| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Am6ukstd69","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ5Ӻ","startOffset":1514,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ5Ӻ","endOffset":2923°Ӻ,"quote":"On second thought, though, any such “truth” will need to be verified. To ascertain whether or not a statement is true in this particular “ontological” sense, we shall have to check it with something that is supposed to “exist” in a world apart from statements and experience. That is to say, it would be a question of comparing a statement, not with other statements or past experiences, but with states of affairs that are supposed to be the causes of what we experience, states of affairs that are supposed to be there, in themselves and for themselves in an ontic world, irrespective of anyone’s experience. \nThis comparison is a comparison that can never be made. Xenophanes, one of the earliest among the Pre-Socratics, had already become aware of that impossibility. “If a man succeeded to the full in saying what is completely true, he himself would nevertheless be unaware of it.” \nPyrrho, a little later, formulated the argument that quickly became and still remains the cornerstone of all kinds of philosophical scepticism. How, he asked, could we ever tell whether or not the pictures our senses “convey” are accurate and true, if the only way they can be checked is again through our senses? The question is, indeed, unanswerable. It is analogous to asking, say, what the magnification of a telescope might be if nothing that is seen through the telescope can be seen or measured in any other way.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321062106105279596932":^°°,^"jQuery321062106105279596932":^°°,^"jQuery321062106105279596932":^°°,^"jQuery321062106105279596932":^°°,^"jQuery321062106105279596932":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1567688022854°
|
