- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
How, exactly, can I be certain that I experience?
Honestly, I don't remember the last debate and it seems like you're making the same elementary strawmen anyways so it doesn't look like we ever advanced beyond the preliminaries (in effect at least). If this is uninteresting by virtue of its redundancy then by all means desist. Otherwise you may as well stop bringing up that we've talked about it before.
I am not "pretending" that reason is not proof itself, but thanks for yet another disingenuous representation of my stance that obviates addressing my argument. It is a basic precept of reason that a thing cannot stand as proof of itself. Unless you can articulate why reason should be exempt from its own rule, then it is subject to that rule and therefore cannot be proved by virtue of itself.
My accepting a real life contradiction and watching you reply and not reply is conceptually infeasible to me, but that doesn't disprove my point because my argument is that this conception is not a valid basis for certainty. All it proves is that within our conception non-contradiction is a law; it proves nothing beyond our conception in the least.
It is entirely rational, because by it's own parameters reason cannot prove itself (nor can it be proved from without itself). If the soundness of reason cannot be established, then the certainty of its conclusions cannot be known. Therefore, we cannot be certain of the law of non-contradiction.
I have never suggested that we seek understanding from outside what we can conceive. Beyond being irrational, that seems impossible. My point is only that from within our conception we cannot have certain knowledge.
Recognizing the uncertainty of the law of non-contradiction, and so also of proof and reason here, does not force one to abandon a belief in or utilization of them. You are hastening to conclusions which in no way follow from the observation.
I do not believe in the impossible, but instead believe that what seems impossible may be possible. That is a critical distinction. By contrast, your view seems to suppose that it is impossible for human conception to be flawed such that reality could be otherwise than we conceive of it. That isn't borne out by either reason or experience, really.