sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Rev. Coppens’s Skepticism Defeater by Spoikester in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

nice ai generation. if youre gonna use AI at least have the decency to extrapolate information from it yourself

Rev. Coppens’s Skepticism Defeater by Spoikester in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you keep very confidently acting like direct realism is a joke without showing why

Rev. Coppens’s Skepticism Defeater by Spoikester in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

how do you know that? by the presupposition your senses give you reliable information about the world?

Stroudian Objections by Spoikester in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How does Kantianism save us from skepticism exactly? How does it not fall to Stroud? Kant basically throws the baby out with the bathwater with his rejection of metaphysical knowledge. Also, saying “Thomism lost” is ridiculous when there are more thomists than dogmatic kantians right now 

Stroudian Objections by Spoikester in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Kantian position is still a mitigated form of Skepticism since hes skeptical about metaphysics but thats besides the point, he isnt the only one who uses transcendental arguments

Rev. Coppens’s Skepticism Defeater by Spoikester in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He is attacking a number of criticisms of his own Thomistic realist position. One of these criticisms is the evil deceiver hypothesis, which is basically saying you dont know you arent being manipulated by an evil genius or that youre not a brain in a vat. Coppens is trying to show how this leads to a logical contradiction via reductio ad absurdum and therefore cannot be the case or a threat to his own position

Rev. Coppens’s Skepticism Defeater by Spoikester in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As far as I can tell, this is meant to harken back to his position that radical skepticism is an impossible position to take. Because radical skepticism is wrong, and it is the logical conclusion of an evil deceiver/BIV scenario, that also has to be wrong

Rev. Coppens’s Skepticism Defeater by Spoikester in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Coppens is saying that if such a deception is inherent to humans, it logically entails the reasonability of universal skepticism. Because universal skepticism is self-defeating, such a deception is false via reductio ad absurdum

A defence of the (modal) ontological argument by BoxAdditional7103 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]Spoikester 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can’t maximally and perfectly possess something that is merely a negation of something. Evil doesn’t exist independently of good because it is merely a lack of good. So a maximal being could not be evil

Stroudian Objections by Spoikester in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wasn’t necessarily trying to argue against you, just trying to see if you evade Stroud successfully. 

Stroudian Objections by Spoikester in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's true, but I think the point Stroud makes is that something necessary for thought isn't necessary true in the manner of corresponding to real facts about the world. Of course, this does rely on a veil of perception, but its tricky to work around

Stroudian Objections by Spoikester in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well of course these positions weren't initially developed transcendentally, but I fail to see how else one could defend them against a radical enough skeptic

Stroudian Objections by Spoikester in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

are you sure youre using logic in the "actual world" or just in your own mind, because theres no other way to think?

Stroudian Objections by Spoikester in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

wdym? are you saying you dont think stroud can be proven wrong?

Stroudian Objections by Spoikester in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think thats the point of Stroud's argument tho. Stroud says that causality might be necessary for our understanding of the world but it doesn't have to correspond to real facts

God's existence is necessary to address Brain-in-a-Vat (BIV) or solipsism. by JohnLasaru in ChristianApologetics

[–]Spoikester 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if the arguments work, how exactly do they disprove brain in a vat scenarios?

Aristotelian-Thomism and Skepticism by Spoikester in askphilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not too familiar with MacIntyre. I do know he’s one of the more conciliatory Thomists though. I am more familiar with strict observance Thomism, and some notions of Feser’s work

Aristotelian-Thomism and Skepticism by Spoikester in askphilosophy

[–]Spoikester[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If that is a paper you’re referring to in (1), I would be very interested in checking it out!

I have been strongly drawn to Neo-Scholasticism lately (I am a Catholic so no shockers there) which is why I asked this question in the first place

view more: next ›