tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post1977522984444987850..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Joseph Fetz on different ways of reasoningEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-62780670496955839742012-12-03T06:30:50.094-05:002012-12-03T06:30:50.094-05:00Other people should care because we all seem to be...Other people should care because we all seem to be navigating roughly the same sort of things.<br /><br />That's also why - I'm guessing - there is an objective reality out there. The point is we only access it in highly mediated ways. Just a guess, but I think it's a good one. It would make much more sense than the idea that there's not an objective reality and we all seem to be navigating roughly the same sort of thing coincidentally.Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-45195974276193249802012-12-02T22:17:43.018-05:002012-12-02T22:17:43.018-05:00" It's not foundationalist because we don..." It's not foundationalist because we don't have any illusions about an "objective truth", but it's not really relativist either because we're all trying to achieve the same task (navigation of life) in the same surroundings (this universe)."<br /><br />So, are you objectively achieving a better navigation through life, or aren't you?<br /><br />If you say you are, then that is a foundation. If you say you aren't, then why should anyone else care about your opinion on this?gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-11532932443666750872012-12-02T04:45:00.225-05:002012-12-02T04:45:00.225-05:00*heel*heelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-52301433474715282212012-12-02T04:42:43.478-05:002012-12-02T04:42:43.478-05:00I am not a relativist, even if some people will ge...I am not a relativist, even if some people will get that idea from what I said. I do believe that there exists objective truth, otherwise I would not spend so much time trying to seek that truth. However, I also understand that we can only think in human terms, that human thought is more than likely limited, and that what we define as truth today can certainly change over time (i.e. hopefully our limited knowledge becomes less limited). <br /><br />When I said "dominant logic" this implies that there is variation amongst individuals, but that there is a common strain amongst all individuals. I believe this to be true, and it is the only way that I can imagine new ways of thinking about the world around us to arise (new ways of thinking come from thinking outside of the dominant logic, but must also be understood by that dominant logic). <br /><br />I will say that what we believe to be true today is truth, at least in our own human conception of truth (i.e. it's our best explanation with the tools that we have). However, I also think that since we can only think in human terms, that the REAL objective truth may be outside of our current understanding (or possibly even human understanding as a whole), that we are only approximating using our limited knowledge. <br /><br />A cat is a cat because we all agree with that statement. In other words, a cat is a cat because our own reasoning (or dominant logic) has defined it as such, so it is objectively true within the human sphere of thought. However, this does not mean that a cat is truly a cat outside of the human sphere of thought, nor does it mean that a cat will always be a cat within that sphere, but today it is objectively true that a cat is a cat.<br /><br />Sorry, I'm not the best when it comes to trying to explain these philosophical concepts. Philosophy has always been my Achilles heal. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com