> Given we assume Kantian the framework you just outlined
Do you have an alternate theory, something like a central broadcasting station of reality and the mind is a receiver? I'm open to the idea, but it is pseudo-scientific and therefore incorrect (or so it is regularly implied and perceived, if not outright asserted as fact). [Disclosure: here (and therefore incorrect) I am making a joke.]
> The usual response to this is that if you can't possess omniscient knowledge of reality, how could you possibly make a statement about reality
a) Because absolute knowledge is not a requirement for some knowledge.
b) Statements do not have to be true (in fact, most aren't absolutely true in a JTB sense)
> Imo the way out of this: talk about things being true in the context of logic only...
How do you account for:
a) the unknown?
b) the known delusional nature of the mind?
I'm not saying that it can't be done, but I'm curious how you would go about it.
> the second causality comes into the picture the word "true" means something entirely different.
At runtime yes, but philosophy has gone through this problem with extreme diligence - using logic, epistemology, and a few other techniques, it would be pretty easy to eliminate most flawed arguments and propositions (I bet 5 rules/methods would be enough to eliminate 80%). Eliminating incorrectness or unsoundness does not mean that you will convince everyone to realign their beliefs, but that is not a requirement for arriving at maximally possible correctness....and, "unknown" is a valid and very common form of correctness, that most people are not able to reach on certain topics.
> Trying to reconcile the two is like trying to write a mathematical proof of the existence of God
A whale and a mouse are both mammals, but a whale is not equal to a mouse.
Also: arguments like this (which tend to be extremely persuasive, and often account for a non-trivial amount of arguments) could be easily eliminated with a simple rule.
> Also: arguments like this (which tend to be extremely persuasive, and often account for a non-trivial amount of arguments) could be easily eliminated with a simple rule.
I wasn't really trying to make an argument, it's more of a heuristic if anything
> How do you account for...
> a) the unknown?
just do whatever habit says to do (and don't call it the truth)
> b) the known delusional nature of the mind?
this is a fun one. give the delusional mind a pen, paper, and 20 years and maybe they'll write the next phenomenology of spirit and trigger world war III
Do you have an alternate theory, something like a central broadcasting station of reality and the mind is a receiver? I'm open to the idea, but it is pseudo-scientific and therefore incorrect (or so it is regularly implied and perceived, if not outright asserted as fact). [Disclosure: here (and therefore incorrect) I am making a joke.]
> The usual response to this is that if you can't possess omniscient knowledge of reality, how could you possibly make a statement about reality
a) Because absolute knowledge is not a requirement for some knowledge.
b) Statements do not have to be true (in fact, most aren't absolutely true in a JTB sense)
> Imo the way out of this: talk about things being true in the context of logic only...
How do you account for:
a) the unknown?
b) the known delusional nature of the mind?
I'm not saying that it can't be done, but I'm curious how you would go about it.
> the second causality comes into the picture the word "true" means something entirely different.
At runtime yes, but philosophy has gone through this problem with extreme diligence - using logic, epistemology, and a few other techniques, it would be pretty easy to eliminate most flawed arguments and propositions (I bet 5 rules/methods would be enough to eliminate 80%). Eliminating incorrectness or unsoundness does not mean that you will convince everyone to realign their beliefs, but that is not a requirement for arriving at maximally possible correctness....and, "unknown" is a valid and very common form of correctness, that most people are not able to reach on certain topics.
> Trying to reconcile the two is like trying to write a mathematical proof of the existence of God
A whale and a mouse are both mammals, but a whale is not equal to a mouse.
Also: arguments like this (which tend to be extremely persuasive, and often account for a non-trivial amount of arguments) could be easily eliminated with a simple rule.