![]() ![]() (The necessity of this is obvious for since we must know the prior premises from which the demonstration is drawn, and since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its original source which enables us to recognize the definitions. Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premises is independent of demonstration. The other party agree with them as regards knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal. And since thus one cannot know the primary premises, knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premises are true. The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite series): if on the other hand – they say – the series terminates and there are primary premises, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. Neither doctrine is either true or a necessary deduction from the premises. Why are philosophers so concerned with the 'infinite regress' Its simple: no proposition is ever justified which relies on an infinite amount of premises.I. Others think there is, but that all truths are demonstrable. Time cannot affect spirit in the same way because spirit by its own nature never gets older, it is eternal. Everything gets older in the material world. ![]() Before that, and before that require time, to allow for the difference between ‘then’ and ‘now’. Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premises, there is no scientific knowledge. Infinite regression works when time changes things. Aristotle argued that knowing does not necessitate an infinite regress because some knowledge does not depend on demonstration: “ ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |