Imago writes: "Cheerskep, the burdens of proof/justification are exactly the same for both of us. It's equally dogmatic to assert in the absence of evidence that God (or relations) doesn't exist, as it is to assert with the same absence of evidence that he doesn't."
More about "dogmatic" in a moment, Imago, but, to persuade you I know "where you're coming from", here is a passage I wrote earlier his week as part of a longer posting I haven't sent to the forum: "I realize there are people who will say: "I don't care. I believe relations are existent entities. And I disagree that the burden is on me to prove they exist. I think it's obvious they do. So let's see you prove they don't exist. You think facts are not "entities". I think they are. There are material things, and notional things, and relation-things, and lots of other kinds of things that are neither material nor notional. It's not like believing in ghosts or gremlins or angels. The planet Venus and planet Mars are "out there" and they are obviously related out there. You can't convince me otherwise. Go far away. Let the relationship of distance between us be a very extensive one." Now I'll try to convey where I'm "coming from". You write: "If you were a true skeptic, you would simply say something to the effect that we don't know as of yet whether god, relations, angels or ghosts 't exist. And you might even demonstrate the point by constructing equally forceful arguments for both sides of the debate as a way of showing us that we should refrain from committing ourselves to either position." In trying to assemble a philosophical position for myself, one of my principles is: don't adopt skeptical positions that are invulnerable but which I don't honestly believe. The trouble for me with being a "true skeptic", Imago, is -- for example -- that no one has ever come up with an argument that refutes solipsism. "True skepticism" requires that one be agnostic about such things as whether or not there "are" other minds, and a material, physical world "out there" that includes my body and yours. But the fact is I have an immovable BELIEF that your body and mind are "out there", and, say, there is an object out there that is the occasion for the numerous sense data that my receiving and processing apparatus process into my notion of "my desk". Thus the "truest" skepticism is uninteresting to me because it feels to me personally both dishonest and ridiculous, and because it dismisses the possibility of fruitful inquiry -- and the philosopher in me wants to inquire. I accept that we can "know" nothing whatever. However, I've come to realize the fruit of inquiry for me is not "knowledge" but "beliefs" and persuasive alleged justifications for them. Just possibly, you may be different from me: you may have no beliefs and disbeliefs in the sense that I do. You may have no convictions about solipsism, or the "existence" of other minds and a non-notional material world. I do, so I slog on, trying to reconcile my "show me" skepticism with my having durable beliefs and disbeliefs. I hope I would never say I "commit myself" to certain beliefs, because that sounds too much like my beliefs are the result of an act of will. "I shall believe!" -- and, lo, I believe! It doesn't work that way for me -- which is why I always scorned Pascal's wager. So my task comes down to my citing various beliefs and giving "reasons" for believing them. I work on this despite my suspicion that, except perhaps for tautologies (which includes, say I, mathematics), all "beliefs" in the end come down not to "proofs" but to "persuasions" -- i.e. unshakable feelings. 'Absurd' should not be used to describe a conclusion, only a feeling about that conclusion. Repeat: I will never claim I have "proved" any of my views. But I will try to describe the reasons that persuade me, for example, that words are DO nothing, that there are no external-to-the-mind actions such as denoting, signifying, meaning, naming; and, similarly, that there are no non-notional entities we think we're citing when we say "qualities", "essences", "categories", "facts", "relations". I will try to press myself -- and, I hope, some readers -- to think through key notions until I have to admit they are too vague or muddled to defend, or they have implications too silly for me to believe -- or until I am "persuaded", and cannot help but believe. I'm aware that what persuades me may not persuade the next guy. And I also feel acutely my difficulty in conveying what I have in mind with some of my unheard-of and seemingly bizarre notions. About "dogmatic" and your line, "Fact is, however, that you simply keep dogmatically telling us that there _IS no such thing as_." I've suggested that if I try ahead of time to cope with all anticipatable misunderstandings or counter-arguments; if with every sentence I repeat all prior supporting arguments and assumptions; if I don't skip presentation conventions -- such as prefacing every assertion with, "It is part of my personal belief that. . .", I'd be even more verbosely unreadable (certainly for the non-philosophers on the list) than I am now. I tend to think of "dogmatic" assertions as those that are put forth without any supporting reasons -- they are expected to be believed solely because they have been issued by an "authority". I don't think I do that. My reasons may be unpersuasive to others, but I hope I always try to give them. About your assertion that "'there is no such thing as' tends to be self defeating: you are continually forced to rely on the very thing you keep denying exists." I don't follow this. If I assert my belief that there is no such thing as a tree-spirit or a ghost, how am I relying on the existence of non-notional tree-spirits and ghosts? When I say 'ghost' I'm not relying on its in some way "referring to" a non-mental entity. Same when I deny the non-mental status of relations. When I use the word 'relation', it figures to occasion the varying thoughts that are readers' notions of "relations". All I'm relying on is the word's having that effect. I'm not relying on the "existence" of relations "out there" to achieve my intended effect. Consider: you get a "ghost notion" when I say 'ghost', but you don't think there are any "out there", I assume. That's enough here. More on your good posting later. ************** New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000002)
