Sandbox (4)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.

945 Replies to “Sandbox (4)”

  1. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: I know it as a non-Calvinist!

    Are non-Clavinists epistemologically privileged in some way or ………….

    You can guess the rest.

    peace

    PS I do wish you would think a little deeply about this dilemma so we could move on from the repetition.

  2. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman,

    It was a joke. I was making fun of your Calvinist line.

  3. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Are non-Clavinists epistemologically privileged in some way or ………….

    You can guess the rest.

    peace

    PS I do wish you would think a little deeply about this dilemma so we could move on from the repetition.

    Hahaha. I’m ready to move on now. You haven’t said anything new on this in four years. All the same malarkey.

  4. Neil Rickert
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Do you mean that philosophers are epistemologically privileged in some way or do you just mean that thinking deeply about stuff has given you the impression that Neil’s claim is not helpful.

    I think walto was just complaining about the circularity (“knowledge” on both sides of the statement). But he knows what I meant, and language isn’t a logic calculus anyway.

  5. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: Hahaha. I’m ready to move on now.

    You say that but you keep acting like you aren’t.

    All you have to do to move on is to not claim to have specific knowledge unless you are willing to give a justification for knowledge in general given your worldview or agree that you have no justification for knowledge.

    It’s pretty simple but over and over and over again you continue to claim to know things with out ever explaining how this would be possible given your worldview.

    Hence the need for repetition

    peace

  6. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Neil Rickert: I think walto was just complaining about the circularity

    Yes but he said that he “knew” it was not helpful because he was a philosopher rather than he believes it’s not helpful.

    That is a bold claim that requires he give justification for his supposed knowledge.

    You obviously disagree with him on what constitutes the core of knowledge but he claims to “know” you are wrong without ever justifying why he can assume his privileged position .

    peace

  7. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: No, that intentional actions leave observable effects.

    peace

    So do those which are not intentional.

  8. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: But “as a Calvinist, I know” is cuckoo. It’s like, say, “as a Jew, I know that Moses had trouble with words, and matza is good with coffee.”

    Nicely put. It’s just crazy to think that one’s “worldview” (whatever the heck that is) determines what counts as justification. Yet stranger things have been believed by many a philosopher.

    By the way, it is both true and justified that Moses had trouble with words and matza is good with the coffee. But those knowledge-claims have nothing to do with my being Jewish.

  9. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: So do those which are not intentional.

    Yep and the very interesting question is,
    Can we ever hope to tell the difference?

    peace

  10. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: It’s just crazy to think that one’s “worldview” (whatever the heck that is) determines what counts as justification.

    I agree, but your worldview will determine what you think counts as justification.

    Whether you are right is another question entirely

    peace

  11. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: All you have to do to move on is to not claim to have specific knowledge unless you are willing to give a justification for knowledge in general given your worldview or agree that you have no justification for knowledge.

    How do you know that?

  12. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Yep and the very interesting question is,
    Can we ever hope to tell the difference?

    peace

    Sure, if you call your shot.

  13. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: How do you know that?

    The same way I know anything else. revelation

    peace

  14. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: Sure, if you call your shot.

    Very very interesting.

    I’m not exactly sure what you are getting at.

    Do you think the only way to tell that an action is intentional is if you are told the details about it by the “actor” ahead if time?

    This might be worth an OP

    peace

  15. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    Wow, I want a magic word too! I’m thinking of ‘Kapowie!’

  16. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    Kantian Naturalist: Nicely put. It’s just crazy to think that one’s “worldview” (whatever the heck that is) determines what counts as justification. Yet stranger things have been believed by many a philosopher.

    By the way, it is both true and justified that Moses had trouble with words and matza is good with the coffee. But those knowledge-claims have nothing to do with my being Jewish.

    Exactly.

  17. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Yes but he said that he “knew” it was not helpful because he was a philosopher rather than he believes it’s not helpful.

    I believe I already explained to you that that was a joke you didn’t understand.

  18. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: It’s pretty simple

    I think so too, but when you fail to grasp the same stuff over and over, it seems that it must be confusing to Calvinists.

  19. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    Neil Rickert: I think walto was just complaining about the circularity (“knowledge” on both sides of the statement).

    Right.

  20. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: Wow, I want a magic word too! I’m thinking of ‘Kapowie!’

    Revelation is not a magic word.

    You have granted that if knowledge is possible then because God is omnipotent he can reveal stuff to me so that I can know it.

    peace

  21. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: but when you fail to grasp the same stuff over and over

    It’s not that I fail to grasp anything. It’s that you fail to offer a justification for knowledge given your presuppositions. I believe you even take the absurd position that you don’t need justification for knowledge.

    On the other hand I have justification for knowledge given my presuppositions and you would grant this.

    peace

  22. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Revelation is not a magic word.

    You have granted that if knowledge is possible then because God is omnipotent he can reveal stuff to me so that I can know it.

    peace

    A stubborn child, you are, Fifth. You just refuse to understand what knowledge is, in spite of being told, time after time, that it DOES NOT REQUIRE KNOWING THAT ONE KNOWS.

    Maybe if you repeated that as often as you do whatever catechisms that you’ve memorized over the years, it would sink in. But I doubt it, because you seem to think your stubbornness wrt not learning this simple proposition is some kind of virtue.

  23. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Walto,

    I’m in no mood and newton just shared an interesting perspective on design detection.

    How about we just chalk this one up to experience and next time you not be so quick to claim that you know stuff.

    peace

  24. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    How about no? I’m not planning to concede that I don’t know anything just because you don’t understand what it means to know something and believe repeating your error on this ad nauseam is a virtue.

  25. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: in spite of being told, time after time, that it DOES NOT REQUIRE KNOWING THAT ONE KNOWSI

    Again. We both agree that you know stuff and we both agree that you don’t need to know that you know to know.

    I think I have made that clear countless times.

    What we don’t agree on is whether you have justification for knowledge given your worldview.

    I’m not saying that you don’t know stuff I’m saying that you have no way of accounting for why you should be able to know stuff given your presuppositions.

    peace

  26. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    My presuppositions do not require anybody to have ‘an account’ of why anybody ‘should be able to know stuff.’ I have some humility about heavyweight issues of that kind. You think your magic word allows you to be immodest about them.

  27. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    Put another way

    You begin with the unsupported presupposition that it’s possible for you to have knowledge.

    I’m asking you to justify that or admit that you have no justification.

    It should not be difficult

    peace

  28. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    I don’t ‘begin’ with any such presupposition. It simply follows from me knowing things that it’s possible that I have knowledge. It also follows that it’s possible that I exist. I don’t proceed from it as a premise just because it follows.

    So you ask, ‘well, in any case, how is it possible that you should know anything?’ And I answer, ‘that’s a big, hard question involving language, psychology, biology, philosophy, etc.: all the stuff that KN and others spend entire careers studying. My own (modest) answer is–‘how the hell do I know?’ Your (immodest) answer is–‘the Lord tells me it’s possible because He wanted it so.’

  29. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: The same way I know anything else. revelation

    peace

    The presupposed possibility of revelation, Fifth.

    Is a presupposed possibility by itself justification?

  30. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Do you think the only way to tell that an action is intentional is if you are told the details about it by the “actor” ahead if time?

    This might be worth an OP

    One way. And predicting the outcome would be sufficient.

  31. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: One way. And predicting the outcome would be sufficient.

    Can you name some others?

    peace

  32. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: The presupposed possibility of revelation, Fifth.

    You of course grant the possibility of revelation. So if it is a presupposition then it’s one we both share.

    newton: Is a presupposed possibility by itself justification?

    A presupposition is by definition not justified.

    peace

  33. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: It simply follows from me knowing things that it’s possible that I have knowledge.

    How exactly do you know these things?

    walto: I answer, ‘that’s a big, hard question involving language, psychology, biology, philosophy, etc.:

    So unlike me you don’t know why you can know things given your worldview but yet you still boldly claim you do know things with no justification

    walto: all the stuff that KN and others spend entire careers studying.

    How do you know that folks like KN will ever be successful? Of course you don’t know this but you trust that they will for absolutely no reason

    walto: My own (modest) answer is–‘how the hell do I know?’

    I would venture to say you do know but don’t want to acknowledge that fact because you don’t like the obvious implications.

    I’m fine with you saying that unlike me you don’t have any justification for claiming to be able to know stuff.

    I will just point out that fact each and every time you claim to know stuff here.

    peace

  34. dazz dazz
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I will just point out that fact each and every time

  35. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: So unlike me you don’t know why you can know things given your worldview but yet you still boldly claim you do know things with no justification

    No. That’s that same confusion of knowing X and knowing that one knows X that you’ve displayed in about every third post you’ve made here for the past four years.

  36. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: How do you know that folks like KN will ever be successful? Of course you don’t know this but you trust that they will for absolutely no reason

    I don’t “trust that” at all! I figure they’ll probably fail. I guess you didn’t actually read my epistemology paper.

    But at least they’re actually trying instead of bragging–as you and your fellow Calvinist know-it-alls proudly do.

  37. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I would venture to say you do know but don’t want to acknowledge that fact because you don’t like the obvious implications.

    You would be completely wrong. As you usually are.

  38. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: I will just point out that fact each and every time you claim to know stuff here.

    Again, that “gotcha!” is entirely confused. You should try to learn this simple thing.

  39. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: Again, that “gotcha!” is entirely confused. You should try to learn this simple thing.

    It’s not a “gotcha” it’s informational so that it’s clear to everyone that you have no basis for your claim to knowledge.

    Conversations are just better when the entire context is known.

    peace

  40. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: But at least they’re actually trying instead of bragging

    It’s not bragging it’s reporting. I do have justification for knowledge but It’s not because I’m smarter or better than anyone else.

    It’s because God is gracious

    peace

  41. fifthmonarchyman
    Ignored
    says:

    walto: That’s that same confusion of knowing X and knowing that one knows X

    Again. You can know stuff even if you have no justification for knowledge.

    But in that case you are not justified in claiming to know stuff.

    peace

  42. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: It’s not a “gotcha” it’s informational so that it’s clear to everyone that you have no basis for your claim to knowledge.

    Again, that’s wrong. There IS a basis. There’s no requirement that the presuppositions you’re talking about be justified. LEARN THIS.

  43. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: Again. You can know stuff even if you have no justification for knowledge.

    But in that case you are not justified in claiming to know stuff.

    peace

    No no no no no.

  44. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    fifthmonarchyman: It’s not bragging it’s reporting.

    Right. You and Hannity. Just the facts.

  45. walto walto
    Ignored
    says:

    OK, Fifth. This hollering into my shoe biz has worn me out again. You’re happy in your confused state. Fuck it. Go revel.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.