The formulaic presupposition on which the belief of the Cogito as the only truth of which we are aware of being the case is: to say you’re aware that x is the case, you must be certain that x is the case. This raises the fundamental question, which shall be the basis of my critique of such an epistemology as the one previously sketched out: is it the case that the formulaic presupposition itself is built on a sturdy, indubitable foundation and impossible to doubt in any way whatsoever?

It’s far more evident that the answer to such a question is a concrete no than that such a formulaic presupposition is the correct definition of the requirements for being aware of what is the case, for to the mind infinite alternate possibilities are susceptible: justified true belief, simply believing it is so, truth being a social construction and hence going along with the crowd equals going along with the truth, plus an infinite of alternate possibilities are all just that: possibilities. Yet if they admit of minor possibility, which they evidently do, and the formulaic presupposition upon which is built the Cogito is lacking an undoubtedly certain proof, then we cannot, by the formulaic presupposition’s own standard, state we are aware it is the case; and since, I hope, we all want awareness of what is the case, that is, in other words, truth, then we shouldn’t accept it as the case until evidence for it is produced, if it is produced at all.

Vindication of such self-refuting, epistemological formulaic presuppositions may come in a form not dissimilar to that of the following statement: it certainly is not that case that we are aware that the formulaic presupposition is the case and that therefore all we can speak of with a definite amount of awareness is the Cogito and being, as such, but, quite simply, it is believed. That is, it is not the case that anyone is aware of the formulaic presupposition being the case, it is believed that it is the case.

Such a defence is a poor one, for, if it is the case that the formulaic presupposition is not currently giving of certainty, then its foundation hasn’t yet to crumble, it has crumbled, and unless rebuilt, anyone can reject this epistemological, formulaic presupposition until such a reconstruction is completed. Hence until it has proven worthy of itself, I shall not accept the formulaic presupposition.

It uncertainly certainly appears to be the case that the empirical methods of acquiring what is the case that are known as natural science and physics, although in need perhaps of some reformation, are productive of answers to what is the case that allow us to survive. Surely, then, should we not, for the time being at least, accept the productive, sceptical, empirical methods that pertain to what is the case as methods worthy of being said to be productive of what is the case, as opposed to a self-refuting, formulaic principle which, if properly followed, would be the destruction of mankind? Are not pragmatic reasons which maintain to attaining awareness of what is being the case requirements of modernity?

Yet another vindication may come in the following question: how are you aware that it is the case that medicine, produced by the empirical method of natural science, is productive in such a way that it is perfectly possible for it to save lives? It is the case that anyone can imagine that it is the case that life is not possible to end and that it is the case that therefore medicine has no productive results, so therefore it would be wise not to maintain that it is the case that the empirical method of science is productive of means of being aware of what is the case. This works as a defence, but within the very formulaic presupposition being critiqued only and hence it in no way saves the formulaic presupposition from self-refutation.

I’ll admit that, if you so wish, you may accept the formulaic presupposition and explore all the possibilities which are open within it as a system. Yet, being a paradoxical, self-refuting formulaic presupposition, it probably does not pertain to much except the Cogito Ergo Sum. There are more productive methods of acquiring awareness of what is the case, which, to excuse their inadequacies, do not hold that they would supply a dying woman medicine as opposed to toenail clippings to save her life because socially constructed reality - i.e. the world as it really is with its name altered to socially constructed reality to hide this fact - that miraculously, almost magically, works, which is really an insult to honest philosophy.

On a footnote, it must be noted that this dense yet precise method of writing is to put you through the experience of what it is like when someone reads your vague posts on the message board. I believe your solipsistic pantheism has been refuted.

On a footnote, it must be noted that this dense yet precise method of writing is to put you through the experience of what it is like when someone reads your vague posts on the message board.

Really? I never would have guessed :rolleyes:.

I believe your solipsistic pantheism has been refuted.

I doubt thats possible.

But I will attempt to muddle my way through this sometime tomorrow.

Arrogance comes before the fall, dear Adam. I look forward to you biting of my apple.

You are such a freak. :D

I really doubt I'll even be able to muddle through that.

If your argument is that my belief is self-refuting, then I would say that I agree with you.

Just so people know, I really did post what Obbe quoted.

Just so people know, I really did post what Obbe quoted.

Feel free to delete that post as well now, as the desire to delete wells up in you.

Hare_Geist, you try too hard.

Foundationalist epistemologies lmao. Unjustified beliefs <> ftw.

Hey Rabbit Spirit...

Obbe is just a kid so leave him alone.

Hare_Geist, you try too hard.

Read the very last paragraph to understand why it's written in an opaque manner.

Obbe is just a kid so leave him alone.

He has sidetracked far too many threads.

Read the very last paragraph to understand why it's written in an opaque manner.


I did, which is what prompted me to say that you try too hard.

Now that everyone gets the point of your writing style, which is an important one to be made, mind putting your argument into a syllogism or some concise argument form (p1,p2,p3...:c)? Thanks.

I did, which is what prompted me to say that you try too hard.

Fair enough. :cool:

Now that everyone gets the point of your writing style, which is an important one to be made, mind putting your argument into a syllogism or some concise argument form (p1,p2,p3...:c)? Thanks.

No problem. :)

Axiom: If you can imagine y being the case instead of x, then it’s possible that y is the case.

P1. It is said that to say you are aware that x is the case, you must be certain that x is the case.

Note: It is clear that this is what Obbe believes, since he essentially stated so in another thread. The reason I have changed the word know to being aware of what is the case, however, is to get rid of a history of philosophical baggage that surrounds the word.

P2. If the axiom and what is said within P1 are true, then you cannot possibly say you’re aware that x is the case.

Proof: if the axiom is true, and you cannot disprove y, then it remains possible y instead of x. If it remains possible y instead of x, then you cannot say you’re certain x is the case. Hence you cannot say you’re aware x is the case.

P3. I can imagine many alternatives being the requirements needed passing to say you’re aware that x is the case.

Proof: examples are justified true belief, simply wishing it were the case, and the case being social structures, hence being aware of what is the case equals accepting social practices and institutions.

P4. I cannot be certain what is said within P1 is the case, and hence, if we accept what is said within P1, we cannot say what is said within P1 is the case.

Proof: P2 and P3.

Note 1: since what is said within P1 cannot be proved by its own standards, and it would have to be to be accepted as true, Obbe has defended it by stating that it’s true it’s not known to be the case, it is simply believed to be the case. But since what is said within P1 has yet to be proven beyond a doubt, this is a poor defence, because it has shown itself to be productive of little awareness of what is the case, while other methods of knowledge have been far more productive and far more realistic.

Take, for example, science. Science remains sceptical and seldom says it is absolutely aware anything is the case (because most people are aware absolute certainty is rarely achieved), yet it is productive of much useful and evident awareness of what is the case. Once such example is medicine.

What Obbe’s natural response will be is this: he will ask how we know it is the case that medicine saves lives, since it’s possible we live forever and if this is so, then science is not productive of useful awareness of what is the case. Such a criticism works, but only within what is said within P1, the very definition of what is needed to be aware of what is the case that is being critiqued. It does not, however, apply to science, which should be evident to anyone who knows the scientific method.

Note 2: If Obbe responds to the axiom with vague questions about its possibility, I may simply ask him to provide a proof that what is said within P1 is the case that cannot be doubted. I will obtain the same desired result: evidence that P1 cannot be proved within itself.

Note 3: based on the axiom, propositions and previous notes, it is my belief that what is said within P1 should be rejected and a more productive method accepted. You can play around within what is said within P1, which is a highly paradoxical proposition, but to me, it’s a waste of time. This is evident from the time I asked Obbe if he would give a dying woman medicine or toenail clippings, he said medicine because of social constructions. To me, he’s simply brushing over the fact that what is said within P1 is not productive by renaming reality social constructions; which, if I may add, somehow miraculously work.

PS, if you're wondering about the style, I decided to write it in the fashion of Spinoza's Ethics for fun.

Just ignore him; literally. Hit the ignore button, he is the embodiment of why it's there.

Yeah, Hare....I just don't care enough to sort through that, or your summery.

If your argument is basically that my concept cannot be proven, and is self-refuting...then, yeah. You're correct there.

I just don't care enough to sort through that, or your summery.

As expected.