4 ms·
This is the kind of philosophical argument I cannot understand. The question is essentially: "Given that it is impossible to know X, how could you know if X"?
by rowyourboat 13y ago
This is the kind of philosophical argument I cannot understand. The question is essentially: "Given that it is impossible to know X, how could you know if X"?
There is nothing to think about. The scenario answers its own question.
- frobozz 13y agoYour boiled-down version of the question leads on to the following questions: * Why is impossible to know X? * How can we prove that X impossible to know? * How close to knowing X can we get? * What else can't we know? Is there a model for these kinds of unknowable? * Given that we can't individually perceive X, can we infer X by other means? Is it valuable to do so?
- nhaehnle 13y agoI think the even more interesting question would be: * Might any of these questions be answered in such a way that the answer ought to influence our future behaviour? If the answer to that particular question is No, then why bother with the others? If the answer seems to be No, it makes sense to delegate bothering about it to a few philosophers in their ivory towers ;-)
- voyou 13y agoThe question is more like "We usually think we know X, but it looks like it's impossible to know X; what's going on?" That is, the real question is, what is it about our understanding of "knowledge" that leads to this apparent contradiction?
- rowyourboat 13y agoAh, ok. That makes a bit more sense. Although if it is truly impossible to know X, but everything works as if X holds, we might just take the easy way out and assume that X until proven otherwise. But that may be my personal philosophy.