From: Glenn Morton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Sep 21 2003 - 21:04:49 EDT
>From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
>Behalf Of Richard.Kouchoo@firstdata.com.au
>Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 6:43 PM
>I will continue using the term _relativist_ (it is not a curse - it just
>describes someone's propensity to disfavour the existence of truth)
>particularly when you say things like:
>>>>Try reading David Hume.<<<
Reading Hume makes one a relativist? For your information, I do believe
there is truth, objective truth. Thus, I am not a relativist. You seem to
draw some kind of perverse pleasure in name calling.
I said in my last post, nothing is above question. That includes Hume, so
thinking I hold Humian views would be a false assumption. I merely used him
as an example--an illustration.
>OK. Here's Hume:
>1) Facts cannot be proved but are discovered or inferred from experience
>and judgement about reality is not feasible.
>2) Assertion that the absolute universal principles are unknowable.
>3) Knowledge is based solely on experience and has no outside influences.
>Therefore there is no truth since future experiences may undermine any
>current truthful claims.
>Now to say that Hume has a few flaws is an understatement:
>All self referencing here. For example if one holds as Hume does, that all
>judgement about reality is uncalled for (since we are not 'qualified'
>enough or know enough, to make judgements) then one is making a judgement
>The assertion that absolute universal principles are unknowable is false
>since it claims that at least one _absolute_ universal principle is
>knowable: that no absolute universal principles are knowable!
Your logic fails here. Since it is logically impossible to prove a negative,
this statement also is unknowable. No one can PROVE that no absolute
universal principle is knowable. Thus, Hume's observation doesn't involve
self-referential refutation. One simply can't prove a universal negative
proposition. He can't know that either.
>Knowledge is based on experience and has no outside influences? Please!
>Hume contradicts himself again when he uses his own experience/influences
>to propound propositions like this.
There is a whole history of philosophers who demonstrated the lack of innate
knowledge.Descarte ruled out all forms of innate knowledge and then fell
back to experience--cogito ergo sum--in order to rebuild his world view.
>>>>I have never seen anything that is self-evident, thus I don't believe
>any such thing exists.<<<
>Is this absolutely true? That you have never seen things that are
>self-evident - if it is then, it is self-evident.
I didn't claim absolute truth for that statement. You seem to be having some
reading difficulties. I said, I hadn't seen one and thus don't believe in
them. That is not a claim of absolute truth for my belief.
>>>>absolutely nothing is unquestionable.<<<
>If nothing is unquestionable, then this statement is itself questionable,
>therefore in the least, it cannot be trusted.
On this we agree. You are certainly questioning it. Therefore nothing is
>You should be getting the drift from the contradictions above.
No I am getting bored. You haven't really dealt with anything substantive
except to show that you need to take some logic classes (or if you did, you
need to take them again.)
>Quite frankly, my favourite philosopher is not Hume.
I am shocked. Who is? Do you like Moore? Lakatos? Wittgenstein? Fichte?
Schopenhaur? Naw, bet it is Nietzche! :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 21 2003 - 21:05:18 EDT