{"id":9023,"date":"2013-02-01T13:04:04","date_gmt":"2013-02-01T13:04:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/02\/01\/on-the-obvious\/"},"modified":"2013-02-01T13:04:04","modified_gmt":"2013-02-01T13:04:04","slug":"on-the-obvious","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/02\/01\/on-the-obvious\/","title":{"rendered":"On the Obvious"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<a class=\"asset-img-link\" href=\"http:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/.a\/6a010535ce1cf6970c017ee82244c5970d-pi\" style=\"float: left;\"><img decoding=\"async\" alt=\"Obvious1\" class=\"asset  asset-image at-xid-6a010535ce1cf6970c017ee82244c5970d\" src=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.typepad.com\/.a\/6a010535ce1cf6970c017ee82244c5970d-320wi\" style=\"margin: 0px 5px 5px 0px;\" title=\"Obvious1\" \/><\/a><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">As Hilary Putnam once said, &quot;It ain&#39;t obvious what&#39;s obvious.&quot; Or as I like to say, &quot;One man&#39;s <\/span><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">datum is another man&#39;s theory.&quot; <\/span><\/div>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">But is it <em>obvious<\/em> that it ain&#39;t obvious what&#39;s obvious?&#0160; <\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">It looks as if we have a little self-referential puzzle going here.&#0160; Does the Hilarian dictum apply to itself?&#0160; An absence of the particular quantifier may be read as a tacit endorsement of the universal quantifier.&#0160;&#0160;Now if it is never obvious what is obvious, then we have self-reference and the Hilarian dictum by its own say-so is not obvious.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Is there a logical problem here?&#0160; I don&#39;t think so.&#0160; With no breach of logical consistency one can maintain that it is never obvious what is obvious, as long as one does not exempt one&#39;s very thesis.&#0160;&#0160; In this case the self-referentiality issues not in self-refutation but in self-vitiation.&#0160; The Hilarian dictum is a self-weakening thesis.&#0160; Over the years I have given many examples of this.&#0160; (But I am now too lazy to dig them out of my vast archives.)<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">There is no logical problem, but there is a factual problem.&#0160; Surely some propositions are obviously true. Having toked on a&#0160;good cigar in its end game, when a cigar is at its most nasty and rasty, I am am feeling mighty fine long about now.&#0160; My feeling of elation, just as such, taken in its phenomenological quiddity, under <em>epoche<\/em> of all transcendent positings &#8212; this <em>quale<\/em> is obvious if anything is.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">So let us modify the Hilarian dictum to bring it in line with the truth.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">In philosophy, appeals to what is obvious, or self-evident, or plain to <em>gesundes Menschenverstand, et cetera und so weiter<\/em> are usually unavailing for purposes of convincing one&#39;s interlocutor.&#0160; <\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">And yet we must take some things as given and non-negotiable.&#0160; Welcome to the human epistemic&#0160; predicament.<\/span>&#0160;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>As Hilary Putnam once said, &quot;It ain&#39;t obvious what&#39;s obvious.&quot; Or as I like to say, &quot;One man&#39;s datum is another man&#39;s theory.&quot; But is it obvious that it ain&#39;t obvious what&#39;s obvious?&#0160; It looks as if we have a little self-referential puzzle going here.&#0160; Does the Hilarian dictum apply to itself?&#0160; An absence of &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/02\/01\/on-the-obvious\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;On the Obvious&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[240,533,353,113,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9023","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-certainty","category-consistency","category-knowledge","category-logica-utens","category-metaphilosophy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9023","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=9023"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9023\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9023"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9023"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9023"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}