Sometimes, a blog comment is so cogent that it desrerves headline billing. In the following case, Origenes brilliantly rises to that level in responding to frequent critic, CR. So, from the moral grounding thread:
Origenes, 268:>>CR @
CR: My point was and has continues to be: how does a proposition obtain the status of being “already true” before reason has its say?
No, that is not your point at all. Your “point” is that every proposition is fallible. According to you, it can never be settled whether a proposition is true or false — “no proposition is immune to criticism.” One problem with this is that certain propositions are obviously immune to criticism. Here you apply a little trick: by not making a distinction between successful and failing criticism (‘criticism is criticism’) you claim that there is criticism nonetheless — irrespective of the fact that there is no criticism of e.g. ‘error exists’ which makes any sense whatsoever.
You then go on to claim that:
CR: Criticisms failing and continuing to fail as we develop new ones are all we have.
This is yet another self-defeating statement, as can be easily demonstrated:
1. We only have criticism.
2. Objects of criticism are not criticism.
Therefore, from (1) and (2)
3. We do not have objects of criticism.
4. We do not have criticism.
If we only have criticism then there is nothing to criticize. And if we have nothing to criticize then we do not have criticism.
CR: No one has addressed #207.
A blatant lie — see #217.
CR: It’s particularly humorous that you yourself are a fallibilist about fallibilism, and apparently didn’t recognize it.
I hold that fallibilism is a self-defeating and incoherent idea, which is not quite the same as being a ‘fallibilist about fallibilism.’>>
Let us ponder what has happened to our civilisation that lends plausibility to self-falsifying ideas but stubbornly refuses to acknowledge that self-evident truths exist and are important. In some cases, literally being foundational to reasoning, thinking and communicating. END