{"id":3137,"date":"2020-05-17T03:46:07","date_gmt":"2020-05-17T03:46:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2020\/05\/17\/a-reader-poses-a-question\/"},"modified":"2020-05-17T03:46:07","modified_gmt":"2020-05-17T03:46:07","slug":"a-reader-poses-a-question","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2020\/05\/17\/a-reader-poses-a-question\/","title":{"rendered":"A Reader Poses a Question about the Extent of My Solubility Skepticism"},"content":{"rendered":"
M.M. writes,<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
I understand that your method is aporetic <\/em>– you argue that the great problems of philosophy are genuine problems but also insoluble, at least by us here below. <\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
[. . .]<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
My question is: do you think that  — even if all positions in some metaphysical disputes have their problems — we can weight reasons for one position against other and make reasoned choice which is partially voluntaristic but also theoretically superior against other options? <\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Yes.  Not all problems are insoluble; not all questions are unaswerable.   Let the question be: Are there beliefs?  Along comes an eliminativist who give the following argument:<\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
\n
(1) If beliefs are anything, then they are brain states; (2) beliefs exhibit original intentionality; (3) no physical state, and thus no brain state, exhibits original intentionality; therefore (4) there are no beliefs. <\/span><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
But any reasonable person should be able to see that this argument does not establish (4) but is instead more reasonably taken to be a <\/span>reductio ad absurdum<\/em> of premise (1) according to which beliefs are nothing if not brain states.  For if anything is obvious, it is that there are beliefs.  This is a pre-theoretical datum, a given.  <\/span>What<\/em> they are is up for grabs, but <\/span>that<\/em> they are is a starting point that cannot be denied except by those in the grip of  a scientistic  ideology.  Since the argument is valid in point of logical form, and the conclusion is manifestly false, what the argument shows is that beliefs cannot be brain states. (I am assuming that we accept both (2) and (3).)
<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
I conclude that not all problems are such that the arguments pro et contra<\/em> cancel out so as to leave an intellectually honest person in a state of doxastic equipoise.  I hold that this is the case only for a set of core problems, the great problems as my reader calls them, the problems that have humbled the greatest minds.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Contrast the question of the existence of beliefs with the question of the existence of God. Deny beliefs and I show you the door. Deny God, and I listen attentively to your arguments.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

M.M. writes, I understand that your method is aporetic – you argue that the great problems of philosophy are genuine problems but also insoluble, at least by us here below.    [. . .]   My question is: do you think that  — even if all positions in some metaphysical disputes have their problems — … Continue reading “A Reader Poses a Question about the Extent of My Solubility Skepticism”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,372,267,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-aporetics","category-belief","category-eliminative-materialism","category-metaphilosophy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3137","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3137"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3137\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}