EPISTEMOLOGY: The Key to Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< Actually, the problem is no to find it. It’s to accept it.
Tiribulus is right on this one too.[/quote]I knew it. You DO get it. This is not a poo pooable matter of irrelevant mental masturbation. It IS the key to everything. The very bedrock of all human thought. [quote]kamui wrote:<<< The truinity of the christian God is indeed a solution to the problem of the one and the many. I will concede this. >>>[/quote]Oh my Lord, this is gonna be good =] I don’t know how to say this any other way, but right now you and I are the only two who’ve touched this thread who have any idea what each other is talkin about. I’m asking two things very honestly. Do you feel that my exposition has been clear enough? And, do you agree that as far as you and I do agree, what we agree on is actually quite simple once understood? [quote]kamui wrote:<<< But this solution is a mystery. >>>[/quote]Yes it is. As any solution would be by definition.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< It’s not a problem in itself (after all, as you noted, we have to accept the circularity). >>>[/quote]Yep, that’s what I just said in agreement. Mystery and circularity are in this case two ways of saying the same thing.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< But it’s not intrinsically better than another (equally mysterious) solution. [/quote]Elder Forlife, Squating_Bear and Cortes. I am compelled by honor to report that this Frenchman has just become the solitary non Christian champion in this arena in my opinion. Monsieur Kamui here has done his cerebral homework and is taking me to the only stalemate possible with the epistemology I started this thread to advance.

I always go over every objection to every position I hold, arguing them with myself as if I already believed those objections to see if I can convince myself that they are valid. If I can defeat one of my positions with an objection then I adopt the position corresponding to the objections. I NEVER enter a public debate unless I have already settled every objection I could think of ahead of time. I’m not the smartest guy ever born, but I’m good at this.

I have been over dozens of attempted species of attack upon the transcendental, reformation epistemology so brilliantly codified by Dr. Van Til and the very one I believe Kamui is about to propose is the one and only stalemate possible as far as I have been able to discern. NOT a refutation, but a possible stalemate. Am I right Kamui?

Alright. Enough playin coy huh?. =] Please introduce us to your alternative to the triune God who’s universal, comprehensive all governing exceptionless decree is the bedrock of all human thought and existence.
[/quote]

I’m here, reading and learning. This thread has finally started moving in the direction I hoped it would and I am very interested in seeing where it does go from here. Very happy to see kamui take up this mantle.

For the record, I agree, too, with everything Tirib has put forth regarding epistemology in this thread so far. You and I have pretty much always been on the same page with this. It’s the next step to the existence or possibility of free-will where we part ways.

Anyway, I intend to keep my mouth shut and learn for a bit here while you two (and maybe a few others) lay it out.

122

Just out of curiosity, my name mentioned above did not imply “non-Christianity” on my part, did it? I assume not, but the way it is worded and the company I am categorized with (not bad company by any means, mind you), has me scratching my head a bit.

123

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Monsieur Kamui here has done his cerebral homework and is taking me to the only stalemate possible with the epistemology I started this thread to advance.

[/quote]

No. He is apparently the only one interested in arguing with you to stalemate. There are those of us that know this ends in stalemate and have no interest in reading walls of text from you to get there.

You’re doing all this to “prove” it’s “either/or”?

Most of us understand that.

124

and you arrogantly hand out “stars” like a classroom teacher on top of this? LOL

125

Where to begin…

If there is at least one intelligible thing in the world (just one thing we can understand and know with certainty), then there is a rational principle in the world, which explains how (but not why) our minds can relate with the world.

the only other road is “there is not even 1 intelligible thing in the world”.
which leave us with sollipism and nihilism

Now, what’s this “rational principle” ?

At the very least, it’s a “logos” at work in the world. ie : an absolute intellect.

It is necessarily omniscient and omnipotent. by definition.

But it’s not necessarily omnibenevolent, nor “volent” at all, for that matter.
Actually, when you’re omnipotent, you don’t have to will.
You are and you act.
Your being is your action and your action is your being.
There is no room for a will between your being and your power.

That’s what i said it’s “not a person”.

126

[quote]EPHREM wrote:<<< Coming from you that’s a compliment (:[/quote]Yer welcome =D <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< I’ve already done this… I was pretty sure it’s because I came in between Pat and Oleena, bit them both in the legs like a pit bull and no matter how hard they tried shaking me off, I wasn’t ever letting go. 2 + 2 = 4, in the face of Einstein or any other man. Nor do we need to do any tests to verify a simple statement of logic. I was repeating these types of things left and right - I can see how that would catch your eye. >>[/quote]Oleena, Like Ephrem, cannot seem to understand what Kamui said in his last post. That for there to exist even one idea or object of certainty to us, ALL ideas and objects together must be certain or one of the uncertain ones may unfold to render all the rest uncertain as well. “To KNOW anything, your must know EVERYTHING”. You equated particle acceleration with 2+2 equaling 4 on the philosophical level. Both are either true or false together and for exactly the same reason. She absolutely would NOT cop to that and you, with no prompting from anyone, just showed up and said it. I was like “YEAH, what he said”.[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< English Standard Version good enough? >>>[/quote]That’s a perfectly good translation.[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< And by the way… was that just a regular old typo, a playful jab at my slipperyness, or some sort of a slip of your own? I’m talking about the “extraordinary intellectual AGILITY” >>>[/quote]No I meant agility. You had me goin for a about a week there. I had no clue you were a Muslim. I thought you were some exploring, uncertain skeptic of some kind. You even threw me the Hindu curve in the middle there which further threw me off the scent. When you pm’s you were a Muslim, I was quite honestly a bit annoyed. Not at you for playin me like that by which you clearly intended no malice, but at myself for bein played. You did it effortlessly too. My hat is still off. I knew we’d come to that switch in the tracks sooner or later though.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[quote]Cortes wrote:Just out of curiosity, my name mentioned above did not imply “non-Christianity” on my part, did it? I assume not, but the way it is worded and the company I am categorized with (not bad company by any means, mind you), has me scratching my head a bit.[/quote]Simply a list of folks I had spent significant time with that I felt had any kind of meaningful grasp on the topic of this thread. There’s a post around here somewhere from a week or two ago while you were gone where I said that I thought you had “one foot in the air stepping toward this position on epistemology”. Undeniably, Kamui is now the furthest. [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< For the record, I agree, too, with everything Tirib has put forth regarding epistemology in this thread so far. You and I have pretty much always been on the same page with this. >>>[/quote]I have no choice but to say this now because it is quite the case. The epistemology of Thomas Aquinas, in other words, Roman Catholicism, is irreconcilably hostile to The transcendental epistemology we have been discussing for months now. You WILL see that. [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< It’s the next step to the existence or possibility of free-will where we part ways. >>>[/quote]And this is one of the reasons WHY you will see that. Free will, in anything like the conventional autonomous version taught by Aquinas and held the world over today, is NOT possible if the epistemology you are agreeing with me on is true. The “free” will of man or any other entity in all of reality introduces contingency and the whole structure falls. Think about it. I promise you I am NOT being sarcastic. I also promise you Kamui will be nodding up and down at this.

127

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< No. He is apparently the only one interested in arguing with you to stalemate. There are those of us that know this ends in stalemate and have no interest in reading walls of text from you to get there. >>>[/quote]Your stalemate, which is the same one Elder Forlife wound up at is drowning in inconsistency. That’s what Kamui understands that you don’t. The stalemated position he should end up at is mechanically consistent, but arbitrary and subjective. Of course from his viewpoint I will be just as vulnerable as he is to that very criticism. We’ll see.[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< and you arrogantly hand out “stars” like a classroom teacher on top of this? LOL[/quote]No stars for you =[

128

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]EPHREM wrote:<<< Coming from you that’s a compliment (:[/quote]Yer welcome =D <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< I’ve already done this… I was pretty sure it’s because I came in between Pat and Oleena, bit them both in the legs like a pit bull and no matter how hard they tried shaking me off, I wasn’t ever letting go. 2 + 2 = 4, in the face of Einstein or any other man. Nor do we need to do any tests to verify a simple statement of logic. I was repeating these types of things left and right - I can see how that would catch your eye. >>[/quote]Oleena, Like Ephrem, cannot seem to understand what Kamui said in his last post. That for there to exist even one idea or object of certainty to us, ALL ideas and objects together must be certain or one of the uncertain ones may unfold to render all the rest uncertain as well. “To KNOW anything, your must know EVERYTHING”. You equated particle acceleration with 2+2 equaling 4 on the philosophical level. Both are either true or false together and for exactly the same reason. She absolutely would NOT cop to that and you, with no prompting from anyone, just showed up and said it. I was like “YEAH, what he said”.[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< English Standard Version good enough? >>>[/quote]That’s a perfectly good translation.[quote]squating_bear wrote:<<< And by the way… was that just a regular old typo, a playful jab at my slipperyness, or some sort of a slip of your own? I’m talking about the “extraordinary intellectual AGILITY” >>>[/quote]No I meant agility. You had me goin for a about a week there. I had no clue you were a Muslim. I thought you were some exploring, uncertain skeptic of some kind. You even threw me the Hindu curve in the middle there which further threw me off the scent. When you pm’s you were a Muslim, I was quite honestly a bit annoyed. Not at you for playin me like that by which you clearly intended no malice, but at myself for bein played. You did it effortlessly too. My hat is still off. I knew we’d come to that switch in the tracks sooner or later though.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>[quote]Cortes wrote:Just out of curiosity, my name mentioned above did not imply “non-Christianity” on my part, did it? I assume not, but the way it is worded and the company I am categorized with (not bad company by any means, mind you), has me scratching my head a bit.[/quote]Simply a list of folks I had spent significant time with that I felt had any kind of meaningful grasp on the topic of this thread. There’s a post around here somewhere from a week or two ago while you were gone where I said that I thought you had “one foot in the air stepping toward this position on epistemology”. Undeniably, Kamui is now the furthest. [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< For the record, I agree, too, with everything Tirib has put forth regarding epistemology in this thread so far. You and I have pretty much always been on the same page with this. >>>[/quote]I have no choice but to say this now because it is quite the case. The epistemology of Thomas Aquinas, in other words, Roman Catholicism, is irreconcilably hostile to The transcendental epistemology we have been discussing for months now. You WILL see that. [quote]Cortes wrote:<<< It’s the next step to the existence or possibility of free-will where we part ways. >>>[/quote]And this is one of the reasons WHY you will see that. Free will, in anything like the conventional autonomous version taught by Aquinas and held the world over today, is NOT possible if the epistemology you are agreeing with me on is true. The “free” will of man or any other entity in all of reality introduces contingency and the whole structure falls. Think about it. I promise you I am NOT being sarcastic. I also promise you Kamui will be nodding up and down at this.
[/quote]

Okay.I think we started knocking at the door but didn’t make it quite across that particular threshold in the Free Will thread.

Like I said, I may not say much, but I’ll be following this thread for its duration, and may decide to jump in. Or not.

Also If someone wouldn’t mind pointing me toward the discussion mentioned above involving Tirib, Pat, Oleena and squating_bear, I would appreciate the opportunity to read it.

129

Quick on the draw there pal. http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/we_need_another_christianity_thread It’s a ways in, but this thread was pretty good. You may want to skim through it a bit. Quick Ben and I got to be fast friends through several dozen E-Mails. Believe it or not. I’m only bein honest with you man. (about Aquinas and his grave Aristotelian error))

KAMUI. I’m gonna need a little time there buddy. A general question in the meantime. How did you arrive at this position. On what do you base it?

Man I wish Thunderbolt would get in on this. Push too actually. Nephorm woulda been another REALLY good one.

130

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Man I wish Thunderbolt would get in on this. [/quote]

I don’t have the time or interest to get into a broader religious discussion, but a few things I’d be interested in your answer on, as they relate to politics (and the application of the philosophy you are espousing).

  1. The Founding generation were a bunch of Calvinists. The nation (and by extension, the Constitution) was founded by these folks, and said Founding reflects (or should reflect) the philosophy/spirituality of these people. The Catholic Church is evil, etc., and the followers of said Church are co-opted by this evil, false religion, etc.

But the Constitution permits Catholics to practice their religion. The Constitution also permits a Catholic to serve as President.

So, the Founding “Cavlinists” made a mistake in the Constitution they enacted, right? They must have?

  1. If free-will doesn’t exist, and you say it does not, then by extension, you would not support punishing someone who commits a crime. Is this true? If not, why not?
131

@ thunderbolt23:
Please see here. http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/free_will?id=4523136&pageNo=14 You also helped me understand how inconsiderate I have been in taking other people’s threads off track. I mean that. I’m glad you posted this. Don’t misunderstand:

132

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< No. He is apparently the only one interested in arguing with you to stalemate. There are those of us that know this ends in stalemate and have no interest in reading walls of text from you to get there. >>>[/quote]Your stalemate, which is the same one Elder Forlife wound up at is drowning in inconsistency. That’s what Kamui understands that you don’t. The stalemated position he should end up at is mechanically consistent, but arbitrary and subjective. Of course from his viewpoint I will be just as vulnerable as he is to that very criticism. We’ll see.[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< and you arrogantly hand out “stars” like a classroom teacher on top of this? LOL[/quote]No stars for you =[
[/quote]

I know exactly where it goes. I don’t have the energy, desire or interest to openly intellectually masturbate with you on these forums. You’re exhausting and you’re not even original.

And a big Fuck you to you and your grades ya arrogant prick. You’re mind numbing and not nearly as clever as you fancy yourself (which puts you in good company in PWI; so you do have a “home”).

133

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

“The boastful shall not stand before Thine eyes; Thou dost hate all who do iniquity.” Psalm 5:5
“The Lord tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates.” 11th Psalm 5th verse.
“There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: 17-Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18-A heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, 19-A false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.” Proverbs 6:16-19
“All their evil is at Gilgal; indeed, I came to hate them there! Because of the wickedness of their deeds I will drive them out of My house! I will love them no more; All their princes are rebels.” God speaking, Hosea 9:15

Wadda you care anyway? Anything to add? I’ll even try n use synonyms for “autonomous” so as to avoid unnecessarily aggravating you from now on. When addressing you at least [/quote]

“Faith has never been shown to be anything more than believing what you want to believe no matter the reality.”

134

[quote]kamui wrote:
Where to begin…

If there is at least one intelligible thing in the world (just one thing we can understand and know with certainty), then there is a rational principle in the world, which explains how (but not why) our minds can relate with the world.

the only other road is “there is not even 1 intelligible thing in the world”.
which leave us with sollipism and nihilism

Now, what’s this “rational principle” ?

At the very least, it’s a “logos” at work in the world. ie : an absolute intellect.

It is necessarily omniscient and omnipotent. by definition.

But it’s not necessarily omnibenevolent, nor “volent” at all, for that matter.
Actually, when you’re omnipotent, you don’t have to will.
You are and you act.
Your being is your action and your action is your being.
There is no room for a will between your being and your power.

That’s what i said it’s “not a person”.

[/quote]

how do you know for certain there is an “absolute intellect”?

135

I don’t know it.
But if there is no Logos, then there is no point beginning a sentence with “how do you know…”
actually, there is no point arguing, debating, discussing, speaking or even thinking.
At all.

Yet, we all do it.

Some of us believe in accordance with their actions. Others do not.
That’s all.

[quote]"Bertrand Russell said :
“Skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it”[/quote]

136

[quote]
KAMUI. I’m gonna need a little time there buddy. A general question in the meantime. How did you arrive at this position. On what do you base it?[/quote]

IIRC, I had some kind of “Descartesque” experience when i was 12 years old.
Radical scepticism. doubting the veracity of all my perceptions, ideas and beliefs.

I didn’t “rediscovered” the “Cogito ergo sum” because all concepts, including the “I” concept, were doubtful for me at this point.

there was only one certainty : “something is thinking”.

That led me to the idea of an absolute intellect.

And actually, I never thought about equating that with the God of the catechism.
This God was way too human in my eyes. It sounded like another of those Gods i had read about in mythology books. A Zeus deprived of his family and pantheon. Nothing like an “absolute intellect”.

Blame it on Homer and Hesiod.

137

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< I don’t have the energy, desire or interest to openly intellectually masturbate with you on these forums. >>>[/quote]We have that in common then. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< You’re exhausting and you’re not even original. >>>[/quote]Thank you. Original means heretic. I certainly do not want to be that.[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< And a big Fuck you >>>[/quote]Now THAT’S original.[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< to you and your grades ya arrogant prick. >>>[/quote]Come on man. I didn’t mean it like THAT for Pete’s sake. Seriously. My tongue is outta my cheek now ok?[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< You’re mind numbing and not nearly as clever as you fancy yourself (which puts you in good company in PWI; so you do have a “home”). [/quote]This will never be my home and I’m not tryin to be clever. I’m tryin to be faithful. Maybe I’m not doin as gooda job as I think I am. I’ll find out though. In the meantime I wish you could lighten up. Not that I have a choice, but you’re always welcome in any threada mine. Even if you just stick your head in and yell like this.

138

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< I don’t have the energy, desire or interest to openly intellectually masturbate with you on these forums. >>>[/quote]We have that in common then. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< You’re exhausting and you’re not even original. >>>[/quote]Thank you. Original means heretic. I certainly do not want to be that.[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< And a big Fuck you >>>[/quote]Now THAT’S original.[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< to you and your grades ya arrogant prick. >>>[/quote]Come on man. I didn’t mean it like THAT for Pete’s sake. Seriously. My tongue is outta my cheek now ok?[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< You’re mind numbing and not nearly as clever as you fancy yourself (which puts you in good company in PWI; so you do have a “home”). [/quote]This will never be my home and I’m not tryin to be clever. I’m tryin to be faithful. Maybe I’m not doin as gooda job as I think I am. I’ll find out though. In the meantime I wish you could lighten up. Not that I have a choice, but you’re always welcome in any threada mine. Even if you just stick your head in and yell like this.
[/quote]

I guess I’m left to a favorite movie line of mine from Good Will Hunting: “Do you have any original thoughts on this matter of your own, or are you just going to plagiarize the whole book?”

The point is, while you furiously masturbate and vomit words onto your keyboard at the rate of our best particle accelerators, you’re not putting forth any original thought; this has all been done before and guess what? There isn’t an answer. There isn’t. So it makes it ultimately boring and moreover, tedious to try to wax poetic about this stuff in the limitations of an internet forum, all the while you cut/sparse comments/replies which is the most frustrating tactic employed in PWI (purposefully I might add).

You’re shoplifting the ideas and thoughts of men long dead, looking for an answer where there is none. Ultimately, you place your “faith” in a book written by “autonomous sinful man” allegedly inspired by a God that loves some of his creation, and hates others.

We agree on one thing; autonomous sinful man - he did indeed write your book and it’s why I shall not ever be included in your tribe.

Thanks for the “welcome” but guess what? It’s a public forum. I’ll come and go as I please, thank you. I’m just shocked that people still get up from their chairs to dance to your broken tune.

How many converts have you won here? The “lord’s” work indeed. I think not.

139

[quote]kamui wrote:

I don’t know it.
But if there is no Logos, then there is no point beginning a sentence with “how do you know…”
actually, there is no point arguing, debating, discussing, speaking or even thinking.
At all.

Yet, we all do it.

Some of us believe in accordance with their actions. Others do not.
That’s all.

[quote]"Bertrand Russell said :
“Skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it”[/quote]
[/quote]

I follow you, although I’m not sure I agree with your conclusions.

But first let’s agree on a definition of “logos”. Please provide yours.

140

[quote]kamui wrote:

May I ask why “something is thinking” (as you put it) leads you to conclude there is an absolute intellect?