Pluralism, Not Relativism

[zurew]

8 hours ago, integral said:

What part of Leos body of work actually fits in your models?

I dont have firm models or very strong positions on almost anything (Especially not on metaphysics - but I lean towards Idealism). I take most of the talks about metaphysics to be gibberish , I think most of the phrases like "grounding" and "fundamental"  , "real" and "exist" and such arent precise enough, because they seem to mean different things to different people.

I still have very much a lot of  reading and thinking and spiritual practicing to do.

But I think that I diverge from Leo on almost every position he has when it comes to philosophy - maybe except morals  - there I am an antirealist as well, but yeah, I cant even think of another example right now where we would align. 

 

I generally have most problem with Leo's epistemology and lack of rigor  - with comitting yourself to such a burden that you cant substantiate or defend (while still not letting go of the position or changing your credence about it) and Leo does that a lot, not just with philosophy but when it comes to other subjects and fields as well.

 

One last comment about your criticism on what-if scenarios: They are important in many cases, especially when it comes to testing claims where the claim is that something is logically necessary. My position is that we need to be sensitive to what and how much burden we take on ourselves, when we make a claim and I have no issue with trying to match my skepticism to the level of burden that a claim entails.

On 2025. 05. 22. at 9:06 PM, zurew said:

Or if you really want to stick with the mirror example , a more correct representation would be this:

 

You making a claim that "If you look in the mirror, you’ll see your reflection” and you also saying that "its impossible for you to be wrong about it".

Can you recognize what burden of proof you put on yourself between the claim where you dont add the "its impossible for you to be wrong about it" and between the claim where you add that part?

 

In the instance where its not impossible for me to be wrong about it - Im more than okay with just looking in the mirror to check your claim, in the instance where you add "its impossible for you to be wrong about it", me looking in the mirror is nowhere near sufficient to substantiate the claim.

Edited Saturday at 12:03 PM by zurew