This Debate Exists

As this is my last entry even though there is much to be delved into I will pose things as statements instead of proposals for thought. [" First, Pro has provided no reason why Empiricism must be true, making Empiricism another unproven assumption. (Or at least no reason that doesn't rely on Empiricism itself, which would be begging the question (2)). For example, Pro has provided no reason why we should prefer Empiricism over Skepticism (3). "] Skepticism says one thing that completely undermines the value of this inquiry, "Most philosophies have weaknesses and can be criticized and this is a general principle of progression in philosophy.[24] The philosophy of skepticism asserts that no truth is knowable[25] or only probable.[26] Some say the scientific method also asserts probable findings, because the number of cases tested is always limited and they constitute perceptual observations.[27] Another criticism is the proposition that "no truth is knowable" is knowably true is contradictory.[28] The here is one hand argument is also another relatively simple criticism that reverses the skeptic's proposals and supports common sense." (http://en.wikipedia.org...) as well as the segment "Philosophical Skepticism versus Ordinary Incredulity" (http://plato.stanford.edu...) which both express a problem: You can't hold this conversation. If Philosophical Skepticism is asserted the definitions set forth at the beginning of this are wasteful because to define something is to acknowledge it's existence and to acknowledge something's existence requires you don't deny it via Skepticism. It simply does not work because to doubt that existence exists (the concept in question) is redundant and circular. Pro asserts Empiricism on the grounds of the definitions provided and backs it with the assertion that existence at least exists and "this" refers to a sensory function as there is no way to define something humans cannot conceive of and the nature of the object (debates) refer to an action which makes it tangible. " Second, even if Pro DOES prove that Empiricism is true, the fact that experience forms the basis of knowledge doesn't prove that what is experienced is objective. (Objective, here, means "necessarily true"; subjective merely means that "Yes, you are experiencing something, but it's not necessarily true".) It's possible both that experience is the basis of all knowledge AND that experience is wrong. Consider a schizophrenic such as mathematician John Nash (4), who believed for decades that he was working for a top-secret USA decoding program, when this was untrue. How can we tell if *we* aren't the ones hallucinating? And if Pro cannot prove that what is experienced is objective, Pro loses. " To answer this simply use the prospect of "Reasonable Doubt" (http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca...) [alt. source: Cartesian Doubt: http://en.wikipedia.org...] which doesn't support the position that has failed under Empiricism or Solipsism, whichever is asserted, relative to the self. Objectivity of participation is guaranteed as unless Con asserts that they are not actually here or real or participating there's no case. " First, Pro must prove that Con exists. Second, Pro again makes the jump from subjectivity to objectivity when none is warranted. " Con's existence is self-evident as per Con's own proposition. In order to even hold the debate as per defined in concept Con must exist. Con cannot define existence without existing, Con cannot define the object (debate) without knowledge of what it is (meaning Con has knowledge which in turn proposes that Con exists through Reasonable Doubt), and Con cannot perceive ("this") without evidence of ability to perceive which lies intrinsically in the aspects of existence itself. Con has essentially proven they exist objectively. To that end the above premises stand. "Pro asserts that questioning Empiricism makes the debate meaningless." Pro asserts that questioning the axiomatic proposition makes the debate meaningless, which did occur, as per Philosophical Skepticism. "We cannot know" undermines the value of the point which inherently makes the question self-evident and axiomatic unto itself and therefore no longer a question and impossible to debate. " First, this is untrue. Debate over the correct metaphysical system, if any, is not meaningless. Second, this is Pro's fault, not Con's. In the rules, Con clearly stated, "No unproven assumptions will be acceted." Pro agreed to abide by these rules by accepting; Pro must take the blame if Pro does not follow them." The following falls under the above. If the demand for proof ( http://plato.stanford.edu..., http://plato.stanford.edu...) exceeds rational limitations of logic it is no longer a debate, a discussion, or even an assertion but it must be self-evident and in turn this creates a paradox for this entire exchange rendering it both true and false. " Pro's assertion makes two unproven assumptions. First, that Con thinks. Second, that the cogito ergo sum argument is valid. " As before Con's perception, deduction, and assertion by definition demands that Con is able to render thoughts therefore is able to understand concepts therefore is a thinking being. Cogito ergo sum, as cited, is not used to presume Con's existence but merely that Con is self-aware and thus "here". " First, why is it necessary that Con actually "thinks"? As a possible counterexample, everything Con has ever "written" is actually just the product of a random-letter-generating computer code that so far has happened to form cogent arguments. To argue otherwise would be an argument from probability (5) and fallacious. " Re-asserting reasonable doubt. It is functionally safe to assume it is impossible for a randomly generated set of characters to form cogent counters to a position. It's "far reaching" [ Far-Fetched Hypothesis This is the fallacy of offering a bizarre (far-fetched) hypothesis as the correct explanation without first ruling out more mundane explanations. (http://www.iep.utm.edu...) ] and not worth considering. Cogito ergo sum (http://plato.stanford.edu...) is far more complex. To summarize in context the proposition that you do think is solidified by your ability to question (and therefore think about) your ability to think. The entirety of the arguments proposed are weakened by the constant inability to put forth more than questions that only reassess and reassert self-awareness and "self" in general. So long as Con perceives this, is able to think (whether or not the thoughts are their own), and is actively participating Con is actively here and thus it exists. Con is proving this more and more correct. " 1. If Con believes that Con is in a debate, then Con is in a debate. 2: If Con believes that Con does not exist, then Con is wrong. " #1 is actually "If Con is participating regardless of what Con believes then Con is in a debate." Cited thrice in Pro's argument: [Con's experience do not have to be accurate. If Con exists and is experiencing participation then Con is indeed holding a debate with another party or an extension of themselves.] [Con's perception beyond participation and existence has no effect on the definitive nature of what is.] [Con's perceptions beyond participation and existence again has no effective on the definitive nature of what is.] #2: That is correct. If Con has the ability to believe or disbelieve then Con exists by extension through the ability to produce self-awareness, conceptualize existence, and then actively deny existence. Con proves Con exists beyond Reasonable Doubt by actively asserting that Con does not exist. --- C2 is redundant. It falls under the same logic seen above where the redundancy of the nature of the asserted is proof unto itself. Pro doesn't concede, pro chooses to conserve energy. --- Well that's it! I wish it were longer but it is what it is. There's so much more to explore, but it was fun while it lasted, thanks! :D