« An Exception to the Rule that University Admins are Cowards | Main | Bill de Blasio Goes After Chick-Fil-A »

Friday, May 06, 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Not a publish-worthy comment here, but i see the "comment' button so infrequently, that while looking for a way to email a simple "Thank you" for your generosity in blogging, I'm taking the opportunity to slip it in. Not looking for response, just have to express that I really appreciate your giving. Not morally wrong to sneak in a thank you, right?

I check your site daily. Have been since before typepad. Can't always keep up with you, but always appreciate your voice, perspective, heart and mind.


Wishing you the best, lots of encouragement & support, and a long long run.
M

Thanks for the very kind words, Mr. Riess. If you click on About to the right, you will find my e-mail address. Thank you for being a loyal reader all these years.

Thanks a lot for replying to my e-mail in this blog, Mr. Valicella!
Generally I agree with your verdict. I have two questions related to topic:

1) Could it be possibly morally wrong (or morally inadvisable) to try to gain some particular philosophical knowledge? Absurd example: maybe it is due to some reason wrong to gain philosophical knowledge about substance. I think there are situations in our life when we say about something "better not to know it" ...
2) Due to your verdict: I think that from the same self-referential and self-vitiating reasons you cannot prove (demonstrate) validity of basic principles of thinking (and reality) such as principle of contradiction. But this Czech philosopher, which was one of my teachers of philosophy, insists upon that this principles are possible to be demonstrated, have to be demonstrated and if we do not demonstrate it, we are dogmatic and sceptics are winners. His key distinction in his "demonstration" is between logical (vicious) circle and so-called methodical circle, concerning presupposing the validity of what has to be demonstrated - in methodical circle it is not important that the to-be-demonstraded was used but HOW it was used. He says that it wasn´t used as the premise which is sufficient for escaping the vicious circle. Do you think this can work?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Illusions-Sceptics-Jiri-Fuchs/dp/3868385681/280-6766142-3741423?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0
Of course, the whole thing also depends upon the definition of 'demonstration'.

Since LNC is the principle of all demonstration, it cannot itself be demonstrated in a non-circular manner. I don't understand what Fuchs' "methodical circle" is supposed to be.

I´ll try to specify more the first question by analogy:
Let´s say that we are able to clone humans. Or "create" new people by fertilization "in vitro". We are able to successfully perform it. We can - but should we? Shouldn´t we, due to some moral reasons, avoid doing this although we are able to?
Analogically with gaining philosophical knowledge: we are able to gain some philosophical knowledge for example about God. But should we really try to gain it? What if there is some probably moral reason (for example danger of getting proud by gaining such knowledge) for which gaining such knowledge could/should be prohibited?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008

Categories

Categories

August 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Blog powered by Typepad