Possibility and actuality have different definitions, therefore, I say that they are not the same thing. What I was attempting to communicate before, is that the cognitive processes that I use to justify my belief that they arent the same cannot themselves be justified. Why are basic logical rules true? They appear true to my mind, I cannot think of ways to defy them, but I could be wrong. I cannot say that any logical principle is known conclusively because its justification is reliant upon our rational faculties.
If your cognative process cannot be justified why believe it? If theres really not enough there to help you adjudicate between two truth claims, why do you go and play ouiiji board with it? I think youre confusing logical possibility with actuality. While its logically concievable you could be wrong about your own existence for example, its nevertheless actually undeniable. Why do you denigrate actual undeniabillity, where you must actually imply youe existence not prior to thinking about it, not after you state, ask, or deny you exist, but while being in the very process of thinking, asking or denying you exist. Thats just it, logical principles are true absractly, but rational principles are true actually. Theres a difference between reason and logic which you dont seem to agree with. Its not that you cant think of ways to deny them, you can deny them all day long, you just cant meaningfully deny them without your denial implying its true, invalidating your denial as false at the same time. Besides if you could be wrong about actuality, that means you should be open to seeing the evidence of self evidence and undeniaillity..but not surprisingly youre not..your Kantian approach disables you from doing so, because that approach is self negating.
Its actually inescapable no matter which way you go. If you say you cant know anyTHING about phenomena, you must know something about it to say that, which shows its false to say you cant and dont know anyTHING about phenomena, thus true you know something about phenomena. The only way you can identify something as being determined in the mind is if you knew something contrary or idependant of the mind by which to differentiate it. Likewise its contradictory and impossible to meaningfully think or state "I cannot know actuality in itself as it is" for that implies knowledge of it to be able to identify it and enable youreself to know what it is youre denying vs another thing.
It was standard since Kant to say that an analytic statement is one in which the predicate adds nothing to the subject that is not already contained within the subject. The question can be raised of what is meant by conceptual containment? A proposed solution is that they mean the same thing, independently of empirical fact. I notice this is recreated in your post. Frege showed that we cannot confuse meaning with reference. We cannot say, in other words, that words mean the same thing because they refer to the same thing. Freges examples were morning star and evening star, both of which have the same referent, but do not mean the same thing.
This is a bad argument. The reason why something is true is if its corresponds to what its reffering to. When the meaning of the symbol used matches what its reffering to its true. Morning star and evening start do not have the same refferent because the meanings of each, as commonly understood, mean different things even while they formally use the same term in each. Just because two opposing statements use the same term doesnt mean they have the same context nor same meaning. Context determines meaning and intent of the author of a statement or claim. Since youre ignoring context and thus meaning, and only showing asuperficial similarily between the two statements, you havent in any way established the truth of your argument. WHat should be stated is that the meaning of the term or whole claim must be identical to or reducible to its subject. That is it doesnt matter what the symbol one uses, as long as the meaning that is contextually assigned to the claim is one that conveys something that matches its refferent. Its not stating that as long as you use symbols that match its refferent its true. Thats a gross misunderstanding and strawman.
Furthermore, meaning is distinct from extension. Friedrich Nietzsche and the author of Beyond Good and Evil refer to the same person, but do not mean the same thing. Because meaning is not reference(the two words refer to the same object), it is nebulous. Meaning is an insufficient justification of analycity. You might say that the a statement like the one you alluded to is analytic because its words share definitions. All bachelors are unmarried. The dictionary says that a bachelor is unmarried. However, the people who compile dictionaries use preexisting synonyms; the dictionary cannot explain synonymy. You cannot justify synonymy by appealing to definitions which presuppose synonymy.
Youre erroneously reducining formal terms with meanings when meanings assigned to certain words change through time. It doesnt matter what the term is, it could be x, as long as one understands what the term or symbol means, according to the context it is in (perhaps an explanation of what meaning is being assigned to the term or symbol) and that it matches its refferent it is true. Youre offering one strawman after another perhaps from some secularistically biased philosophy text book or website.
Another attempt to salvage analycity is to appeal to salva veritate interchangeability. That is the ability to change words without altering truth value. However, bachelor and unmarried man are not interchangeable salva veritate. I give you the sentence Bachelor contains fewer than 9 letters. Clearly, the truth value of the statement changes if you substitute unmarried man.
This is lame and it perhaps shows you really dont want to have an actual discussion. You seem to pretend youre open minded, but your philosophy, even if you really mean youre open minded because arent sure, doesnt allow you to really be. It seems to provide you with the feeling of saftey from truth, and thus responsibillity, as well as freedom (ironically), while at the same time temporarily satsifying your need for truth with partial truth. Why substitute real intellectual nourishment on par with organic vegetation with a level of menatl nourishment than is on the level of mcdonalds? This is yet another strawman of correspondance theory of truth. The claim "bachelor contains fewer than 9 letters" is completely dependant on the specific term bachelor, and becomes a completely different truth claim when using another synonymous word. While its the same meaning of the term shared between two different words, theyre not the same words. Just because they share the same menaing doesnt mean theyre fomally the same or use the same amount of number of letters in them...Lame.
Furthermore, interchangeability is relative to a particular language. If the language is extensional(it lacks modal operators), then obviously non-synonymous forms can be substituted without altering truth value. Language with modal operators, such as necessarily presupposes analycity because only analytic statements are considered necessary. When one really begins to dig at explaining the analytic/synthetic distinction, it becomes muddled and not nearly as intelligible as the, frankly, antiquated analysis you have presented.
I wished you would move forward into the 16th century so that you could escape the muddled self undermining thinking you have seemed to hardily embrace. How post modern of you to do all the work of underming youre own argument for me. Again, while words or symbols change their meanings over time, in other words, while meanings may cease being assigned to a speicific word through time (the term leasing used to mean falsehood, now it probebly just reffers to a way of living in a particular real estate) the meanings do not. When I say "I exist" or when you say "I exist" the meaning is always the same, though the terms that represent the meaning may change through time. You could say that in another language and it will use diferent words to say the same thing, so the issue isnt the terms used, but whether in context the term(s) means something and that that particular meaning of the word/term corresponds to reality. Youre relavistic arguments make no sense and completely miss the point..then again that may be your point and intension so thats your preogative and choice to do so. No one and nothing is making you do that except yourself.
*** I was giving this a quick once over to check for typos and I noticed that you kept referring to the "question" I'm asking. However, I note that there are no questions in the passage you have quoted. I realize what you mean is obvious to you, but this has become a fairly complex discussion and you must be very clear or it will become impenetrable. I have tried to do this, hopefully, I have succeeded, but if you do not understand, do ask for clarification.
False humility from a false and self negating worldview. One can take all of what youre saying as being that youre not sure of what youre saying correct? Why waste words when all you could say is you dont know for sure...instead of saying you cant know anyTHING for sure, and somehow seem sure of that concerning THINGS (in themselves)?
Major premise: I think
Minor premise(unstated): Only things which exist think
Conclusion: I exist.
I have expressed the unstated premise in the enthymeme for claritys sake. This is a syllogism. It is fallible because logical principles rest upon our cognitive processes, and it would be terribly difficult to justify them without employing them. Ultimately, logical rules or general laws of thought depend on us for justification.
WHile what youre saying may be a reaction to decart its not relevant to the argument Im giving. De Carte got de cart before de horse. Its not I think therefore I am, which already assumes one exists, rather its I am therefore I think for you must first exist to be able to state that oneself exists.
Rather the argument being actually stated is: I am therefore I think, and I know that because its immediately verifiable as I engage in the very experiential process of thinking, stating, or deny that I exist for I must exist inorder to deny I exist. So its not a matter of depending on thinking to verify I exist, rather its being in the process of thinking about my existence that I see I must actually exist to do so. So again its not I (who exist) thinks, therefore I am. Rather its I am (I actually exist) therefore I think, for I must actualy exist inorder to be able to think about whether I do or not. While my non existence (and everythings non existence) is formally deniable, in that I can say it all day long, my non existence is nevertheless is not meaning affirmable without implying that I do exist.
Besides how do you know that logical principles rest upon own cognative processes? The fact that one cannot deny them without using them shows their self justifying, not needing to be made evident or clear by another thing. One other thing that can be stated is that you confuse logic with reason. Logic deals with validity while reason deals with material truth about reality. You can have an absurd logical syllogism be valid yet ridiculously not true, where as something rational (like I exist) is either self evident or redicible to whats self evident. Its not dependning on deductive or inductive reasoning or logic..rather what Im saying is reductive in that its either identical or reducible to self evidence. Self evidence is not provable in the sense of how you speak of them, in terms of having to be made evident or claear by another thing..their clear in themselves, and cannot be made evident by another thing other than themselves.
The way its known isnt circular, as if reason depends on reason inorder to verify reason is true and reliable..rather you must use reason in the process of asking about or denying reason is true, which isnt the same thing. To say "I can speak/type in english" one isnt using english as the basis of the argument, rather one is using english in the process of the argument..and because its using english in the process of the argument, thats how one can see its self evidence. So its not so much youre justifying self evidence on the basis of self evidence or justfying self evidence by something else (perhaps not self evident) rather youre seeing the clear evidence and reality of something that is evident in itself, while being in the process of thinking, asking, or denying if its true. Self evidence isnt used on the basis to prove or justify self evidence, rather its used in the process of observing if its self evident. So no infinite regress of justifications is necessary nor correct..that only comes about by intentional or unintentional proposed strawmen concenring this subject that you cant but live and act as if it were true.
Not so. I have not implied that self-evident propositions are infallible. That I ask about something does not imply that it is a reality. If I asked you to prove that there are square circles, certainly you would not say that I imply their reality!
Thats not what is being claimed. Im not saying if you ask about anything that any proposed reality is true..Man not only does your view protect you from truth, and thus supposedly from responsibillity (at least the confrontation of knowing deep down youre responsible) but it also prevents you from having actual meaningfull discourse about it..Are you purposely misinterpreting what Im saying? Your views protects you not only from truth but also from real relationships..I think youve pretty much covered it then. Youre safe within the corrupting and self negating philosophy you have incorporated into your life from that which can move you foward. You have implied that, for why then wouldnt you say nothing or you dont know, IF youre really not sure? If your enot sure then you couldnt rule out anything, yet you attempt to. If you can rule out something then you can know something for sure, yet thats the one thing you are trying to avoid. Arent you trying to rule out that Im saying youre implying self evidence does correspond to reality/youre saying self evidence is infallible?
One need not be infallible to know something is true or infallible. And Im not saying that proposing something exists means it exists. Im saying that IF something is self evident, one finds out it is/can observe the reality of its self evident nature by being in the process of thinking, asking, or denying it exists. Not everything is self evident. Just everything that is self evident is known or revealed as self evident while being in the process of thinking asking or deny it. Also its not known on the basis of something else that is self evident, rather, one can see that a particular thing is self evident or clear in itself, self justifying, self explaining, while one thinks about it, asks abot it, or denys it. Its existence and reality is shown by just interacting with it. This doesnt apply to impossible being (square circles, married bachelors, non existent selves), only to self evident truths about reality/realities.
I am not saying that everything needs to have a cause. I am saying that a theory of knowledge needs a knower. To whom is a self-evident proposition self-evident? You have misunderstood the concept of self-evidence. It means that the statement requires no further justification, that understanding it is sufficient to affirm it. It does not mean that it is literally evident to itself; i.e., the proposition contemplates itself. It is self-evident to someone.
To claim something is self evident isnt to say a truth claim is clear or evident
to us or everyone, nor that something that contemplates itself..thats a reading into the word evident and you must insert the word "to" us to change what Im saying. Rather something self evident is that which is clear or self explaining
in itself, not to itself or dependant on us to see its clearness. It needs no further justification, because it has enough info within itself to be able to see it is true. Its self explaining. While thats what it is by definition, it does as you suggested, imply a knower or mind that is connected to it..While truth does imply a knower, that doesnt mean it necessarily implies any of us as needing to be such.
Truth implies a thought and a thing known, and thus does imply a mind for truth resides in mind, on the other hand logic and reason doesnt depend on OUR cognative processes. All of us can misunderstand or over look what is self evident, or say that something self evident isnt evidence TO US, but that doesnt matter nor mean that something isnt self evident just because we dont percieve it to be/it isnt evident TO US. We're capable to misunderstanding.
Something self evident is evident or clear
in itself. Because the very nature of self evident truth is actually necessary, absolute, inescapable, real, unchangable, and not dependant on any of our beliefs, feelings, or thoughts, this implies a real necessary, absolute, unchanging mind that emanates this from which it comes from. Just because we participate in and with truth doesnt mean it originates from us as you wish to suggest..While the
our knowing self evidence is dependant on our cognative abillities, the reality of the laws of self evidence/reason, gravity, moral law etc doesnt depend on our thinking abillity but on that which is actually necessary, and unchangable. Since absolute truth, self evidence and undeniabillity, reason and logic are actually inescapable realities and inform us concerning actuality, where their reality is implied in denying them, there must be a actually necessary and absolute ground for them, which automatically exludes us from being such.
You are somehow confusing my epistemological remarks with metaphysics. I am not saying that reality asks my permission to be. I am saying that a self-evident proposition needs someone to consider it self-evident for it to be so. A self-evident proposition is known through understanding it. Something is not known without a knower.
Yes but youre somehow suggesting that because we participate in reason, self evidence, that that means its existence is somehow dependant on us or
our thinking abillities. We change, and what is self evident doesnt and cannot change, because its absolute. Since thought about a thing, comes from mind, were not absolute, yet self evident truth is absolute, it follows that there must be an absolute mind and being/nature, from which truth comes from, enabling us to enage and interact with it and use it.
Why do you assume that when I say "self-evidence is no solution" that I mean that this statement is infallible? That would conflict directly with the tenets I have laid out in this thread.
Because f its really no solution, as you certainly seem to think it isnt.. arent you
completely ruling out self evidence? How can you do so without certainty, or how could you completely rule out something in a way that isnt
conclusive?..yes...which..does consistently go against your tenets you have laid out in this thread..You are right about that..If its not conclusive that self evidence is not a solution, then its possible it is a solution..but somehow that idea doesnt come from you does it..? You absolutely rule out self evidence from being a solution, and imply certain conclusiveness with almost everything youre saying, while simutaneously stating you cant be cpnclusive about anything..Are you begining to see your dilemna youve allowed Kant get you into? Are you beginning to see that Kant kant get it right?
This reminds me very much of a conversation in which I say "ice cream is good" to which someone says "that's just your opinion." I do not mean the the situation is identical, merely similar. Of course, it's my opinion; and, of course, when I say "self-evidence is no solution" it is a fallible statement. That should be stunningly clear from the bulk of the discussion in this thread. It would be appreciated if you laid off the "a-ha! gotcha!" remarks like the one above.
The only way someone could know ice cream in itself is really good is if they knew phenomena in itself, which you deny, yet imply its true simulataneously. While it may be good in itself, because it exists, it may not be good for everyone to eat. It also may not be a good thing that can be enjoyed by all, nor does it mean that it is a varied goodness that is enjoyed by all. Theres other good things, like other ice cream flavors that ar also considered as personally preffered by some other people. While itys absolutely true that good exists, its also absolutely true that not all people consider what is good to be good, that some consider what is something they dont like/prefer to be something bad or evil vs it being a good thing they just dont like in light of other good things out there, and that some people consider what is really bad to be good.
Again, if "self evidence" is fallible, thus cab be false, why you do say it in certain terms..why not just say you dont know if its true..yet if you do that, why choose any particular view over another? Yet you dont say you dont know. Besides if you can be less than conclusive, or can be closer to what is false, or state false things, why do you think you cant move not only closer to conclusive or state something conclusive? If its not conclusive that "self evidence is no solution" then isnt it possible that it is conclusive? If so, why state simultaneously it isnt, because YOU said its no solution did you not? If youre statements can be conpletely inconsistent with your own tenets, why would you think that sort of epistemology can ender yo anything remotely correct, justifiable, or coherent? The only way one could know what was crooked, was if they knew what was straight, for in the very meaning of the word crooked is the idea "not STRAIGHT". So crooked implies knowlegde of the straight. In a debate I heard recently, a man claimed you can know whats wrong but cant know whats right/good. He said you can know that youre not to murder jews, which he is one. The problem is that if you know you shouldnt treat a jewish person let alone any person badly, that implies you know you should treat them well. Likewise, the only way you could know what was less than conclusive, if you already knew what was conclusive to be able to differentiate between the two. So just like knowledge of what is crooked, implies knowledge of what is straight, knowing you shound treat people badly implies you know you should treat them well, so to knowledge of what is just less than conclusive, or not conclusive implies knowledge of what is conclusive..and that again goes against youre own tenets youve laid out in this thread.
I have made that admission before. I dare say I have made it multiple times, yet you continually take us in a circle by bringing it up again. I am at a loss.
Is it me whose taking us in circle? Youre philosophy implies everything is/or most things are (because you engage in double talk) an infinte regress, everything is a circle that gets you no where, not mine. The philosophy and epistemology allows you a ground to make your statement with certainty and strength, the difference is you go and undermine youre own arguments, while I do not. When I say youre to take the statment "I can say/type at least one word in english" and say you use english in the process of stating/typing that, and dont use english as the basis of the argument (which WOULD be circular and self negating=false)...you come along with a strawman of that to say Im using english as the basis of that argument, therefore youre argument is a circle or infinite regress..You can do that if you want to, but you do so at your own detriment...yet all is ok because its not your fault..you couldnt possibly know what I was saying because you cant really know what im saying as it is, in itself..so you must be off the hook...........Meaningless.
It would not make dialoging impossible.
While I can admit when Im wrong, and would, is it the philosophy or epistemology I use that would get someone into a meaningless infinite regress (of justifications) or a circle more quickly, or yours?
P.S. I hope that others have gained something from discussion because it is becoming clear that there will be no agreement reached.
P.P.S. There is too much repetition in this discussion.
I don''t exactly know what PP s is but Im just wondering if PPs can come in a number 1 or 2. Then again, to get back to your reply, could you gain anyTHING from this discussion (or any others for that matter) if you cant know anYTHING in itself for what it really is..? Oh also if you can only know the thing as it is TO YOU, and not what it is in itself, and are stuck with only knowing your feeling concerning the thing, how do you know you can know your feelings or thoughts about the thing either? Besides that, I think youve already answered your own question and did my work of refuting your views for me throughout the thread. Let (at least one of us) report, and let the reader decide...
I can understand that. What I find interesting is that some dont just come out and say they dont want any real or meaningful discussions, but have to go the long way of saying it..kinda. 
