Determinism Invalidates Knowledge and is Therefore Self-Refuting

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/45195/26114938.pdf?sequence=1

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• determinism
• free
• will
• knowledge
• epistemology
• philosophy
• objectivism
• ayn
• rand
• harry
• binswanger

[fenoglios]

Great vid. Thanks for the essay reference!

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan I'm sorry you have the great all knowing resource of yourdictionary, haven't you made your own appeal to authority? Any phil undergrad knows better than to use an ordinary dictionary for philosophy. Seriously, are all falsehoods due to logical error?

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

Yourdictionary dott com defines a fallacy at number 3 as ("a false, or mistaken idea; error"). Once again you are wrong. Fallacies are logical errors.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan You are correct, an ad hominem for example doesn't involve any form of logical error, it just simply calls you a name. You can't disprove the validity of an ad hominem in a formally logical language. Obviously it doesn't stop it being a waste of time as an argument.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

So fallacies are not logical errors? LOL!

[mechnar9]

I mean we should summarise this whole shitty argument into this. Is metaphysical free will (the incompatbilist sort) a neccessary condition upon the possibility to knowledge? 9 out of 10 philosophers don't think so, a bunch of youtube guys do though, I know who I respect more.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan So appeals to authority and popularity are "logical" errors now? I suggest you take a philosophy course someday, learn something of logic and get back to me. I'm hardly saying that the fact that the impossibility of absolute certainty is held by the majority of philosophers makes it an correct view, I'm just highlighting that when you laugh at it being obviously self-refuting, you are laughing at an awful lot of clever bastards that disagree with you.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

I couldn't care less about your insults. They mean less than dirt to me. It has the backing of the vast majority of the academic community? For such a person concerned with academia and philosophy, you sure do commit a lot of logical errors. You just appealed to fallacies of popularity and authority.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan Hmm yes a failure that has the backing of the vast majority of the academic community. I don't answer your yes or no dicotomy because your question itself is incoherent, I have had the decency to explain why but this doesn't entail your capacity to comprehend. I insult you because your thinking is bad and you should feel bad.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

And that's why I wrote "fail". Because your position is a failure, and this is obvious because you refuse to answer the question, and just evade and dodge it. It's also obvious how poor your argument is because you resort to insulting me so often.

[mechnar9]

Thus we see the impossibility of a regress of certainty, as being certain one is certain is the same thing as being certain. Thus the impossibility of absolute knowledge does make knowledge itself impossible. Your simplistic dogma is disposed of.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan Ahh the yes or no dicotomy, preserve of the mentally challenged. The binary nature of certainty is actually a necessary consequence of your argument against those whom maintain the impossibility of absolute certainty. For anything other than absolute certainty lead you down the same sceptical path. Even though you cannot be certain you are certain (it's incorrect thinking), even if we allow this, you cannot be certain you're certain with anything short of absolute certainty.

[mechnar9]

You know they say you can't take an ought from an is, but these arguments for free will try to take an is from an ought!

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

Nah. You just used a strawman argument by claiming I said ("we can only have absolute certainty or no certainty at all"). I never said that. I asked you a simple question and you evaded it. Here it is again: Are you absolutely certain we cannot have absolute certainty? Yes or No.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan I'm sorry but it's not self-refuting in the slightest, I think you'll find I have most sound academia behind me and you a cult, what you are saying entails we can only have absolute certainty or no certainty at all, it is binary. A fool could see this is error. You are need to realise that I don't need an infinte regress of certainty to hold a position. You can only be certain to some degree, nobody can be certain they're certain, it simply doesn't function that way.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

Well, your comment was worthless. It was a mild insult to me; You patently evaded giving a straightforward answer, and you seem too dense to realize your claim is self-refuting. And then it was false, as I am absolutely sure of something that you can't deny.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan Good response. Your intellectual capacity is clearly outstanding, I wouldn't expect anything more from an objectivist. You probably think Ayn Rand is a real philosopher.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

Fail.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan Surer than you are of anything whatsoever.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

Are you absolutely certain we cannot have absolute certainty?

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan You can start with their mistreatment of Kant and build from there really.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan No, we cannot have absolute certainty, not no certainty at all. This is not contradictory at all, it's basic stuff.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

(Part 2) Secondly, the claim that philosophers think epistemological certainty is impossible, is self-refuting. If knowledge(epistemology) cannot be certain, and we can be sure of nothing, then the claim that we can be certain of nothing epistemically, is itself not certain.

[Dhorpatan]

@mechnar9

(Part 1) First of all, it's espousing, not expousing. Secondly, I am not aware of Objectivists misinterpreting Philosophers or questioning their motives(not that that's a bad thing). The Objectivists I am aware of don't do that. To verify you are being true, I would need an example of Mr Cropper, or PaulMcKeever, or dannidandannikins, or Beethovens7th, or myself, doing what you say. Such that we can know it's true and not just dishonest rhetoric.

[mechnar9]

@Dhorpatan By expousing the type of epistemological certainty that philosophers have demonstrated impossible. By misinterpreting philosophers and their arguments and by questioning their motives of philosophy in general. It's basically a cult for those who hate philosophers with no good reason.