>Because a) you have experiences but not experiences of yourself and
In what way dont I have experience of myself? Who am I experiencing now?
Someone else?
>b) experiences are not more certain that every scientific truth.
>Experiences are often misleading or outright illusions.
That I exist is more certain than any scientific truth. This is what I said.
We can argue about experiences, illusions and being misled by perception if
you like, the argument that will come back is that the very fact I am being
misled by perception or undergoing an illusion proves beyond doubt to me
that I exist.
>Experiences are one source of knowledge, but their coherence with other
>knowledge is important too.
The point is that given the certainty of 'I exist' subjective experience can
not just be dismissed by the realist. Given its certainty, it demands some
kind of explanation, but the realist recoils from providing any because
marrying objective language with subjective language has been an intractable
problem. If they are going to do that, they should admit how certain and
central subjective experiences are, how the enlightenment was forged by
those who dealt with them, and the poverty of their own theories in being
unable to explain them.
>They may be basic, but they're not certain.
Its not that beliefs are true through being had. Thats not a position Im
interested in. Thats relativism, that truth is subjective. I dont see many
people defending that. The unfalsifiable but nevertheless absolutely certain
fact that i exist is just derived from the fact there are experiences, it
doesnt derive from the content of those experiences - however 'deluded' they
may be. I want to ask what is a delusion? what is a dream? Nuerons firing?
I suppose it is hard to build from the cogito. Descartes didnt manage it.
However, to ignore it altogether is just lazy and is hardly a argument
against those who dont.
regards.
Chris.
>From: Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
>To: chris peck <chris_peck303.domain.name.hidden>
>Subject: Re: subjective reality
>Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 14:13:21 -0700
>
>chris peck wrote:
>>>>Well, maybe some of the above helped to explain it. Basing stuff
>>>>on "1st person" has a long history. That's what everyone, it seems
>>>>to me, did before the scientific era (about 1600?). So far as I know,
>>>>nothing
>>>>has ever come of it.
>>
>>
>>Its been the cornerstone of modern philosophy since the 1600's. It defines
>>the moment the 'scientific era' begins. In the realm of indubitable facts,
>>that I exist is one of them. It is established to me, for myself if not
>>you, just by the fact I have 1st person experiences going on. No doubt you
>>know this, perhaps it will incur your ire that Im reminding you of it, but
>>this subjective fact unfalsifiable though it is, has more certainty than
>>any 'objective' scientific truth. Why not build from this certainty?
>
>Because a) you have experiences but not experiences of yourself and b)
>experiences are not more certain that every scientific truth. Experiences
>are often misleading or outright illusions. Experiences are one source of
>knowledge, but their coherence with other knowledge is important too. They
>may be basic, but they're not certain.
>
>Brent Meeker
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger 7.0 today!
http://messenger.msn.co.uk
Received on Fri Aug 12 2005 - 07:48:30 PDT