User:Asimong/Test: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
unknown (talk) No edit summary |
unknown (talk) No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| rowspan="2" | Non-normative primitive facts ''cannot'' normatively support (i.e., justify) beliefs. This picture gives also rise to the ‘layers’ picture of nature: but if it’s true, then (i) it’s impossible to explain why all the higher layers don’t metaphysically and/or ontologically collapse into the bottom layer (strict type-type reduction), but (ii) if all the higher layers ''don’t'' collapse downwards, then none of them has any efficacious causal powers of its own (epiphenomenalism). | | rowspan="2" | Non-normative primitive facts ''cannot'' normatively support (i.e., justify) beliefs. This picture gives also rise to the ‘layers’ picture of nature: but if it’s true, then (i) it’s impossible to explain why all the higher layers don’t metaphysically and/or ontologically collapse into the bottom layer (strict type-type reduction), but (ii) if all the higher layers ''don’t'' collapse downwards, then none of them has any efficacious causal powers of its own (epiphenomenalism). | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Foundationalism.png|110 px]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| style="background-color:#dbe5f1" | Epistemic coherentism | | style="background-color:#dbe5f1" | Epistemic coherentism | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| rowspan="2" | Compatibility-relations and inferential networks of beliefs on their own do not guarantee correspondence with actual-world facts beyond beliefs. | | rowspan="2" | Compatibility-relations and inferential networks of beliefs on their own do not guarantee correspondence with actual-world facts beyond beliefs. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Coherentism.png|110 px]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| style="background-color:#e5b8b7" | Internalism about justification | | style="background-color:#e5b8b7" | Internalism about justification | ||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
| rowspan="2" | The relationship, if any, between inner content facts and the external world is essentially mysterious, and it’s fully open to radical skepticism about how inner content-facts are verified in the absence of any intersubjective evidence. | | rowspan="2" | The relationship, if any, between inner content facts and the external world is essentially mysterious, and it’s fully open to radical skepticism about how inner content-facts are verified in the absence of any intersubjective evidence. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Internalism.png|110 px]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| style="background-color:#e5b8b7" | Externalism about justification | | style="background-color:#e5b8b7" | Externalism about justification | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
| rowspan="2" | The relationship between outer content facts and conscious minds, if any, is essentially mysterious, and it’s fully open to radical skepticism about how outer content-facts are verified in the absence of any conscious evidence. | | rowspan="2" | The relationship between outer content facts and conscious minds, if any, is essentially mysterious, and it’s fully open to radical skepticism about how outer content-facts are verified in the absence of any conscious evidence. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Externalism.png|110 px]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| style="background-color:#b2a1c7" | Ontological dualism | | style="background-color:#b2a1c7" | Ontological dualism | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| rowspan="2" | Causal relations between the fundamentally mental things or properties and the fundamentally physical things or properties are then essentially mysterious: it’s metaphysically possible for all the facts about fundamentally physical things or properties to exist or stay the same, while all the facts about fundamentally mental things or properties ''either fail to exist or completely change.'' | | rowspan="2" | Causal relations between the fundamentally mental things or properties and the fundamentally physical things or properties are then essentially mysterious: it’s metaphysically possible for all the facts about fundamentally physical things or properties to exist or stay the same, while all the facts about fundamentally mental things or properties ''either fail to exist or completely change.'' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Dualism.png|110 px]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| style="background-color:#8db3e2" | Hobbesian pessimism | | style="background-color:#8db3e2" | Hobbesian pessimism | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
| rowspan="2" | If everything is reducible to fundamentally physical, contingent facts, then since the reducibility relation is logical strong supervenience, 79 but logical strong supervenience is itself a ''non''-contingent, ''non''-physical strong modal relation, therefore reductive materialism/physicalism is self-refuting. | | rowspan="2" | If everything is reducible to fundamentally physical, contingent facts, then since the reducibility relation is logical strong supervenience, 79 but logical strong supervenience is itself a ''non''-contingent, ''non''-physical strong modal relation, therefore reductive materialism/physicalism is self-refuting. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Physicalism.png|110 px]] | ||
|- | |- | ||
| style="background-color:#fbd4b4" | Post-modern relativism | | style="background-color:#fbd4b4" | Post-modern relativism | ||
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
| rowspan="2" | If all truth is relative, and no truth is universal, then it cannot be universally true that all truth is relative and no truth is universal: so post-modern relativism is self-refuting. | | rowspan="2" | If all truth is relative, and no truth is universal, then it cannot be universally true that all truth is relative and no truth is universal: so post-modern relativism is self-refuting. | ||
|- | |- | ||
| [[File: | | [[File:Relativism.png|110 px]] | ||
|} | |} | ||
79 For explicit definitions of strong supervience, natural or nomological strong supervenience, and logical strong supervenience, see section 6 below. | 79 For explicit definitions of strong supervience, natural or nomological strong supervenience, and logical strong supervenience, see section 6 below. | ||
Revision as of 14:07, 15 February 2023
table work
Done: William Irwin Thompson on the Four Cultural Ecologies of the West
To do: Productive Democracy
79 For explicit definitions of strong supervience, natural or nomological strong supervenience, and logical strong supervenience, see section 6 below.