Classical Theism, Philosophy, and Religion Forum

You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



2/13/2018 3:51 pm  #1


Epistemic Nihilism

What I want to propose here is a quite interesting attempt to show how  ~PSR  undermines itself because it leads to what is known as  Epistemic Nihilism; the idea that there are no epistemic merits or demerits, no epistemic obligations of rationality or showing reasons, and that propositions do not actually entail anything beyond themselves.

If PSR were false, then, as Edward Feser points out, we could no longer say that we believe things for the reasons we think we do, or even that our own faculties of reasoning have nothing to do with any actual standards of truth and logic. We could, however, go further. Deductive arguments could after all end up being completely irrational, since there could in fact be no reason whatsoever why certain conclusion follow from certain premises, or even that no premises entail anything in themselves.

But what is quite interesting is that this is one of the results of epistemic nihilism. Now, if  ~PSR,  then it is also possible that there are in fact no epistemic merits. There really is no such thing as rationality and irrationality, because there are no epistemic facts. You literally aren't required to believe in anything just because it is true or reasonable. In fact, nothing is reasonable on this view.

Of course, the problem with epistemic nihilism is that it is self-defeating and incoherent, because we literally don't have any reason to believe it if it were true, because we don't have any reason to believe ANYTHING if epistemic nihilism were true. Another problem with epistemic nihilism is that, since it denies any epistemic normativity, it is literally meaningless as a position because, at least according to some analytic philosophers, meaning is normative in nature because it may imply other meanings and exclude certain other ones from consideration. This also implies that epistemic nihilism is basically like eliminativist materialism and denies all semantic meaning as well. Yet another problem with this would that  beliefs  have a similar normative structure as meanings and epistemic facts, which means they also imply certain things beyond themselves, namely what else is to be believed and what is not to be beliebed, which entails that epistemic nihilism is quite literally  unbelievable.

I don't know if the above thesis, namely that meaning and beliefs are normative in nature because a certain idea may imply other ideas and the rejection of yet other ones, is compatible with  Aristotelianism-Thomism  and/or  classical theism  and  classical philosophy  (though it seems to be common sense) but if they are, it gives us further reasons to accept PSR.

So basically, I think we may actually be able to make an argument for PSR on the basis that, if  ~PSR  were true, the possibility that  meaning does not exist  and  epistemic nihilism  is true  would be wide open,  which cannot be because they are self-defeating and incoherent, which by implication means that   ~PSR   is self-defeating and incoherent.


The only way out of this would be for a PSR denier to say that  ~PSR  applies only to coherent possibilities that don't outright end up denying rationality wholesale, thus preserving some of the rationality of  ~PSR  (that is, if that position ever even had any  "rationality"  to begin with).


What do you think?

Last edited by aftermathemat (2/13/2018 4:21 pm)

 

2/13/2018 5:02 pm  #2


Re: Epistemic Nihilism

Also, it just occured to me that, if PSR were false, then our knowledge of the laws of logic could also be undermined. After all, the sense of knowledge and certainty gained when contemplating the PNC or PI could just be brute facts that have nothing to do with any logic, which also leads one to nihilistic consequences about epistemology.

Of course, an atheist might say that our knowledge of logic is certain is such a way that it cannot be a brute fact, which means it is a special case, whil everything else falls under the category of possibly being a brute fact. Even if this were true, I think a good argument for the immateriality of the soul could in fact be made from this, since the faculty of reasoning is clearly not of the same nature as any other faculty we have, since all of those faculties are such that they are undermined by  ~PSR.

     Thread Starter
 

2/13/2018 8:23 pm  #3


Re: Epistemic Nihilism

What do I think ?

I think that you can actually say "And thus, God exists." freely, and it's true, in that case. Think about it. What's the possible reply against it?

 

2/13/2018 8:30 pm  #4


Re: Epistemic Nihilism

FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

What do I think ?

I think that you can actually say "And thus, God exists." freely, and it's true, in that case. Think about it. What's the possible reply against it?

I agree here - this was partly what I was saying about when I mentioned weakening the PSR means weakening the POE..

 

2/13/2018 10:16 pm  #5


Re: Epistemic Nihilism

DanielCC wrote:

FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

What do I think ?

I think that you can actually say "And thus, God exists." freely, and it's true, in that case. Think about it. What's the possible reply against it?

I agree here - this was partly what I was saying about when I mentioned weakening the PSR means weakening the POE..

POE?

 

2/14/2018 12:30 am  #6


Re: Epistemic Nihilism

@FrenchySkepticalCatholic

Problem of Evil

 

2/14/2018 4:08 am  #7


Re: Epistemic Nihilism

I'd say that epistemic nihilism parasitates the POI rather the POE, which is a good reason to accept/reject it, as it collapses being/nonbeing into a whole magnificent clustermagic of paradoxes.

 

2/14/2018 6:41 am  #8


Re: Epistemic Nihilism

FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

I'd say that epistemic nihilism parasitates the POI rather the POE, which is a good reason to accept/reject it, as it collapses being/nonbeing into a whole magnificent clustermagic of paradoxes.

So the implication of epistemic nihilism gives us a good reason to accept PSR?

     Thread Starter
 

2/14/2018 10:22 am  #9


Re: Epistemic Nihilism

aftermathemat wrote:

FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

I'd say that epistemic nihilism parasitates the POI rather the POE, which is a good reason to accept/reject it, as it collapses being/nonbeing into a whole magnificent clustermagic of paradoxes.

So the implication of epistemic nihilism gives us a good reason to accept PSR?

In a way. More like, if we accept epistemic nihilism by denying PSR, we'll end up accepting PSR. Which is fine.

The more I look about it, the more "nihilism" sounds like a paper tiger. For it's either an absolute thesis (negative absolute), which makes it impossible; either a relative thesis, which makes it useless. Funny how things are. I've been thinking a crazy thought which makes me more and more skeptical about the proofs of God : I don't think aren't efficient, but that they are *too* efficient. Like that even if we could have a proof that God doesn't exist (not just an argument), that would show the existence of God.

See what I mean? I sound crazy, but it appears so : one of the decisive proofs of God is that the absence of God, the absence of proof, skepticism or nihilism *all end up* showing God when applied thursly.

 

2/14/2018 10:55 am  #10


Re: Epistemic Nihilism

FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

In a way. More like, if we accept epistemic nihilism by denying PSR, we'll end up accepting PSR. Which is fine.  

So what you are admitting is that if we deny PSR, we have to accept at least the possibility of epistemic nihilism and all of the conclusions that follow from that, which is even worse than the consequences Feser points out of  ~PSR  , which means that  ~PSR  is potentially both  meaningless  and  unbelievable , and thus we know PSR is true?



FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

 I don't think aren't efficient, but that they are *too* efficient. Like that even if we could have a proof that God doesn't exist (not just an argument), that would show the existence of God.

You mean, the denial of God results in the same consequences as the denial of the laws of logic, which is that to even deny the above 2 you have to presuppose them? Well, beat me over with a fish-stick, who would have thought that!?!


I don't think this is a problem, I think this is God revealing Himself basically. There is a reason why classical theism says that God is Reason itself.


FrenchySkepticalCatholic wrote:

See what I mean? I sound crazy, but it appears so : one of the decisive proofs of God is that the absence of God, the absence of proof, skepticism or nihilism *all end up* showing God when applied thursly.

So what you are saying is that, if one denies the existence of God, one also ends up finding nihilism, skepticism and a whole host of other irrational conclusions that would in any other case be fatal to proposition in question (namely, the proposition that God doesn't exist)?
 

Last edited by aftermathemat (2/14/2018 10:58 am)

     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum