Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
mostly harmless

Question Regarding Video "true Vs False Skepticism"

1 post in this topic

Hey Leo,

I didn't rely get why the proof for anything is supposed to be requiring further proof.  Could you clarify this?

What I do understand is when reasoning, you always need premises to base upon. And these premises need to be agreed upon to be valid. Someone could always refuse to accept your premises as legit or proven and require proof for them. Is that what you meant?*

*If premises for reasoning are accepted, the logic of the reasoning could still be contested. You are ultimately dependent on people agreeing with you, that your reasoning is sound. If they don't then you can do nothing, no matter how silly their opposition may seem. Example: (1) All humans are mortal. (2) All philosophers are humans. Conclusion: (3) All philosophers are mortal. If someone would say: 'No. That's not true,' That would be silly, but the question is, how could you proof your logic? I am not asking about the content of the reasoning. You could then make a list of all philosophers and wait until they all died... That's accounting. Not a proof of your logic. And it's also not practical having to start big studies for any conclusion you come up with in a conversation. So again: How could you proof that another person has to agree with your reasoning? You can't. I am not sure though, that this is what you are talking about in this video.

 

For anyone who didn't watch the video, yet:

 

Edited by mostly harmless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0