357Magnum

357Magnum t1_jc1v3ja wrote

Reply to Why There Is No Absolute Ground For Truth: A Review of Criticisms Against Strong Foundationalism by throwaway853994

Ok, but this article relies on the exact sorts of "truth" the author is seeking to dismiss in order to argue the "truth" of its own assertions.

The whole argument about quantum mechanics, for example, is based on empirical observations if scientific experiments, all of which relies on foundationalism, etc.

This has always been my problem with arguing against knowledge or logic in general. You can't argue that logic isn't real without using logic. You can't argue against the concept of truth without at least assuming the truth of your premises.

While I'm not against the ancient thought that truth may not be knowable, and it is a valid question to always ask, I don't think it can ever get very far.

Even if truth and logic being real somehow isn't "true" without a circular reference to the very idea of truth, at least assuming truth is true can be useful as a worldview

6

357Magnum t1_j3na9ft wrote

Reply to comment by xFblthpx in Violence and force: “Camus and Sartre are paradoxically inseparable because they are opposites in this most central and binding debate on racism and all kinds of social oppression.” by IAI_Admin

Yeah I agree with you completely. This seems to strawman Camus, misrepresent the Rebel completely, and at the same time gloss over all the inconsistencies that Sartre had in his career as well. Ridiculous to hold Camus to such standards and then say of Sartre "his fearless public condemnation of state-sponsored violence, be it that of France (and later the U.S) in Vietnam, or that of the French police against immigrants in the streets of Paris and elsewhere" while not mentioning his problematic support of communist regimes that did loads of state-sponsored violence.

59