Home › Forums › Controversial Topics › Asking questions, Rationalism
- This topic has 51 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by Moq.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 7, 2010 7:42 pm at 7:42 pm #694753YW Moderator-80Member
salt–slang for a sailor, someone who occasionally is lost at sea (see my last post for further details)
September 7, 2010 8:56 pm at 8:56 pm #694754MoqMemberMdd-
I believe the issue has been pretty much resolved.
Mod 80-
You are stating one viewpoint which not everyone agrees to. However, allow me to point out a general problem with the way you presented this position. Locke argued that if the knowledge is truly innate, you should have no need to say that it is obvious. You only need to resort to demonstrating how obvious it is if the knowledge is not innate. And being obvious doesn’t in any way prove the knowledge is innate either.
Actually, it’s exactly what I’m trying to say from a philosophical perspective. We have senses other then our logic. But Locke was right; they are not obvious. But neither is playing a violin. But it is knowledge; I believe there are stages of knowledge that one attain by increasing his sensitivity – and , for lack of better word; listening. But definitely not like logic, which ultimately is objectively universal.
Because I cannot prove it to you does make it not true. But it does mean that I cannot prove it to you. It means that I am sensitive to it, and you are not. I can say that it is obvious – to me, because that experience is not universal. But something does not have to be universal to be true.
Truth to be told, Locke’s premise was wrong. For instance, after years of logical thought certain things because obvious. But try explaining them to a local ditz (male or female). You certainly would say that something is obvious. It wouldn’t make it less true. Sensitivity is real in logic as well. Philosophical thought takes time to – get hold of.
AND as far as the Sinia experience, you have good logical God. You do not have a superlogical God. God wish to cook us anyway, make evil good and good evil. Remove logic, and nothing can ever, ever, be demonstrated. The ultimate arbiter, our minds, which is the final decider if something is logical or not, is perfectly useless. What is good? What is evil? What is true? If our lenses is broken we see nothing. “Logic is futile” (that’s actually not a quote from a great philosopher, but rather from Dilbert, speaking as his boss demands the ability to store smell on his computer).
SJS –
I think we have a schematics issue here. We are using the word logic as what we absolutely and totally know. Certainly, the laws of nature don’t enter that realm.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.