Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Certainty
Hey Hey
post Feb 25, 2010, 01:53 PM
Post #1


Supreme God
*******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 7767
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



from Nietzsche...

There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are "immediate certainties"; for example, "I think," or as the superstition of Schopenhauer put it, "I will"; as though knowledge here got hold of its object purely and nakedly as "the thing in itself" without any falsification on the part of either the subject or the object. But that "immediate certainty," as well as "absolute knowledge" and the "thing in itself," involve a contradictio adjecto. I shall repeat a hundred times; we really ought to free our selves from the seduction of words!

Let the people suppose that knowledge means knowing things entirely; the philosopher must say to himself: When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, "I think," I find a whole series of daring assertions that would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove; for example, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an "ego," and, finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking - that I know what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps "willing" or "feeling"? In short, the assertion "I think" assumes that I compare my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further "knowledge," it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me.

In place of the "immediate certainty" in which the people may believe in the case at hand, the philosopher thus finds a series of metaphysical questions presented to him, truly searching questions of the intellect; to wit: "From where do I get the concept of thing? Why do I believe in cause and effect? What gives me the right to speak of an ego, and even of an ego as cause, and finally ego as the cause of thought?" Whoever ventures to answer the metaphysical questions at once by an appeal to a sort of intuitive perception, like the person who says, "I think, and know that at least, is true, actual, and certain" - will encounter a smile and two question marks from a philosopher nowadays. "Sir," the philosopher will perhaps give him to understand, "it is improbable that you are not mistaken; but why insist on the truth?"
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Feb 25, 2010, 03:31 PM
Post #2


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



Yes, but is Nietzsche coherent?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Feb 25, 2010, 06:03 PM
Post #3


Supreme God
*******

Group: Full Member
Posts: 7767
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



QUOTE(Rick @ Feb 25, 2010, 08:31 PM) *

Yes, but is Nietzsche coherent?
You sayin' that Nietzsche'd been on the juice? wink.gif Maybe that's what gave him such insight?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Feb 25, 2010, 06:23 PM
Post #4


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



That's a standard philosopher attack: "your arguments are incoherent." Philosophers love the ad hominem.

And then they say "I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your arguments." They get their cake and eat it too.

You know the old saying "never wrestle with a pig, the pig has fun and you get dirty"? Same goes for philosophers.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 16th July 2019 - 07:48 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

BrainMeta is supported by:

The Neurological Foundation & CerebralHealth.com

BrainMeta is enhanced by:

UVISI: Universal Virtual Intelligence Singularity Infinity
info@uvisi.com