Bring4th Forums
  • Login Register
    Login
    Username:
    Password:
  • Archive Home
  • Members
  • Team
  • Help
  • More
    • About Us
    • Library
    • L/L Research Store
User Links
  • Login Register
    Login
    Username:
    Password:

    Menu Home Today At a Glance Members CSC & Team Help
    Also visit... About Us Library Blog L/L Research Store Adept Biorhythms

    As of Friday, August 5th, 2022, the Bring4th forums on this page have been converted to a permanent read-only archive. If you would like to continue your journey with Bring4th, the new forums are now at https://discourse.bring4th.org.

    You are invited to enjoy many years worth of forum messages brought forth by our community of seekers. The site search feature remains available to discover topics of interest. (July 22, 2022) x

    Bring4th Bring4th Community Olio Polarity in Epistemology

    Thread: Polarity in Epistemology


    Adonai One (Offline)

    Married to The Universe in its Entirety
    Posts: 3,861
    Threads: 520
    Joined: Feb 2013
    #1
    04-28-2014, 05:17 PM (This post was last modified: 04-28-2014, 05:18 PM by Adonai One.)
    An infinite momentum of either polarity is required to polarize. What enables us to polarize in the end? Belief. Belief in everything or belief in nothing. Both of these paths lead to one or the other. Convergences will confirm/deny existing beliefs and eventually bring one towards the truest path of unity. This is not recognized by academia yet. However, I found it interesting, for those who can understand. Please use your discernment.

    Quote:...c. The AC/DC Objection

    For any proposition we might believe, both it and its denial can be supported by similar, appropriately structured infinite chains of reasons (Post 1980 32–7; Aikin 2005: 198–9; Aikin 2008: 182–3). Importantly, neither chain of reasons is, in any meaningful sense, more available to us than the other. To appreciate the point, suppose you are inquiring into whether P. An infinite affirming chain could be constructed like so:

    Affirmation chain (AC)

    Q & (Q → P)

    R & (R → (Q & (Q → P)))

    S & (S → (R & (R → (Q & (Q → P)))))

    …

    whereas an infinite denial chain could be constructed like so:

    Denial chain (DC)

    Q & (Q → ~P)

    R & (R → (Q & (Q → ~P)))

    S & (S → (R & (R → (Q & (Q → ~P)))))

    …

    It is an equally long way to the top of each chain, but which is, so to speak, the road to epistemic heaven, and which the road to hell? Having one such chain available to you isn’t a problem, but having both available is a touch too much (at least in non-paradoxical cases), and infinitism lacks the resources to eliminate one.

    A further worry is that if infinitists embrace additional resources to eliminate one of these chains, those very same resources could in turn form the basis of a satisfactory finitist epistemology (Cling 2004: section 5). Aikin 2008 defends a version of infinitism, “impure infinitism,” intended to address this problem by incorporating elements of foundationalism; and Klein has argued that specifying the conditions for the availability of reasons will eliminate the possibility of both chains being available in non-paradoxical cases....

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/inf-epis/

      •
    « Next Oldest | Next Newest »

    Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)



    • View a Printable Version
    • Subscribe to this thread

    © Template Design by D&D - Powered by MyBB

    Connect with L/L Research on Social Media

    Linear Mode
    Threaded Mode