What is the Virtue of Admitting Ignorance?

Like I have stated, I think you are more advanced than me in some areas so if you were to explain this to your grandmother who has an interest but is slow to get it what would be your best example?

bookmark

I'll get back to you RL.
Non cyber-world obligations to attend to.
fresco is a great resource (I think) on this topic
Hopefully for all of us he can weigh in.

Grandma says: "Ontological dependence sonny boy. And bring an old woman a warm blanket."

There is absolutely something that we all know as certain...

That is, that there is absolutely nothing that we all know as certain...



How do we know that?

There is absolutely nothing that everyone agrees upon...So we know that there is at least one thing that everyone knows is certain...

And I have an idea of what it is...but no one could be absolutely certain about it...As I am not absolutely certain this idea is correct...

I think you are correct but I think your example is flawed but I still love you brother.

I find intellectual honesty in this.

I suppose we can begin with solipsism.

Sorry...

There is absolutely nothing that everyone agrees upon...So there is at least one thing that everyone agrees upon....

Well that can be false. What if everyone besides you don't exist, and are just part of your mind?

Keep in mind I think we all agree upon it, because we do not agree upon it...

Then that would make me this one thing that we all agree upon because we do not all agree upon it? Or any other one person who does exist? While no one else does?

This agreement "depending" on your first-person experience as a precondition for the third-person attributing of experience to others. How sure are you of your first-person experience?
Fundamentally, in the philosophical sense, can there be a verification of the facts about another person or their experience with your first-person experience?

If I exist, and no one else does...And they only exist in my own mind...Then my first, second, and third person perspectives would determine who I am, and who everyone else is...to me personally, and each other...


I prefer not to debate this point though...

Please go off of what I have said that keep in mind that I think "we all agree about this one thing, because we do not all agree about this one thing..."

Do you think there is any one persons perspective who finds this statement to be incorrect? Without showing that there would still be this one thing that everyone would have to agree upon in some way? Making this one thing real to us all in at least one way?

And all I'm saying is that what you think is based on an assumption, which I've just explained. And which Matt went over.
It is a valid proposition, but is it a necessary truth?

I'll give you an example to explain where I am getting at.
"There is no greatest even number."
Some mathematicians would call the proposition "There is no greatest even number" as a necessarily true statement, and some don't, and would rather describe it in terms of validity. For them, rather than necessarily true, they would call it "proven"- which simply means logically validated by the rules of the mathematical system.
Then one must ask is it a metaphysically necessary truth?

If every single mathematician agrees that it is one of those two options and only one of those two options...It makes no difference which one of the two views it actually is?...It already proves that it must be one or the other of these two views?...Which means that whether or not it is ever proven it has to be one or the other, and is proof? and it can not be disproved? So how could it not be the one that is "metaphysically necessary truth" while it may never actually be "proven"?

Hey Spade
Just briefly looking over...

I think what Falco is getting at is that empiricism also requires assumptions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
An empiricist has assumed that looking at the world (phenomena) will give an accurate picture in some way. Maybe not assuming that things are at they appear "on the surface", but assuming that any measurement of (phenomena) can tell you something real.

He also mentioned how a mathematical "truth" does not necessarily imply a physical truth. We don't know with any certainty how well physical (phenomena) will always match with mathematics. There is certainly some difficulty right now on the quantum level, at least.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membrane_%28M-theory%29

The solipsism circle never lets you step outside of your own mind. I think we touched on this a bit in the Buddhist self thread.
http://able2know.org/topic/207906-25#post-5258865
You are everything, but you are alone. Welcome to nihilism.
Showing perhaps the need to except phenomena have some validity?
To escape the endless circle that concludes in thinking you are all things?

Or metaphysically necessary truth without having to be proven = which means it needs no proof since it is proven = M.N.T.

Some examples above to Spade.
I would gladly try to expand on one if you like.

Think towards a more basic level than that. If logical beings ceased to exist, and there are no "mathematicians" then would either of the options hold true?
Then think of the relationships between truths vs existence, specifically between necessary truth and necessary existence. If “necessary existence” means ontologically independent existence, then “possible existence” means something like dependent existence. The existence of necessary truths is entailed by the fact of existence itself. So what of necessary existence?
What if the first assumption was from a necessary existence? Aside from the problems there would be, how would our hierarchy of knowledge and grounds of truth build be any different or same as opposed to present day state of affairs?