Philosophy discussion
General
>
Metaphysics
date
newest »
newest »
message 101:
by
[deleted user]
(new)
May 30, 2019 06:35PM
The first principle of a thing is unknowable.
reply
|
flag
G. wrote: "The first principle of a thing is unknowable."To risk repeating myself, to assert that something is unknowable is to be able to establish reasons why it is unknowable. In essence, if you could prove this, then you have a first cause which IS, in it's essence, knowable.
Joining up dots.
I am defined crudely.
An awkward outline.
So all human beings -
mostly mysteries to themselves.
I am defined crudely.
An awkward outline.
So all human beings -
mostly mysteries to themselves.
Rhonda wrote: "G. wrote: "The first principle of a thing is unknowable."
To risk repeating myself, to assert that something is unknowable is to be able to establish reasons why it is unknowable. In essence, if yo..."
The first principle of a first principle is not possible.
To risk repeating myself, to assert that something is unknowable is to be able to establish reasons why it is unknowable. In essence, if yo..."
The first principle of a first principle is not possible.
That’s wrong because it’s oversimplified. You are assuming that the description of what’s unknowable about the unknowable is equivalent to it being knowable. That’s assuming you can have such a description, and that’s not necessarily likely. Even if one could offer parameters, such as “I don’t know whether object A is clear or has a color or what color it is if it has one” that sill tell you nothing about the unknown contained therein.
A first principle is not reducible to facts.
If anything, you and I are first principles of which we know nothing.
G. wrote: "The first principle of a thing is unknowable."You have know way of knowing this. All you can say is that you haven't found ways to first principles. I take it you have not read the very careful arguments of those like Aristotle. Before you can make such pronouncements with any reasonable certitude, it would behoove you to argue formidably against what he says.
Bibliomantic wrote: "That’s wrong because it’s oversimplified."Alas, it is a clear statement of what is the case here. If one believes X, ostensibly he would provide reasons for that belief. If one asserts NOT X, then one must provide a suitable argument to establish that belief also.
Related to our friend who makes these bold unsubstantiated statements, it is all well and good to say that first principles are or are not knowable. They are meaningless statements without argument. If one knows that there ARE first principles, then we would hear the argument. If one states that first principles are unknowable, then we should have that argument also. Thus to state that first principles are, in fact, unknowable asserts that one has knowledge of why this is the case.
That doesn’t make any sense, though it sounds like it’s trying to.
"Existence precedes essence,"
Jean-Paul Sartre
The closer you are to God,
the closer you are to death.
Jean-Paul Sartre
The closer you are to God,
the closer you are to death.
There is no ultimate truth, only truths such as us.
G. wrote: "I do know what is present in the world."No. No you don't.
Gerard wrote: "G. wrote: "I do know what is present in the world."
No. No you don't."
How would you know what I know?
No. No you don't."
How would you know what I know?
G. wrote: "Gerard wrote: "G. wrote: "I do know what is present in the world."No. No you don't."
How would you know what I know?"
How would you know what you know?
Gerard wrote: "G. wrote: "I do know what is present in the world."No. No you don't."
How would you know what I know?"
How would you know what you know?"
See? Anyone can do this. It's really easy. Say nothing but make it sound profound and definitely ensure that you don't give any kind of reasons or explanations because that would invite a real critique and you know your thoughts won't actually stand up to a real critique.
