You really put effort in this, I don’t know how to thank. Simply put, you are awesome.
Firstly, I would like to ask a question about self reference. I hope this won’t sound stupid, but we use language to give the verdict that states “We do not know anything”. And this results in contradiction as you mentioned but can’t this be caused by the limit of our language or our definition and understanding of those words and concepts. I mean when we use the word “anything” how do we ensure “knowledge”, the thing we define by our own language create by use, is included in this set. It is like that everything is so abstract that you miss some things that lead you to see the statement as a contradiction. One way it came to my mind is that: while you are stating “We do not know anything” it is not knowledge. It is nothing that will become knowledge when it has been stated. So when you say “anything” you refer to things that you name “knowledge” but not the all other things that labeled as knowledge. Let me give you an another example from other self-reference paradoxes: “This sentence is a lie.” when we say “this” there is nothing to refer which means this is not a paradox, this is just nonsense since this does not refer to anything:
You should have something that can be referred when you want to refer something
To be able to create a self-reference paradox, you should a have a conclusion that gives a verdict about itself(and possibly some other things or some other conclusion/conclusions that gives a verdict about it).
Let us take an example like "This sentence is a lie."
The part that refers to something is “this sentence” and it refers to "This sentence is a lie."
But when you call out “this sentence”, the thing that’s being referred does not exist, yet.
If something refers itself, the thing we call “itself” should just be a reference to itself, like: “This three word”, "This sentence"
Because to be able to refer something, it should exist so a statement that refer itself can not be longer that reference of itself
What’s the mistake I make here? I could only find that it may be the way I interpret the sentence. I interpret it as it was under the effect of a linear interval. But if the statement is being given(whether it crosses on your mind or by mouth) it does happen in a while. One may can reject this by saying it doesn’t need to be read or thought, it is knowledge without being processed; but “knowledge” and “sentence” are concepts created by human beings, without them, they aren’t significant or have a meaning for someone or something.
Thanks for mentioning about “The Münchhausen trilemma”, it is exactly what I was thinking about the knowledge. I will certainly do further reading about it.
I would really appreciate it if you could recommend me some resources(book, video, podcast, anything…) on cognitive closure.
Again thank you for your comment, it certainly helped a lot.
Forget about the religion part, it is just how i ended up post this.
So first things first, I am not saying take something random as premise, what i am saying is you can take a related premise like god to base your actions(praise, not lying etc.). And someone else can question that premise, which is god.
From here i want to question something else, premises that are more foundational like analytical truths. For example: A is B B is C C is A
Here I just want to ask a one simple question: How?
What does “A is equivalent to B” mean here. That’s what I say. Me, myself couldn’t find an answer to this question. It is just obvious, intuitional but I just can’t answer “How?”.
I know “regress problem of justification” but checking it out again on stanford encyclopedia really widen my view, but still clueless whats the answer since there is also a conflict about the topic among academia.
Thanks for book recommendation, it touches on many topics, but I certainly will check out.
Analytic truths are true by virtue of the meaning of their words
Expressing this like seem to me as “They are true because we say so”. It is supported with how we define it, so there is no external claim to support it, so how can we be sure they are correct.
Without wishing to lay down the law, I think “Euthyphro dilemma” is easy to answer, depending on your definition of god. My definition being: God is the creator of everything. There was nothing before it. It can alter or destroy everything, also it can create anything. So pious things defined by god. It didn’t love something and defined it as “good”, it willed everything to happen and named things “good”.
Socrates says:
Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?
Pious didn’t exist before god, so “it is pious because god willed”.
And may I ask why does god need justification; assuming god(my definition) exists, reasoning, logic and other things can not exist without its will, so they were not there when god was. Doesn’t that make god free from logicality?
I hope it is not annoying to answer a clueless like me, thanks for help.
I appreciate your effort to answer, but I couldn’t find the relevance of this with my question.
Religion part is just how I ended up posting this. My question is:
One of the great starting points in many fields, like science or philosophy is “I am probably wrong about many things — because I am unable to know everything, let’s see what I don’t know and put it to the test”
Can I do this to analytical truths because when I do, I couldn’t find any claim to support them. I am clueless about, does our logic and reasoning correct?
I have read it but I have still a question in mind. Okay god doesn’t provide moral reasons to act the way it wants so what? It is god, it says us to do something and if we don’t it punishes, if we do it rewards.
This is a different way to look at the situation we are in but it doesn’t change anything about the situation. If one believes in god, one should still have to act the way god says. That does just mean they don’t do what they do for moral reasons, they do what they do for the sake of award given by god.
I can fall asleep almost anywhere. I routinely fall asleep in the break room at work. Once, I was helping a friend fix his car, and I fell asleep on his garage floor when he went inside to get water....
I am gonna be honest with you here. Some of us born with a gift, given directly from god. They can sleep, without thinking embarrassing memories, without using any medicine, without finding comfort itself. But you and I… and many others… we are not welcomed to this dream world of easy sleepers. We are not gifted.
Once I was exactly like you described: “people who want FOSS everything but they contribute nothing”. Indeed, it was really bothering me to not contribute anything, but the reason was I didn’t have much confidence about my skills. I slowly break that barrier of lacking confidence.
If there are people out there like who I was, please just go and commit anything on any project, whatever it is, doesn’t matter.
Right, then we hope to get a feature to be able to ban communities. I guess there is no issue opened for that(as far as i can remember), it would be great to open a issue for that.
Because you all mentioning about ux again and again, which is all about interface and content for a forum platform. Before 20 years tracking and subscription models werent around but now they are everywhere and people slowly became ignorant(especially post-millenial people). As a result we now dont give a fuck about free, open sourced, private things. Thats why i am judging, but if there are things i miss please dm me, i would really like to hear where i am mistaken.
Rule (lemmy.world)
Sounds great in theory (programming.dev)
rulepreg (sh.itjust.works)
To what extent can I be skeptical? What is our limit of comprehension?
cross-posted from: lemm.ee/post/3172656...
How do people sleep on planes?
I can fall asleep almost anywhere. I routinely fall asleep in the break room at work. Once, I was helping a friend fix his car, and I fell asleep on his garage floor when he went inside to get water....
I like the interface, and have been a user of the reddit version for years...
we live in a year (lemmy.world)
Linux Desktop Share keeps increasing, 3.13% now. Narrowing the gap to ChromeOs 3.24% (gs.statcounter.com)
The official reddit app now has more 1 star reviews than 5 star (edit: on the Play store) (lemmy.world)
What does Lemmy lack?
Just wanted to ask: what do you not like in Lemmy (Lemmy as communities, server and clients)?...
I like a good UX (lemmy.world)
Not hating on open source, just let people use what fits their expectations and needs and stop deterring them with gatekeeping :P...
Infinity For Lemmy update just dropped. dev is really active in the community (codeberg.org)
You can only drink one drink for the rest of your life, but it cannot be water. What do you pick?
And no "water with a twist of lemon/slice of cucumber" goofs. Water isn't allowed.