> [Krimel] > Exactly, this odd notion of a fixed, absolute, perfect point of view is > the dream the drives folks like Ham. You seem to be in accord that > philosophers are on board rationally with what the sciences have > demonstrated empirically. There is no fixed absolute reference point. > There is no Absolute Truth beyond the conception of Absolute Truth. We can
> imagine such a thing. We can give it a "tip of the hat or a wag of the > finger" But we have no way of being certain that what we tip and wag at, > is what we think it is. [Platt] I presume you invoke an Absolute Truth in asserting "There is no Absolute Truth." Of course, if true the statement is self-contradictory. If not, it is a relative truth which may or may not be true, depending on your point of view (or your culture if you are a postmodernist). Either way, the statement is doubtful. [Krimel] No you are completely missing the point. Whether or not there is an Absolute Truth is irrelevant. I am willing to grant the conceptual possibility as is Matt, I believe. The point is justifying belief in an Absolute Truth. How could you achieve Absolute Certainty that you have a correct belief in such a Truth and that your belief is correct. I am saying that you could not be Absolutely Certain that your belief is Absolutely Justified even if Truth were Absolute. I am maintaining that both Truth and Justification are merely adjectives that describe beliefs. If you would get a handle on this you might stop embarrassing yourself with this inane paradox talk you keep bringing up. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
