Circular arguments have no correlation with reality except by chance- you may as well make something up and believe it. It would make about as much sense.
It is correct that if skepticism is correct then there is nothing we can do. Logically speaking, since probability doesn’t exist there is a probability of 100%.
For skepticism to be correct you would need to show that it’s possible to be skeptic.
It’s certainly possible to pretend to be skeptic but pretending to be skeptic doesn’t make you any more of a skeptic than pretending to be a duck makes you a duck.
Not so. There is no logical connection between the feasibility of a human believing something and its truth. Something can be true and impossible to believe simultaneously.
I can also talk about weuisfdyhkj. It’s a label. In itself not more meaningful than the label you use. You think that you know what the label means but if your brain can’t simulate a reality behind the label it has no meaning. According to Wittgenstein we should therefore not speak about it.
I think I know my answer to this- I’ve realised my definition of “rational” subtly differs from LessWrong’s. When you see mine, you’ll see this wasn’t my fault.
A set of rules is rational, I would argue, if that set of rules by it’s very nature must correlate with reality- if one applies those rules to the evidence, they must reveal what is true. Even if skepticism is false, then it is a mere coincidence that our assumptions the world is not an illusion, our memories are accurate etc happened to be correct as we had no rational rule that would show us that they were. We do not even have a role that we must rationally consider it probable.
One of the rules of such rationality is that pragmatism is explicitly ruled out. Pragmatic considerations have no necessary correlation with what is actually true, therefore they should not be considered in determining what is true. The consideration of whether human beings are or are not capable of believing something is a pragmatic consideration.
You claim that skepticism is incoherent. Firstly, this is circular as you assume things to get to this conclusion. Second, even if you take those assumptions humans are capable of understanding the concept of “I don’t know”. Applying this concept to absolutely everything is effectively what skepticism is.
Applying this concept to absolutely everything is effectively what skepticism is.
But you are not applying it to everything. You have a strong belief in a platonic ideal of rationality on which you base your concept.
Take the buddhists who actually don’t attach themselves to mental concepts. They have sayings such as: “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him”.
You are not willing that you don’t know what skepticism happens to be because you have attachement to it.
This is exactly what Wittengsteins sentence is about. We shouldn’t talk about those concepts.
The buddhists also don’t take in a rational sense about it. They meditate and have a bunch of koans but they are mystics. You just don’t get to be a platonic idealist and no mystic and have skepticism be valid.
Not exactly Platonic- I have no belief whatsoever, on faith or reason, in ideal forms. As for why rationalism, I believe in it because rationalist arguments in this sense can be inherently self-justifying. This comes from starting from no assumptions.
However, I then show that such rationality fails in the long run to skeptical arguments of it’s own sort, just as other types of rationality do. I focus on it because it is the only one with a halfway credible answer to skepticism.
I have already shown I know what skepticism is- not knowing anything whatsoever. You haven’t refuted this argument, given that “I don’t know” is a valid Epistemic state.
I have no belief whatsoever [...] I have already shown I know what skepticism is
Those two positions contradict each other. You can’t have both. You claim at the same time to believe that you know what skepticism happens to be and that you know nothing.
I said earlier that I believe that rationally speaking, skepticism proves itself correct and ordinary ideas of rationalism prove themselves self-refuting. However, I believe on faith (in the religious sense) that skepticism is false, and have beliefs on faith accordingly.
Therefore, I sort of believe in a double truth, but in a coherent fashion.
Circular arguments have no correlation with reality except by chance- you may as well make something up and believe it. It would make about as much sense.
I don’t believe this is true. A circular argument is at least internally consistent, and that prunes away a lot of ways to be inconsistent with reality.
Circular arguments have no correlation with reality except by chance- you may as well make something up and believe it. It would make about as much sense.
It is correct that if skepticism is correct then there is nothing we can do. Logically speaking, since probability doesn’t exist there is a probability of 100%.
For skepticism to be correct you would need to show that it’s possible to be skeptic.
It’s certainly possible to pretend to be skeptic but pretending to be skeptic doesn’t make you any more of a skeptic than pretending to be a duck makes you a duck.
Not so. There is no logical connection between the feasibility of a human believing something and its truth. Something can be true and impossible to believe simultaneously.
I think that’s the category that Wittenstein summarizes as “things you can’t talk about”.
But we are talking about scepticism. It’s an exception to the Wittgensteinian rule.
I can also talk about weuisfdyhkj. It’s a label. In itself not more meaningful than the label you use. You think that you know what the label means but if your brain can’t simulate a reality behind the label it has no meaning. According to Wittgenstein we should therefore not speak about it.
I think I know my answer to this- I’ve realised my definition of “rational” subtly differs from LessWrong’s. When you see mine, you’ll see this wasn’t my fault.
A set of rules is rational, I would argue, if that set of rules by it’s very nature must correlate with reality- if one applies those rules to the evidence, they must reveal what is true. Even if skepticism is false, then it is a mere coincidence that our assumptions the world is not an illusion, our memories are accurate etc happened to be correct as we had no rational rule that would show us that they were. We do not even have a role that we must rationally consider it probable.
One of the rules of such rationality is that pragmatism is explicitly ruled out. Pragmatic considerations have no necessary correlation with what is actually true, therefore they should not be considered in determining what is true. The consideration of whether human beings are or are not capable of believing something is a pragmatic consideration.
You claim that skepticism is incoherent. Firstly, this is circular as you assume things to get to this conclusion. Second, even if you take those assumptions humans are capable of understanding the concept of “I don’t know”. Applying this concept to absolutely everything is effectively what skepticism is.
But you are not applying it to everything. You have a strong belief in a platonic ideal of rationality on which you base your concept.
Take the buddhists who actually don’t attach themselves to mental concepts. They have sayings such as: “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him”.
You are not willing that you don’t know what skepticism happens to be because you have attachement to it. This is exactly what Wittengsteins sentence is about. We shouldn’t talk about those concepts.
The buddhists also don’t take in a rational sense about it. They meditate and have a bunch of koans but they are mystics. You just don’t get to be a platonic idealist and no mystic and have skepticism be valid.
Not exactly Platonic- I have no belief whatsoever, on faith or reason, in ideal forms. As for why rationalism, I believe in it because rationalist arguments in this sense can be inherently self-justifying. This comes from starting from no assumptions.
However, I then show that such rationality fails in the long run to skeptical arguments of it’s own sort, just as other types of rationality do. I focus on it because it is the only one with a halfway credible answer to skepticism.
I have already shown I know what skepticism is- not knowing anything whatsoever. You haven’t refuted this argument, given that “I don’t know” is a valid Epistemic state.
Those two positions contradict each other. You can’t have both. You claim at the same time to believe that you know what skepticism happens to be and that you know nothing.
I said earlier that I believe that rationally speaking, skepticism proves itself correct and ordinary ideas of rationalism prove themselves self-refuting. However, I believe on faith (in the religious sense) that skepticism is false, and have beliefs on faith accordingly.
Therefore, I sort of believe in a double truth, but in a coherent fashion.
I don’t believe this is true. A circular argument is at least internally consistent, and that prunes away a lot of ways to be inconsistent with reality.
This assumes the falsity of skepticism to begin with. Even then, it is possible for a circular argument to be internally inconsistent.