Re: Philosophy, Logic, Formal Systems
Reply #152 –
If you remove the "from scratch" you are left with nothing to say… ersi, you don't recognize the crucial role epistemology plays.
But it's worse: Your "ontology" has it that everything that can be thought truly must pre-exist as a true thought…as an object of knowledge. But thoughts require thinkers. And, like it or no, thinkers are -at their best- creative!
Your conception would have to relegate all of science to the "irrelevancies and falsities" category. (Do you see why?) Science can't claim certitude, because its methods don't give any warrant for absolute certainty. It does, however, claim better and better understanding of the objects it investigates.
Are these objects real? Well, that's part of the investigation. Isn't it?
Where does one start?
For you, one starts by being taught what to think. For some others, one starts by being taught how to think. (The odd thing is that you don't recognize the difference… Or, at least, you've never transgressed the boundaries of what you were taught to think! That is, you're only a reactionary.) That how does matter: Science is a technique of acquiring knowledge…
But, for you, it can't be. Because "true" knowledge is beyond its grasp.
If you'd think it through yourself you'd see that your ontological precepts preclude knowledge, except by direct revelation… Are you sure you want to go there?
Put more succinctly: Your precepts preclude your percepts. It should be the other way around…
At least. that's what I think.