5 ms·
Let the set M = {circular, regressive, axiomatic} to be the set of "unsatisfying" arguments that may be used to prove any truth. Let the mapping J: powerset(M)
by arf 8y ago
Let the set M = {circular, regressive, axiomatic} to be the set of "unsatisfying" arguments that may be used to prove any truth.
Let the mapping J: powerset(M) -> <schools-of-thought-in-meta-epistemology> to map some subset of M to a theory of justification such that the believers in said theory only find usage of some combination of the said subset to be "acceptable".
Then:
J({}) is in {Skepticism}
J({circular}) is in {Coherentism}
J({axiomatic}) is in {Foundationalism}
J({regressive}) is in {Infinitism}
J({axiomatic, circular}) is in {Foundherentism}
J(M) is in {Quietism}
Is there an x where x is in the powerset of M, such that J(x) is {}? Or literally every possible position can be the foundation of a philosophical paper?
- tunesmith 8y agoJ({circular, regressive}) is twoyearoldism. Where they ask why incessantly and don't care if you lead them in a circle. J({regressive, axiomatic}) seems contradictory, so maybe that's {}.
- arf 8y agoOn J({regressive, axiomatic}): Well, the regular formulation of "Infinitism" is that S is justified to believe P_1 on the basis of P_2 and P_n on the basis of P_n+1. J({regressive, axiomatic}) just defines a limit i.e. S is justified to believe P_1 on the basis of P_2 and P_n on the basis of P_n+1 such that lim_(k->infinity) P_k = P_x where x is not a natural number. You have to say x is not a natural number, because if it were, J's output would have been "foundationalism" and P_x then would be a "self-evident" belief - to use Chisolm's terminology. P.S. If anyone thinks that this is an abuse of mathematics, I agree. But, its usage is compatible with that of philosophers e.g. Goldman's Causal theory of knowledge literally uses a recursive formulation of belief formation where the base case is "self-evident", I just unwrapped the tail call and wrote it as a loop!