...and the only way out of this paradoxical cul-de-sac (dead end) is probabilism ("making good guesses")? But what has probabilism to do with certainty?
Philosophy Times
A critical review of some of the most empowering philosophical perspectives.
Dialogue between Socrates and the Logician
Socrates is walking through the marketplace in search for Logisque. He soon spots him and a conversation ensues.
Socrates: what a fine day to be alive. Come Logisque, I have been contemplating a thought that I would like to share with you.
Logisque: Yes, a fine day this is Socrates. You seem to have a gleam in your eyes, what has been troubling you?
Socrates: Well, I have been pondering about a proposition that if true, will make all human quests of knowledge in vain. The great mathematicians tell me that you are well informed about logical consequences. Come Logisque, I ask for your help.
Logisque: Yes, of course Socrates. I always enjoy our conversations. What proposition shall we discuss?
Socrates: Very well, it is this. All I know is that I know nothing.
Logisque: I see. Socrates, I am surprised that you do not know the answer to this simple statement. The proposition "all I know is that I know nothing" comes under attack by the very claim the proposition declares. If what you are claiming is true, it must be the case that one cannot both know nothing and at the same time purport to only know one thing, namely, knowing nothing. This entails a contradiction, therefore, your assertion must be false.
Socrates: Yes, I see your point. But for the sake of curiosity let us further examine this argument. The fact that the proposition seems to attack the very ground it is supporting should not immediately make us conclude the falsity of the claim.
Logisque: I do not understand.
Socrates: I cannot both know something, derived from "All I know is..." and at the same time claim to know nothing, derived from "...I do not know nothing". We must look further into the consequences of such discoveries.
Logisque: Very well, Socrates. Let us look further.
Socrates: The very fact that the proposition, "All I know is that I know nothing" comes under attack by the very assertion it is grounded upon can either be interpreted as being logically invalid, as you are claiming, or if I may suggest another possibility, may be interpreted as reinforcing the very proposition in question.
Logisque: How so Socrates?
Socrates: The claim, "All I know is that I know nothing" cannot be taken seriously if the claim is true. If it is the case that all I know is that I know nothing, how can I even know that?
Logisque: You cannot.
Socrates: The fact that the claim, "All I know is that I know nothing" proves to be false, as you demonstarted earlier, only secures the truthfulness of the claim. It is as if the claim contradicts itself and at the same time reinforces itself.
Logisque: How can it be the case that truthfulness emerges from something that claims to contradict itself and at the same time reinforce itself? Is that not itself another contradiction?
Socrates: Yes, it is a contradiction. Logisque you have taught me something knew.
Logisque: And what is that Socrates?
Socrates: I believe our most treasured principle that all philosophers, mathematicians, and logicians cherish may be under suspicion.
Logisque: What principle is that?
Socrates: The principle of non-contradiction is what man measures the whole world with. Logic comes from illogic, and illogic from nothingness.
Logisque: Oh Socrates, you bring such heavy weight to my heart, what are you trying to say?
Socrates: All I know is that I know nothing.
Logisque walks away frustrated and confused.
No comments:
Post a Comment