this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
787 points (97.8% liked)

Comic Strips

12716 readers
3833 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
787
submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 69 points 11 months ago (17 children)

If the rationalist deduces what is logical based on their empirical experience then their reasoning is flawed. We have to accept the axiomatic truth that our senses are limited and cannot account for an absolute truth.

To separate valid perceptions from invalid ones, a person first must assume that the world can be known through the senses. They must also assume that the world is objectively real. These assumptions do not get along well with one other. To say the world is objectively real is to say it is independent of and indifferent to sense perception. Then what in the world can we know? We can know only the effects of the parmesan cheese upon our senses, not the cheese itself.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

The objectively real world may be separate from and indifferent to sense perception, but sense perception isn't indifferent to the objective world. Sense perceptions are caused by an interaction of our sense organs and the world. Surely from repeated patterns of sense perception we can draw some correct inferences about the external world?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

How can we be sure that those inferences are correct? Any appeal to empirical evidence would be circular reasoning.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

"correct" is a heavy word there. Would reproducible and predictable suffice?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (14 replies)