I have not defied anything. I am more aware of the implications of my epistemology than you give me credit for. Let me explain. I have used deductive reasoning to conclude that that possibility and actuality are not equivalent. However, deduction itself cannot be proven. You might say that logical principles are self-evident, which leaves us with the question of why what we consider "self-evident" must be true. Underlying a specific inference, there are general rules of thought which justify it, but these too must be justified.
Is the deductive reasoning about actual reality (IE: Is it a contenful/content filled statement about actuality, or is it only reffering to the definition of what actuality would be IF it could be known?
If its the former, then its not deductive reasoning, its a contentful statement about reality in general, which implies you can know actual reality in itself.
If the latter its still an indirect statement about actuality..for youd have to know something about actual reality in order to know how to differentiate between abstract reality and non absract/actual reality. In order to draw the line beween what you can and cant know, you must look past the line in order to know where to draw the line, which implies some knowledge about whats beyond the line to be able to draw it.
IF you really want to push that as only being a definition about reality, then its saying nothing about actuality..If the definition has no refferent in actuality then it cannot make statements about it as to what you can or cannot know about it..for all those statements would be about it..either directly or indirectly. If its saying nothing about actuality then its saying nothing about anyTHING at all. If thsi s the case, wouldnt that mean youd be open to hearing that not everything needs a cause or explanation that refferences another thing besides itself? If not, why?
Besides that the question youre asking is as meaningless as is your epistemology. The question is like asking how we can really know that a triangle (which is that which has three sides) is that which has three sides. Its like asking what came before the first one, what caused the uncaused, and wheres the bachelors wife? The problem is that the reason we know for sure a triangle has three sides is just by unpacking what the words means in terms of what it is..and since nothing comes before the first, an uncaused being has no cause because its self existent/self explanatory, and a bachelor doesnt have a wife, those questions are meaninglss and contradictory. They make no sense, because they confuse categories ask for and demand the opposite of what a thing is or can be to simulateously also be the thing it opposes.
The reason we know something self evident (clear in itself/self explanatory/self justifying) is because thats what it is and what it means. Self evident means that the predicate (description, or that which is predicated about something) is identical or reducible to its subject. When the predicate matches what its refferring to, then its true. If an statement about the abstract corresponds to the abstract thing its refefring to, then its true abstractly. If a statment about actual reality corresponds to the actual thing its reffering to, then its true actually. The reason we know triangles have three sides is because the predicate (..has three sides) is identical to its subject, the word tri-angle. Therefore in regards to actual reality, the reason we know something actually exists (like myself..the reason we know "I exist" is actually true) is because the predicate ("I"=myself who is or has being/actuality), is reducible to the actual I thats thinking, stating it, or denying it. The actually produced thought or statement necessarily implies an actually existing producer of the thought, or statement. This is known immediately while being in the actual experiential process of asking or denying whether "I"exist". The discover takes place concurrently with the asking or denying..not before (apriori) or after (a posteriori)..
While I cant know if you exist with the same kind of certainty (self evidence and actual undeniabillity) I can know I actually do exist, for I must actually exist to deny I exist. Since every denial implies an actually existing producer of the denial, and this is shown while producing the denial, that "I /somthing exists" is true, the reason we know this with actual necessity is because its actually inescapable/undeniable. You cant deny its truth without necessarily affirming its truth in the process of denying it. While one can logically concieve in the mind, oneself not existing, in that its not a logically airtight argument, it is nevertheless self evident (actually and necessarily true) as well as actually undeniable.
What youre asking me is how I know (how I can show in a self evident, inescapable, and actually necessary way I can know for sure) that its true that self evident truth is a reality. Your question implies the reality of self evident and undeniabillity applies to reality, for its the very criteria youre implying in your very question about it. If youre not asking me for a real solid self justifying satisfactory answer, then you cant rule out the possibility of knowing actually necessary truth about reality..since that is the case, you cant meaningfully affirm that NO statement is conclusive about reality..thus you must reject your view inorder to be consistent, meaningfully, and reasonable/rational.
Besides youre only assuming EVERYTHING must have a cause (the contradictory principle of sufficient reason), yet what is uncaused, what is self evident, self explaining doesnt need one. Every house needs a foundation and only what comes to be, what changes, what could cease being needs a cause..if something doesnt come to be, but is eternal and uncaused, is unchanging, and cannot cease to be, it doesnt need a cause let alone need to find an explanation for its existence found in something else...rather the self explained, is just that, self explaining. The reason why it is self explaining and self evident is because thats the kid of thing it is. Why do you blindly assume that everything needs a cause? Wouldnt that imply the opposite of the false humility that comes about your epistemology, that one infinitely witholds judgment from everything..when in reality it assumes to know everything, to be able to know for sure, before experience, needs a cause..Whyd you assume that is true? All youre doing is showing that omniscience does exist, what is unchanging, infinite, and absolute does exist..but just showing also that its not you..because omniscience wouldnt make a self negating argument.
If you say that a statement is self-evident, who judges it such? You do, perhaps I do, too; perhaps, all cognitively normal humans judge it to be such. What then justifies us as judges? Self-evidence is no solution.
Thast another wrong question. WHO judges it such? The point is that it is self justifying even if many or none of us understand it or wants to. Reality doesnt ask us permission to be. One cant ask you your permission if you would like to start existing, before you start existing...you dont usually get asked if its ok for a cop to pull you over, and most of the time people dont get asked if its ok that you die someday. Reality is that which is, and we dont determine it, rather we discover it based on principles..we not only can and do do this, but we also live our lives that way, and cant meaningfully think, state, or deny it to the contrary. YOu can by my guest to say nahh ahh all day long..but while you can deny what is self evident all day, while you can state its not true formally, you cannot meaningfully deny it without implying its true in the process of the denial. Is it self evident, and sure that it is "NO solution"?? How would you know for sure its "NO solution" with such certainty and conclusiveness as to rule out even the possibility for something to be sellf evident, if self evidence is not true or real? The fact that you rule it out in certain terms, shows you know self evidence and necessity does apply to reality..for youre ruling out in a necessary way self evidence as applicable to reality..which is to prove that necessity/self evidece does apply to actual reality.
I think it is pretty clear what I'm saying from my last post. Beliefs are not so strongly justified that they are conclusive. Actually, I believe you've already asked this question phrased a little differently.
Interesting that you say that when just before you stated that you said "Self-evidence is no solution". How could you know for sure with absolute certainty, in a self evident/actually necessary way that self evidence/actual necessity doesnt apply to reality? The second you say that you imply self evidence/necessity applies to reality and the second you soften the "NO solution" to a "fallible" "weakend" view that states it "could be/is possibly a solution" you must then admit the possibility it could be, and thus be open to seeing the "evidence" for actual necessity..I put evidence in quotes because its not evidence in the way you understand it..as something being made evident by another thing..rather if one is open to just understad what is being stated, by understadning the terms being used, it can be shown that what is being stated is clear in itself, where one needs not go even beyond the statment to know its true as immediately knowable though experience and intuition.
Sorry, I do not understand. Actuality of what?
I also dont understand what youre reffering this to. Ill see if I can figure out what youre saying..but if what youre saying is true..how could I or anyone ever really even know that much? Youre epistemology would make even dialogue impossible..yet we are dialoging though hmm?
