there's no exaustive account to aim for.
    I don't see that we can say that an exhaustive account is impossible, please explain? Yes I agree that human knowledge is only ever limited, but this does not mean that an exhaustive account cannot be considered, if required. Also you will have to provide an explanation of why you say that there is no exhaustive account out there?
12345Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.