Consequences of rejecting skepticism for your method and Descartes

Responsa > Category: General > Consequences of rejecting skepticism for your method and Descartes
Rational Asked 2 years ago

Peace,
I wanted to ask about something I came across on the Repentants website,
There is Kant's well-known question that there is no connection between the subjective and the world per se and it seems simple, then the question arises as to how we can trust our assumption that there is a connection between the world and man. After all, it is not possible to give such proof because we have always encountered a regression of questions, but it seems that those who are not skeptical accept the assumption that basic assumptions should not bring evidence and in particular that this is their definition as an axiom.
So I wanted to ask, is the inverse assumption that anything that has no reason is questionable, itself a presumption?
If so, then it seems that we have a kind of obligation to assume certainty about our basic assumptions, but as far as is known the rabbi does not accept this, but replaces the certainty with reasonableness, but that's how it fits into the story? The very possibility of probability assumes you accept the skeptical claim no?
Also, I just once came up with a question about Descartes who according to him did not seem to get it all, but only thanks to the ontological evidence plus that God is good at trying to resolve the matter, but how did he assume that good is objective?

Leave a comment

1 Answers
mikyab Staff Answered 2 years ago

Not sure I understood the question. Nevertheless, I will comment a little on what you said:

  1. Kant does not say that there is no connection between our perception and the world. There is definitely a connection, and more how. He only claims that the image we see is something that is conscious. But he represents the phenomenon in the world itself. For example, an electromagnetic wave in the world translates into light in our consciousness. Is there no connection between them? Clearly there is a connection. Light is the visual representation of the electromagnetic wave.
  2. There is a question that has been raised towards Kant, it is from where he even knows that there is a world in itself if all that is accessible to us is only the phenomenon (the cognitive phenomena). I think this is a result of the principle of causality, which is an a priori principle. From this principle it follows that if there is a conscious phenomenon there should be something in the world that causes it.
  3. I did not understand the question about something that has no reason. Do you intend to ask if there are things for no reason? In principle it is possible yes, but the principle of causality assumes not. In quantum theory, for example, the relationship between cause and effect is different and does not even really exist in the ordinary sense. 
  4. You mix certainty with truth. That I think nothing is certain does not pertain to discussion in any way.
  5. Skepticism goes against reasonableness. The skeptic thinks that only certainty gives truth, just as it emerges from what you say. But you are wrong about that. 
Rational Responded 2 years ago

Thanks so much for the comments some of them I understood I will try to clarify parts I did not understand.
2. I did ask about this point as well. Anyone who is not skeptical seems to agree that there must be a link between the world and the phenomenon (say the eyes and light in Doge 1), but if all our consciousness is built only on an a priori principle as causality it can still be interpreted for countless reasons how impressions from the senses were created, even Descartes Is a reason under this broad sense; But most of us do not think it is the right reason. If so, the principle of causality alone does not seem to be enough, but needs something more, although of course it seems to be in the background.

3. I did not mean the question about events or applicable, although of course there is a connection, but mainly about assumptions and claims, for example the definition of assumption is that it has no reason. I suppose only with this can something be believed, in a kind of perception that God is the anchor of causes in the world. But if we do not doubt assumptions how can we say that something is uncertain but also has a dimension of reasonableness? After all, any assumption regarding reasonableness assumes at the back that it can be questioned.
3. Also on the other hand, the skeptic in his method is indeed willing to doubt assumptions, but if so, he can also doubt the assumption that assumptions should be questioned or that anything for no reason is wrong. If so, does he appear to be cutting down his branch? No?
5/4 I meant like 3 Risha.

mikyab Staff Responded 2 years ago

3. You use the term “cause” in a way I do not understand. Do you mean taste / reasoning?
There is indeed no basis for a premise. But it is not true that I do not doubt assumptions. No claim, assumption or conclusion, is certain to me.

Rationalist Responded 2 years ago

Indeed I mean on the side of reason / taste.
First, regarding 2 do you agree that we simply have a premise that what we see is true? For it does not seem to be sufficient for any a priori principle to be that he can * alone * bridge towards the acceptance of the material world.

So if so, how are you able to get a premise but in an uncertain way? This is what is very unclear to me.
And even if you say it is possible, in relation to what it will be uncertain? With respect to another appeal or other doubt? It is probable that the same doubt will also assume that there is another, more basic explanation, and that he, or first of all, the underlying system of explanations is axiomatic. But then it simply means that the assumption we thought was a premise is not such, but a conclusion from something more basic.
Unless you are skeptical and claim that assumptions can be questioned, but then where does the probability go into the picture? Because everything for him is equally arbitrary. (And the assumption that everything is arbitrary is arbitrary…)

And if so, as far as you get skeptical claims then there is also no validity to the fact that something seems reasonable to me, because all probability is only on the level of subjective reasonableness but there is no connection between it and the objective world and can never be bridged as a preamble.
And if you're not skeptical, then you are not questioning assumptions anyway…

The last arbitrator Responded 2 years ago

"An electromagnetic wave in the world translates into light"
The wave translates into neuronal signals. Translating into something else Translating into something else… Somehow at the end there is light.
There is no direct connection between light and wave. The context is very, very indirect.

mikyab Staff Responded 2 years ago

I lost you completely. You mix sex with non-sex over and over again, and do not refer to what I answered. I have already answered everything.

Arbitrator, it's a direct connection. One causes the other, even if it is done through the mediation of several steps. When you disassemble the path between rubbing the match and igniting the fire you will find there some intermediate stages. So what? One causes the other. May Nafam if there are intermediary stages? And that we are dealing with the issue of the power of his power?

Responds to loss Responded 2 years ago

If you lost me then how did you answer?…

What is not clear to me is that it is generally agreed that the definition of a premise is that there is no reason to base it.
But if so, how can a premise be questioned without the use of a particular premise? As you claimed you do.
So on the other side you get that assumptions can be questioned so how can you assume something is more or less likely? After all, you can cast further doubt on the same sense of reasonability…? And so your conclusion was reasonable to be a sulfist. Or you will doubt the assumption that you can doubt and you will be stuck.
But it must be said that there is in the beginning of thinking some assumption * certain * will be as small as it is.
For example the assumption that what we think is reasonable is indeed objective (even if not it is not necessarily objective). Because only from there on can it be said that workers are likely, etc. But if you say that all our assumptions never have a certain percentage with a doubt inherent in them, then that doubt must be formed following skeptical claims that are external to them, and as much as you are a skeptic you can never claim that something is as reasonable as it is…

So I want to say that you also agree that there is something primitive about your method and not everything is just plausibility. Or the likelihood is certain.
Anyway, if I'm right, then what's nice to see is that you would rather be a postmodernist than a fundamentalist 😉

And although there is no evidence to speak of, there is a trace of speaking in the preface to the notebooks of the faith:
"To the best of my knowledge, a person has no possibility of reaching certainty in any field." If he found a way to reach such certainty he was probably wrong (for sure! 🙂). ”
This means that there is something certain and fundamental at the bottom of our thinking at the end of the day that says there is a correlation between reasonableness and another world must be doomed to skepticism.

mikyab Staff Responded 2 years ago

Reply, I lost you now (what do you want now) since I have answered everything before.

seating? Responded 2 years ago

Does your method also have to have a certain (even limited) premise, which we will accept with certainty and not just out of reasonableness.
And I think this premise is that what seems reasonable to us is indeed reasonable and there is a correlation to that. Only in this way do I think that my questions can be justified without falling into complete skepticism and on the other hand not claiming that everything is certain.
On the other hand, you first claimed that you did indeed “doubt basic assumptions. No claim, assumption or conclusion is certain to me. "
But if you really meant what you wrote, you must have the ability to discern which premise is correct or not (because you are not a skeptic….), But this ability is also a kind of premise and you will doubt it and repeat it and then you must be skeptical.
I think these things are simple, but since I see that you are already the second philosopher to claim similar things when you both declare yourselves non-postmodernists I wanted to see if I was indeed right or if my words were not sharp. And you can eat the cake and also leave it whole.

Because he also accepts that there is no connection between assumptions and their willingness in the world according to Kant and everyone should question, and yet on other issues there are reasonable conclusions… This is not exactly your claim but in the end quite similar to the move I have presented here.

mikyab Staff Responded 2 years ago

I answer for the third time: no. There is nothing certain in my eyes. And I repeat for the seventeenth time uncertainty is not skepticism. Skepticism means that some position is no better than the opposite. Uncertainty, on the other hand, only means that I'm not sure.
This. I finished.

a girl Responded 2 years ago

And what about a geometric column that tends to 0. Something seemed reasonable to me. It is reasonable in my eyes that what seems reasonable to me - is reasonable. It is reasonable in my eyes that what seems to me to be reasonable is reasonable. We will reduce the probability to 99.99% certainty and each claim will roll to the limit of 0% certainty.

a girl Responded 2 years ago

I wrote what I understood from the question. Because if the answer is that "something seems reasonable to me" when we put it at 99.99, then it is 99.99 after all the accounts in the world, and this is a direct claim on the world and not a claim on myself - then we determine the hard relationship between reasonableness and certainty with certainty.

Not completely understood Responded 2 years ago

How is the miracle created that there is no certainty but it does not lead to skepticism?
Because the whole idea of ​​uncertainty and staying reasonable assumes that there is a second option, but you do not have the ability to assess what is reasonable because it is itself another assumption that you will also ask if it is reasonable…

mikyab Staff Responded 2 years ago

This miraculous wonder lies in the difference between a 90% blush and a 50% doubt (if we insist on quantifying). While this is really amazing and incomprehensible, it can still happen. I roll a cube six million times. I bet the result will be evenly distributed and there will be about a million results per wig. I have some doubt (it's not 100%) but still this is probably what will happen. Amazing.
And I have the ability to intuitively evaluate the value of intuition as well. This circularity is just gibberish. It's like asking how you know you're right, you're the one who decides you're right. How is this different from a normal skeptical argument?
We have really exhausted these quibbles to the point of bloodshed.

a girl Responded 2 years ago

What is the connection between this and a normal skeptical argument. Here one does not ask "how do you know" but accepts everything the person says and discusses only his method. If he says he is one hundred percent sure that something is right, and he is also one hundred percent sure that in cases where he is one hundred percent sure that something is right then one hundred percent that something is right - then everything is fine because one in possession of whatever will remain one. But if it has only a mere probability, then an iterative circle is fading to zero. Very simple. In any case, it seems very likely to me that there is no one here on the site other than you who knows how to answer this. And even if you have a smart answer you can not find it here in the thread. Apparently the SAG was guilty and switched between response and response.

Hope I realized I understood before Responded 2 years ago

indeed. I agree that it is so simple that in the end the ability to evaluate intuition itself is a premise that you must accept in * certainty *, even if within the intuition is included the possibility that it is uncertain, but it does not come from an external provider, but an * internal * doubt Part of the definition of this premise, the main thing that there is a certain element here for sure.

This point is important because I wanted to make sure that these things that seemed completely simple to me were indeed true. Because as I said at the beginning there is someone important who is also such a philosopher who completely denies this point but asserts on the other hand that he is not skeptical of what sounds completely unlikely.
And so throughout the discussion here it would seem that you too go for his method, so I could not see how this miracle can be produced and in particular in my previous understanding to you that this is an external doubt to the premise then a question arises as to why it is only 10% doubt and not 50% methodological doubt. But I see you agree with my method I have presented here.

Indeed, it is possible that Shabbat proposed an explanation that explains the same philosopher using the integration of an infinity of explanations that although every explanation needs an explanation still carries little weight, to me personally it sounds completely puzzling if it is possible at all. But that's the only way I found it.

This question is also critical for your opposition to fundamentalist claims on the one hand and the possibility of uncertainty on the other. But you could say it's some kind of tatology. Although I think it does sharpen the difference between an external supplier (PM) and an internal supplier (your synthetic method).

mikyab Staff Responded 2 years ago

No, it's not for sure. This too is not certain.

annoying Responded 2 years ago

Do you accept the difference between your claim that the basic assumptions themselves lie in an uncertain assumption, and the doubt that is external to the basic assumptions themselves? (Then either you get another control system as a premise, or you are convicted as a skeptic).

Otherwise I really do not understand how you are not skeptical if you doubt assumptions even in individual percentages (as long as it is not part of the same assumption that is uncertain).

It seems to me like there's some difference here that I probably do not grasp because if it's not like I said I totally do not understand how you claim you are not skeptical. Maybe you can explain this little point.

mikyab Staff Responded 2 years ago

I really can not grasp where the problem is here. I say very simple and clear things. My assumptions are not certain in my eyes. Not because they are ridiculous but because I'm not sure if they are correct (there are possible alternatives). Do not know what external doubt is. I have some doubt in my assumptions. that's it.

now I get it? Responded 2 years ago

External doubt The intention is that the doubt comes from a negative place as a kind of external perplexity for thinking but not inherent as part of the premise of thinking which for example says that it is accurate in only 90% of cases.

But as soon as you wrote: "My assumptions are not certain in my eyes". Because I'm not sure if they are correct (there are possible alternatives). So it sounds like a negative provider at all and if so you can keep throwing it back as well:

Because it implies that there is "you who notices" and as external to them you look at the assumptions. For example you can understand this in your parable about the eyes of the mind that they look at distant ideas.
But if so, you must admit that you are the one who distinguishes (= the eyes?) Themselves have complete certainty about their ability to discern the basic assumptions so that even if you do not get their level of accuracy fully complete you still have to accept with certainty that they have a certain level of accuracy. And some parameters like the distance of the idea, the passions and more. So towards the same level you do not doubt at all that even the inaccuracy in them is inherent in this premise.
But if you cast a negative doubt on them again:
1. Then you will never be able to get out of the cycle of doubt. 2. There is no reason to assume that the statistical quantity to supply is only 10% suppose and not 50%. And this is already complete skepticism 3. It will lead to a loop of skepticism that you will eventually accept that the correctness of your subjective truths tends to zero in on the multiplicity of probabilities. 4. You can also question the principle of casting negative doubts.

Leave a comment