somephilosopher

4 ms·

1.
by somephilosopher 15y ago
Weeeeelll, yes and no. But mostly no. There has been a strand of 20 cent philosophy that has regarded justification as that which together with truth and belief yields knowledge - if you do that, you're individuating justification in term
2.
by somephilosopher 15y ago
It's not like philosophy is interested in some special notion of 'justified' - philosphy tends to be interested in our ordinary notion of justification. We normally think that the belief that neurons exist is justified. Philosophy will ask
3.
by somephilosopher 15y ago
The implicit assumption is: Vx [x thinks > x exists]. You also seem to think that Descartes needs to provide an accont of what it means to exist. Why think that? You speak English. 'Exists' is a perfectly intelligible English word. And
4.
by somephilosopher 15y ago
In the example you yourself gave of 'I think therefore I am', the claim following 'therefore' is a conclusion, not a premise. So no, Descartes didn't start with the premise that he existed.
5.
by somephilosopher 15y ago
Well, meditations wouldn't be a bad place to start. And philosophers differ a lot in their views of teh significance of philosophy. I regard it as self-indulgent, but interesting to those so inclined. Like Mathematics, it's an a priori subj
6.
by somephilosopher 15y ago
I wouldn't downvote anyone, but perhaps because it's a paradigm example of a particular strain of thought you see a lot amongst techie/engineering types with limited experience of philosophy, and a line of thought that doesn't stand more th