Infinitism: when the three year old asking "why" on loop gets *soooo* frustrated with their parents stopping at "because I said so" that they are forced to write a philosophical retort calling their parents arbitrary and thus unjustified.
This made me giggle! Some parents are so dry shallow and limited to think deeply about things when the kids come as refresh reminder to rethink some things about life because the parents are not open minded due to factors such as: accumulated stress, laziness, incompetence, ignorance, overworking, burnout, lack of peaceful environment, active traumas, lack of character or infantile justifications.
I have 2 parents. I have 4 grandparents. I have 8 great grandfathers. And so on. But I don't have infinite ancestors. They start repeating themselves in my lineage. Reasons and justifications also have parents and grandparents. The more parents and grandparents they have, the more trustworthy they seem to me, in principle. If some of the parents of one of your reasons turns out to be false, well, it has others, so it's fine. And reasons, for me, work like ancestors, but with time travel. So some lineages CAN contain loops, but there's nothing wrong with that because the elements of the loops have other connections. Interestingly, we have inherited reasons from our ancestors, not only in the form of culture but also in the form of the senses we use to perceive things.
I actually first encountered this in a math textbook! They described sets as primitive objects and said they couldn’t rigorously define them because of the issues posed by the regress of reasons.
Myself, I use circularity as we can differentiate between progressive circles and degenerate circles. Progressive circles lead to new knowledge, creating a positive feedback loop. Degenerate circles go nowhere. However, this video has shown me that I am also sympathetic to partial justification. The stopping point can be defined pragmatically at the point where marginal benefit equals marginal cost. With this in mind, one can determine a number of times to go round the circular reasoning and consider themselves justified.
Wise thinking and an adding also: Plain justifications cannot thrive decently in causing good results and harmony if they refuse self awareness elevation, progressive contribution and humanely actions. Also where truth and honesty are absent, where genuine pure intents are lacking, where sin is developing as a misery pattern of degeneracy and where some refuse to discover their real capabilities instead of just continuing of repeating degrading acts then that is where the causes of many societal sicknesses are located, in gregrarious filthy groups that aren't collaborative with the whole in a greater scheme of collaboration. Thus if they are repressed and do things counter-intuitive to their nature and aspirations in the end misery gets the most of them making them worse with each day and each deliberate action of trying to afflict others with decrepid egoism and malice because they weren't properly given a purpose or because they refused the advice of guidance of those who could help them. Such beings are causing falls and sabotages of good functioning structures as they are stubborn and pleasure oriented but they are quite in need to have some self acocuntability in order to do some ventures on their own in order to build something on their own to add some uniqueness and inventive affirmation of their right to live and do(basic rights still apply unless they choose to be naggy filthy infestees), unless they go full mongrels cretins who plunder and steal, then they are kinda razed because they need to be tempered to be more proactive for team efforts. Gotta admit that without these kind of people society would be more harmonious but also more prone to a truant peace, which can leave people quite mellow if living in an utopia without challenges to be more active and prepared for any sudden dangers. What I want to say is that this people need to travel more and stay less in a place as they have more dynamic natures but to be careful with them as they can do trouble, enter trouble or be attacked by other troubles suddenly. If they can be healed and put to proper instructive formation they can quite literally improve the energy levels of others if they know how to give, to whom to give and when to give with a tempered demeanor and understanding; wise sympathy!
On acid, you can take any little thing that is said in earnest and instantly see the next regression, and the next, and the next, in fading clarity, and it strongly reminds me of the cascade of images when two mirrors face each other, except if every other image was rotated 90 degrees.
I think that is because your brain starts relying more on your hypotheses about the world than the actual error signal. Mixed with the fact that parts of your brain are overflowing with things that "shouldn't" be there possibly establishing novel connections and thus affecting said hypotheses about the world.
The idea that comes to mind for me is to consider a set of propositions with a "reason for" relation. Then you can define an infinite justification recursively: J_0: p J_n+1: x such that x is a reason for J_n that has not already appeared at some stage m
More like those chains interconnect at specific intervals, points and intersections. Continual adjustments and reformations; infinite potentials that require a level of guided discerned teaching in order to coordinate proper dynamics! I see that possible through an unique combination of: Faith in God + naturalism + spirits + technology(and AI's help of course) + discernment + compassion. Decency, reason, humanity, consistency and diversity are important. Based stable + maleable volatility! Also important pauses of relaxation, active understanding and communicating efficiency by teaching and relearning.
Hey, another great one. I was discussing metaphysical infinitism the other day, and it seems like metaphysical infinitism would necessitate epistemological infinitism. Regardless, I think epistemological infinitism is the way to go, and I find it very surprising the field is so opposed to it. Especially as compared to alternatives like seeming / brute facts / mere facts / circular webs of belief. If only we had found those golden first principles we could insert into our formal logic machine, life would be so much simpler.
You are right in initiative potential of even being possible, genuine and practical but there are addings that can help in order to merge with healthy pondered reasoning and compatible specifics combinings and formations + reformations. Factual informations are great for verifying certain errors or conflicts of confusion/discord/uncertainty in order to clarify. Thus there is needed to check and recheck some applicable theories for later adaptations and adjustments in order to avoid any possible confusion or blatant foolish degrading justifications of misery, bad reactive effects and faithless condemnings. Various dynamics exist, we can do things patiently for building and solving and we also can do things fast if proper allowance and trust for completing things that are vital for thriving and integrity composure of the each real individual self by letting proper space for expressing and manifesting decently, productively and expressively(consider disciplination measures to be available for excess of nasty indecent abusive demeanors as well or else some would repeat destructive patterns of sin and degeneracy if they aren't tempered or stopped). Let's not tolerate nasty behaviours or else we deserve the effects of letting propagation of immoral afflictions and destructive inhumane tendencies. Too much attention can be degrading also, let people do their job, enjoying life, learning and helping. The genuine healthy along with genuine healthy while the nasty need to be disciplined and to be instructed to find meaning and prupose that they wouldn't abandon for some shallow distractions or temporary temptations, at least not for too long. Basically allow yourself some space to rejuvenate and then contribute again if possible unless more rest or regeneration time is needed. Safety and health first. Health is first in a good decent society! Health is vital!
-What worries me about infinitism are the rules of inference, I mean any rule for epistemic/logical reasoning and not just deductive rules. -I may justify a rule A with the set of Rules S. Now S has to exclude A to avoid circularity. -Now I want to justify another rule B from S with a smaller set of rules S*. But S* is basically S just without B. -It seems like I have now less and less rules until only one or a irreducible small set of rules is left over. -It seems like that a infinite chain of reasoning is not possible for rules of inference, infinitism therefore fails at least when it comes to rules. -When it comes to foundationalism, then I would probably use not believes about appearances but instead the appearances themselves as the foundation. -I would tend to think that I don’t need representations like believes for something I have direct access to. -But I think what worries me the most about foundationalism are the rules of inference. -If there is no solid foundation for the truth tracking tendency of those rules then it seems like I can’t do much with a rock solid foundation in the form of appearances.
If you're citing reasons to justify rule A, then you can't state rule A as one of those reasons. But it might be legitimate for your argument to employ rule A. That is, infinitism definitely bans premise-circularity, but it's not clear that it bans rule-circularity. An infinitist might judge it to be legitimate to use a rule as part of an argument that is supposed to justify the rule. Perhaps this alleviates your concern?
@@KaneB I guess one can combine the Infinitist approach with that of the Coherentist when it comes to rules of inference. But then it seems like they would loose the virtue of being without any form of circularity. They would loose on of the virtues that made them a appealing alternative to coherentism… at least it seems to me like this.
@@Opposite271 "But then it seems like they would loose the virtue of being without any form of circularity." => here is where you are wrong in the sudden assumption because is not circularity but rather spiraling towards infinity of discovery, like a fibonacy sequence as it might add more considerations in order to understand that can have a proper flow of harmonious gradual and yet continual research for different comprehensive discoveries while conserving the virtue quality. Keep going, reconsider some components that are to be analyzed into detail again also(check and recheck), it is healthy to see with a refreshed perspective advice, this if you would like to of course after a correction advice that can possibly help you in your quest for learning and relearning new things with a distinguised cohesion and comprehension.
I think infinitism's the way to go. In my opinion, people and philosophers struggle with it because they believe they have definite knowledge. People want to think they are absolutely right and that there are no reasons others may want to refute that. Another issue, I think, lies with the word knowledge. People equivocate different senses of knowledge: sensual experience with rational critique, intellectual intuition with description of sensual reality. I think there is place for foundationalist and coherentist motifs in pragmatically "justifying" sensual beliefs and justifyably understanding abstract belief systems, but all and all the two principles of infinitism seem to perssuade me. We don't have absolute knowledge, only relative knowledge, all beliefs need to be justified to be knowledge and only beliefs may justify beliefs. Since anybody can always seek to refute a belief, justification must in principle go to infinity. I think anybody who argued against an opponent about politics or ethics can vouch for this. Sorry for the rambling, I was making it up as I went.
Regarding the very last point, about how we’re more confident in 1+1=2 than in cosmic inflation because of 1+1=2’s self-evidence rather than its shorter chain of reasoning, I’m not sure I agree. Surely there are plenty of self-evident propositions that we can reasonably cite within the chain of reasoning for cosmic inflation, they’re just much further back in the chain. These propositions, together with the empirical claims cited in support inflation, should give us much more confidence in inflation than in 1+1=2. Why don’t they? It’s because of the length of the chain. The self-evident propositions supporting inflation are so far removed from the central assertion about inflation itself that they’ve essentially lost any justifying power. This would seem to be the case with most chains of reasoning; at some point the reasons we’re citing no longer have anything to do with our main assertion, and so lose their strength as reasons. And if reasons lose their strength the further they are down the chain, how could we claim that a longer chain provides more doxastic justification than a shorter one?
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. It really seems like the infinitist gets things backwards in this case. We could continue extending the chain of reasons that support cosmic inflation endlessly, but no matter how long that chain gets, it doesn't seem like there's any reason to expect that we will become more confident about cosmic inflation than about "1+1=2". This suggests that, if the reason for believing "1+1=2" is its self-evidence, then self-evidence must be not merely different in degree but different in kind from other types of reasons, such that other chains of reasons can never match its justifying power, no matter how long those chains get. But I just don't see why we would put so much weight on self-evidence, or on any other type of reason.
@@KaneB I tell you why, because actualizing factors and happenings give new insights over matters that were previously concealed by ignorance or lack of awareness towards specific aspects and causative factors that can be: latent, active, retroactive, subtle or suddenly activative like dominoes depending on multiple stances of combinations or shutter nasty entropies caused by decrepid unstable presences. Some people despise reason and kind mutual comprehension as they can't embody advanced capabilities of decency and thus they hate those who want to build, rebuild and maintain, they are called hedonistic degenerates.
Ok, but regardless of the "location" of "self-evidence" in the chain of reasoning, its doing a lot of heavy lifting here. How are we to tell the difference between a claim that is "self-evident" and one that isn't? It seems to me "self-evident" is a synonym for "demonstrably useful," which is fine.
@@ericb9804 "self-evident" is more like observably more obvious for properties and qualities or also their lack thereof that are demonstrating certain attributes and aspects to be understood with genuine pure clarity and intentions for proper reasoning and considerations.
@@WoziduranJahemter I don't see how defining "self-evident" as "obvious" and having "genuine pure clarity" for "proper reasoning" makes any progress toward identifying the concept. It seems all you will ever be able to do is declare something to be "self-evident" but have reply to someone who disagrees.
The position mistakes questions for justification which question on clarifying the justification. When you ask 'does f give you reason to believe B?' you're not throwing the discussion back to the chain of justifications(reasons), you are opening a new chain of questions, aimed at understanding the position.
you had me until 18 min mark when you said infinitists aren't trying to be skeptical. The entire time I was assuming this is what this was about. Now I'm stumped as to why anyone would define themselves as an infinist if their goal is not pan-skepticism
As an infinitist I consider important to have a balance-harmony of both skeptical and openess to relearn, but yet to be active-capable to search and research for the multiple reasons of causative contingencies that are to be decrypted with grace, sound mind and reason!
Infinitists are not skeptical because they know the theorems they're trying to prove: their own beliefs. They find a problem with the classical attempt to do it, though, as they conclude that whatever explanation you give to an assertion p will necessarily lead you to an infinite regress. It's not much a matter of whether what I know is true or false, but more about how the beliefs I hold can be actually justified
@@linus._. don't speak ill for others just because you are a biased borderline lil crap of nasty though patterns of degeneracy because you are afflicted by ignorance. A good infinitist knows to be skeptical instead of relying on mere beliefs like overly self absorbed cretins that lack reason, patience and capacity to study. Disgusting assumptionate turd with justifications and condemnings. DO YOU PROJECT MORE OF YOUR UNFILTERED CRAPS? SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND LISTEN TO SOME SYMPHONIC MUSIC, OBVIOUSLY YOU LISTEN TO CRAP MUSIC THAT FRIED YOUR BRAIN.
Well, Kripke's argument for the impossibility of analytical reduction of mental acts could be used here as an attempt, in ny view, to restore the possibility of actual synthetic a priori judgement. If we take, for instance, as Kripke puts, that what makes pain hurt is not some hidden inner nature that you may be unaware of, but rather the way you simply feel it (and you can't hallucinate about that, because even if there's no material respald for you pain but your mind makes it like it's real, it's real in a specific mental domain D), we can say: the sentence "I'm in pain" will be true, by necessity, once I'm in pain. Or, we could say: I'm in pain ---> I'm in pain (A ---> A). In this case, we can actually assert A in a specific time t and say that, the fact that "I'm in pain" will be true by necessity for a specific mental domain D, which is only known privately for myself; yet, although it'd be true by necessity (I can say it's necessarily true since I'm able to feel it and then assume that, once I feel it, I can't deny its existence anymore since the way I feel it is enough to tell it hurts, necessarily), it wouldn't be a proper analytic judgment, since, analytically speaking, it "could be false" ("I'm in pain" is clearly not a tautology, as there are possible words where it is clearly false). Which makes me believe this is a way to somehow restore the possibility for a synthetic a priori judgement. And such synthetic a priori judgement puts, as it seems, a final point to our inquiry (regarding the scope of sentences that could be derived from this primitive fact known synthetically, whereas still a priori) where it cannot get any more primitive than it is. Which can, then, be used as an argument against infinitism.
Primitive and synthetical aspects are not so vital as they are adaptative divergent diversities dynamics, they are part of the basic survival and also the adding possibilities. Primal was a necessity, remains an option for rough times but it isn't an actuality all the times as it depends on the conditions given and also the choices for specific parts of a natural spatial environment or a mental environment. Synthetical is a choice but doesn't imply vitality but rather alternative possibility that can come either with strange horrid costs or genuine ingeniosity resolutions(proceed with care, additional safety measure rechecks and ethics of patience and continual concern in that domain). We self actualize as consciousness if we want to become more elevate and self aware of course.
3:35 I would say I believe the chain terminates and then I would cite the experiment. I believe in the theory of relativity because I can visualize 3 body problems and the effects of gravity with my own eyes
I wonder when humans would discover that they have at least a demon, daemon, alien species or deity that they are originating from, else they condemn like pieces of craps on those that comprehend adequately both their light origins as well as their shadow origins. Praise God!
I think option #2 is probably how it actually works in our minds/brains. Or maybe option #1. #2 is how we rationalize our beliefs logically, #1 is how we actually form the beliefs (through life experiences, which we just learn from without justification, probably because that helps with natural selection. So the bottom of the chain is natural selection maybe. Or am I supposed to be questioning what I just said, no because I'm not trying to justify my belief I'm just positing it
In my opinion, there is an error here in the presentation of the structure of knowledge. The reality is already before us. What one is rearranging is the level at which one restricts and frames the explanation (model). Every justification is a conceptual model that describes some phenomenon. The justifications are not stacked or chained together. Explanations are models in different states of resolution (in the fabric of reality and according to our knowledge). Each conceptual model is framed in more complete conceptual models but which are not different from an approach at a different level. For example, stating something about a wave of water will be justified in classical physics, chemistry, electromagnetism, quantum physics, cosmology. These levels are not chained nor are they dependent on each other. They are just different types of partial models that explain the same phenomenon. It's just that I have a different interpretation of things. For me, propositions are different from objects and therefore it is wrong to assume that they can be structured like objects or that there are relations between them similar to those of the objects. Ideas are concepts and these are mental models of aspects of reality. One can focus, for simplicity and practicality, on one aspect of the total model valid according to the current paradigm. But one must not lose sight of the fact that ultimately all models are in reference to a total conceptual model that represents reality. The limits that seem to define a given conceptual model are only practical conventions.
I've discussed this in a few different videos, for instance in my video on the problem of the criterion: th-cam.com/video/piJir0UM8wE/w-d-xo.html Why use reason?: th-cam.com/video/9cexrECXKUI/w-d-xo.html Externalist responses to skepticism: th-cam.com/video/YfnUhvC7uqs/w-d-xo.html
Excellent job. Would what Matt dillahaunty usually presents fall with coherence justification? It seems also at some point the reasons given at a certain level of employment ( via scientific method) the 'guess' so to say Would be verified no?
If it requires infinite steps, how can you check it is not arbitrary? Anything that requires infinite exemplars retreats for probability. This is an inductive problem by the way. If you follow the chain to the n-step, that step could simply be random, and all the other steps already followed will fall apart. If the number of possible causes is much more than the number of causes that can be justified by reason (if it's not, it's not infinite), well, we retreat to probability and, therefore, indefiniteness.
3:30 here you talk about circular reasoning, later you mention that infinitism is extremely unpopular (forgive me for commenting before watching the full video). are you saying that circular reasoning is more popular than infinitism? i may be misunderstanding, but I am confused as to how you can believe that webs/loops of beliefs justify themselves when I could say this: A. X is the solution to Y B. A is true because I deem it to be true. A1. X1 is the solution to Y1 B1. A1 is true because I deem it to be true. (repeat for AN/BN) C. Due to N beliefs being true (see B), I am a reliable source, further proving my validity what would a coherentist say to this assertion?
Infinitism does not, in certain cases, recede one's partial justification into nothingness. Let's consider the belief of pi being 3.14. Why believe pi rounded to two decimals is 3.14? Because pi rounded to three decimals is 3.142. Because pi rounded to four decimals is 3.1416 Because rounded to five is 3.14159 Because rounded to six is 3.141593 Because rounded to seven is 3.1415927 And so on Clearly, the further justification matters, when it comes to one's actual answer for pi. But the further you go, the less it seems to matter - to the point that at the end of the infinite chain it matters infinitely little This seems to generate the idea that if the chain of justification would lead one's investigation to go down a path of infinite precision, there is indeed a case to be made for partial justification
I'm an ultraultrafinitist. I think that the only numbers are the ones you can grasp in a single mental act of subitizing, so there are no numbers greater than 7.
@@KaneB Personally instead of subitizing I think we need to test by the # of cubes you can rotate in your head simulteanously. For me it's solilidly 16.
@@KaneB oh man, limitative labels take out so much fun dynamics that can be explored in a jolly way for better preventions of certain aspects of the causes and effects that many reductionists tend to experiment with limitating their capacity to comprehend some sudden entropy reactions resultings that can be so much atypical and unique.
I wonder if you could argue that an infinite chain of beliefs could converge to something that looks different than any finite subset, like a Taylor series converging to a non-polynomial function at infinity. Specifically, if you allow assignment of arbitrarily small importance to a given belief, could an infinite chain of beliefs "look" like experiential grounding. The entire chain may not be communicable, but if you assume subjective experience is constructed from an infinite conglomeration of smaller component experiences (themselves chains of belief) could you argue that infinite chains can "fit" in finite minds? Personally, I don't know if I agree with this perspective - I find the skeptical arguments I've seen on this channel more convincing - but I'm curious if this would be a valid counter to some of the criticisms of infinitism.
Would be a gradual miracle rightfully so that we witness if we grow in self awareness and collective attunement but it would come with time for those who are annointed or else there would be many many problems coming from different factors of various entropy interactions!
@@WoziduranJahemter are you making fun of my comment's wordiness? It did come off a lot more wordy than I intended, but it's not gibberish of you actually read it. My field isn't philosophy though, so it may be still be stupid.
@@jonathanmitchell8698 apologies if misunderstanding happened, I also get cautious skeptical sometimes when some decrepid borderline-narcs bullies who eat crap while disguising themselves try to portray themselves as intellectual while being nasty covert bullies. I also try to be as elligible as possible. Also philosophy is not my main field either but I try my best. Don't say degrading things about yourself dude, we improve gradually. Good thing that you are humble and considerative. Be kind to yourself!
I feel like the dismissal of foundationalist justification was a bit of a straw man in this instance. I remember Donald Hoffman making the point on the Lex Fridman podcast that (in his opinion) science progresses by explaining the maximum amount of phenomena from the fewest starting assumptions. Assuming P to then justify Q, R, S, T as a result is much preferable, as a system of knowledge, than directly assuming each of P, Q, R, S, T etc... I also just personally dislike the nihilism of having a belief that there is an ideal (having a justified true belief), but it's unobtainable (because we cannot know an infinite chain). That just sets you up to have an unhappy mind imo.
Sure. A proper assessment of foundationalism would require a whole other video. The same is true for coherentism, of course. Even so, the basic concern that motivates the infinitist, that the foundationalist ends up resting her beliefs on mere arbitrary assumptions, and that assumptions cannot serve as good reasons for anything -- it's not at all obvious that even sophisticated foundationalists have a convincing response to this. Isn't this what's motivating the point that Hoffman's making there? Like, why exactly is it that it's better to have fewer assumptions? Presumably because we take it that mere assumptions are bad in some sense.
This just runs into the regress problem again. Why do you assume P, why do think explaining the most amount of phenomena with least amount of assumptions is more likely to be true?
@@KaneB assumptions tend to be depreciative when no understanding is given with clear genuine capacity to comprehend and understand with a note of a certain genuinely pure good intentions and then later a pondered dose curiosity else is it turning into a sadism of ruination and bad entropies produced by the source person that emits afflictionating pressumptions or narratives that afflict around. People who make assumptions expecting the worst to justify certain reactions aren't capable of understanding the subtle awesome dynamics that come with balanced composed views and a certain dose of skepticism that derive from humbleness instead of rigid hastyness. Hastyness instead can apply to emergency measures for egoistic needed survival but only used to find escape routes instead of the solutions to solve the problem in proper time. Most assumptionated hasty people carry a dose of ignorance and condemning matters that makes them prone to machiavelism, deceit and troublemaking as a pattern of their modus operandi, also they envy functional consistent humane humans with integrity of character and capacity for both inductive and deductive morality and reasoning. Those kind of people are not made for civilized spaces as they hate order and deeper thinking while they are more adapted towards harsh savage environments where they can afflict others by scavenging, they have leeching tendencies also as unstable natures as they are governed by compulsionated primal actions that can gain full control of their reduced minds for complex dynamics and genuine understanding of another. Even if they try to give arguments they have oftenly shallow justifications because they are prone to personal biases as they are condemning presences and usually codependents for other environments to steal from, hard for them to be self reliable and for peace of mind as they are more at an infantile juvenile stage of living. Most sick vile sociopathic neurotypical people of this world are still at that stage and won't change, their pattern stemmed from their lack of proper internalization processes and induced traumas that can be cured only with harsher disciplinary conditions, only if they choose, desire and wish to change at some aspects, still their essence is still vile and egoistical without any driven factors for mutual reciprocity as they are predatory cowards bullies with empathy developed as a social adaptative tactic for easy-gains. These kind of people usually are degrading, hypocritical, condemning, slandering of others and afflicting societies in formation as they are false toxic positives unless they go for naturalistic tribal reformation somewhere where they can be both isolated and watched while enjoying activities half a day while the other half being in work, add some strict severe gnosis education that stirs their interest up and they might do stuff using machineries(but they are prone to do accidents). They are more inventive to steal than intelligent to make. These alterations occur as their energy levels are far higher for stress and risk due to trauma and need to invest that energy with some harmonious grounding and also controlled contained pseudo-chaos that is to be adjusted.
Kane, thanks for this video, but for a change I am not going to argue philosophy with you. Instead I am going to say don't push yourself too hard during convalescence. Much as I like watching your videos, I would prefer waiting longer to you relapsing. (perhaps my philosophical point is that ultimately real people are a higher priority for me than abstract reasoning; even though the latter is very important)
I don't have a problem with infinities. I do have a problem with propositions, so I don't think there can be an infinite series of mind-independent reasons as the infinitist requires for propositional justification. But similarly in my view, there isn't a series of mind-independent reasons that terminate, nor is there a coherent set of mind-independent propositions.
@@KaneB depends on the variety of factors that are around a specific case of accumulated actions and surrounding effects coming from causes that still have an imprint upon the being that can influence their own fate/destiny according to their choices as well as the factors that are usually sent as sabotaging attacks against their lives as testings of virtue in a higher divine plan and of things that need to usually be defused, clarified, pacified or understood with sound mind, reason, clarity and kindness love.
@@KaneBThat sounds contradictory to me. On the one hand you say there cannot be an infinite number of mind-independent reasons, yet the number of mind-independent reasons for something does not terminate at some point - which seems to mean you also believe there is not a finitude of reasons. So which is it? o: (Or was that a joke that's gone over my head? >.
5:41 to 5:55 - Kane's recognition that pragmatism is as close as we will ever get to a "solution" for this nonsense. The rest of the video is just saying, "but lets pretend this is a problem anyway because philosophy." Yes, obviously "justification" is "infinite," at least without declaring some arbitrary, metaphysical "foundation." And obviously this "infinitism" has its own logical problems, But SO WHAT? - "justification" being relative to an audience as opposed to a "foundation" doesn't make it any less useful for practical purposes, and utility is all we can actually identify.
>> And obviously this "infinitism" has its own logical problems, But SO WHAT? A puzzling comment. It has its own problems -- so some of us find it interesting to think about those problems, and to compare the view with the alternatives. Perhaps you don't find that interesting, which is fine. Nobody is forcing you to engage with these topics.
@@KaneB nothing personal - I enjoy "engaging with these topics" as much as you do. And I really enjoy the videos you make. Its just that in doing so I also point out the extent to which the ideas are silly or misguided. And I think that pointing this out is a useful activity as it will help "free" all of us from the tyranny of metaphysics, which will make us all "better" philosophers. You, of course, are free to disagree.
@@Opposite271 IMO, the fundamental "metaphysical claim" is this: "Humans will achieve what they value by standing in relation to the non-human." The "non-human" IS "metaphysics," typically called "ontology" and all the accompanying epistemology derived from it, JTB, and such. Non-human metaphysics t is also, not coincidentally, good ol' fashioned theism. And so we focus all our energy on figuring out what our relation to the "non-human" is, despite every indication being that "reality itself" is as inaccessible as "the will of god." My relationship to "reality" is, metaphorically, of course, similar to that of subject and master - I think that by appealing to this "objectivity" I can somehow resolve disputes between humans, I can somehow deem myself..."just, or right, or good, or saved, or....something...something that I want to be or have...regardless of what other people think." But all of this is just a figment of my psychology. Yes, it certainly seems like there is a "reality" independent of humans, but so what? Regardless of what "reality really is," any group of people either agree on what to do about, or they don't. It turns out that thinking and speaking only in terms of this human agreement by way of utility is a form of philosophical "liberation."
@@ericb9804 So this is the reason you hate metaphysics? Seriously??? Industrial civilization has reduced humans to a domesticated animal. A cog in the machine who’s value is only judged by its utility to society. To me, pragmatism appears like a dystopian Ideal, revealing the worst aspects of civilization. It is not enough that civilization has to exploit non-humans on a industrial scale. It is not enough that sentient beings are valued only for their utility. Now their entire existence is not even acknowledge anymore.
To overcome the arbitrary objection for the foundationalist can you not just take the cogito as the foundational belief and then build all knowledge from this undeniable truth? The fact that I exist is a self evident truth and me not existing would entail a contradiction, therefore no further justification is required for this one belief nor do I see it as an arbitrary starting point.
First, there are lots of objections to the cogito. Plenty of philosophers deny that it's even true, and plenty of those who do think that it's true deny that it's self-evident or that denying it entails a contradiction. What should we do in the face of such objections? Just ignore them? Moreover, suppose we grant that it is self-evident and that denying it entails a contradiction. At this point, Klein's question kicks in: does the fact that P is self-evident or that the denial of P entails a contradiction make it more likely that P is true? If you say yes, and try to defend that answer, then it looks like you're back on the chain of reasons.
@@KaneB many thanks for your reply, I do get the objections you’re putting forward which shouldn’t be ignored at all. I know a lot of the criticism tends to surround what the “I” is from the cogito. Providing I don’t try to claim anything regarding the ontology of my existence, I feel like I can have absolute certainty that I exist just from my own first person direct experience, and so it would be impossible for me to hold the belief I exist and be wrong about it. The cogito would just be a description of this fact but isn’t necessary for the argument. Also when I saying “I think” from the cogito, for me this is a tautology, the I and the thinking are the same thing which hopefully avoids the majority of critique. Really do appreciate all of your great work and presentation of the topics, your videos have really helped with me with my own epistemology.
@@karlosjeffers4791 but the tautology of affirming and then continuing in describing something while then deciding for both readjusting and redescribing something gives more inherent descriptive details that can surface some different meanings => resulting that on that phrase formation the result can usually be described better by the combined neaby affiliation-connections with their innerent composite properties of hidden meanings that together can form a different practicality or clue in finding another meaning or aspect.
I'm not sure if this is ultimate justification in the sense relevant to infinitism. Religious people will not usually end the chain of reasons with the belief "God exists": if you ask them why they believe God exists, they will often have an answer. There are plenty of arguments that aim to establish the existence of God from premises that even the atheist is supposed to accept. Of course, there are some religious people who will accept that their belief is just a matter of faith. Even here though, their belief in God is not usually treated as a mere assumption: they can give pragmatic reasons for holding that belief. Perhaps they think that belief in God is required for moral behaviour, for instance. In which case, we're still in the game of giving reasons.
@@KaneB humans don't possess knowledge in the sense that God does with absloute certaintiy and that the test in this life is made so everything we "know" we have no ultimate justification for and we are "believing" which then let us infer God's existence from other things but ultimatley we "belive" in God and that we can not prove it 100%. if you were able to prove God's existences without any reasonable doubt, there will be no test to people as the answer will be given, its like asking you to believe me and you ask for proof of the thing I am trying to make you believe i saw, if that evidence existed you won't need to believe me anymore and rely on your own sight ect
I felt for you while you were on the couple’s channel who like to whine about science and philosophy being not science and philosophy enough. They are the on,y smart ones who don’t accept the explanations that work because explaining the speed of light with a formula isn’t good enough for them… they want deeper knowledge like what is anything if it is only instrumental…. They have of course explained noting but that is not their job
Because there are things that are far more important in complexity than mere limitative theoretical established "constants". I think that some are aware that the only constant is change and thus the seeking of odd complex dynamics is pursued further.
![HIWWHEE | OHM [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OJJLtTLqLag/mqdefault.jpg)
Infinitism: when the three year old asking "why" on loop gets *soooo* frustrated with their parents stopping at "because I said so" that they are forced to write a philosophical retort calling their parents arbitrary and thus unjustified.
This made me giggle! Some parents are so dry shallow and limited to think deeply about things when the kids come as refresh reminder to rethink some things about life because the parents are not open minded due to factors such as: accumulated stress, laziness, incompetence, ignorance, overworking, burnout, lack of peaceful environment, active traumas, lack of character or infantile justifications.
That's when the child is more intelligent than their parents.
I love indulging kids with this one. It basically always gets me to wonder about something I never wondered about before.
I have 2 parents.
I have 4 grandparents.
I have 8 great grandfathers.
And so on.
But I don't have infinite ancestors. They start repeating themselves in my lineage.
Reasons and justifications also have parents and grandparents.
The more parents and grandparents they have, the more trustworthy they seem to me, in principle.
If some of the parents of one of your reasons turns out to be false, well, it has others, so it's fine.
And reasons, for me, work like ancestors, but with time travel. So some lineages CAN contain loops, but there's nothing wrong with that because the elements of the loops have other connections.
Interestingly, we have inherited reasons from our ancestors, not only in the form of culture but also in the form of the senses we use to perceive things.
LETS GOO!!! Honestly there couldn’t be a better timing for this video, at least for me! Thank you Kane!!!!!
Thanks! I hope it's helpful!
@@KaneB Very helpful! Working with things related to infantilism right now, so it’s a great help! :)
I actually first encountered this in a math textbook! They described sets as primitive objects and said they couldn’t rigorously define them because of the issues posed by the regress of reasons.
Myself, I use circularity as we can differentiate between progressive circles and degenerate circles. Progressive circles lead to new knowledge, creating a positive feedback loop. Degenerate circles go nowhere.
However, this video has shown me that I am also sympathetic to partial justification. The stopping point can be defined pragmatically at the point where marginal benefit equals marginal cost. With this in mind, one can determine a number of times to go round the circular reasoning and consider themselves justified.
Wise thinking and an adding also:
Plain justifications cannot thrive decently in causing good results and harmony if they refuse self awareness elevation, progressive contribution and humanely actions.
Also where truth and honesty are absent, where genuine pure intents are lacking, where sin is developing as a misery pattern of degeneracy and where some refuse to discover their real capabilities instead of just continuing of repeating degrading acts then that is where the causes of many societal sicknesses are located, in gregrarious filthy groups that aren't collaborative with the whole in a greater scheme of collaboration. Thus if they are repressed and do things counter-intuitive to their nature and aspirations in the end misery gets the most of them making them worse with each day and each deliberate action of trying to afflict others with decrepid egoism and malice because they weren't properly given a purpose or because they refused the advice of guidance of those who could help them.
Such beings are causing falls and sabotages of good functioning structures as they are stubborn and pleasure oriented but they are quite in need to have some self acocuntability in order to do some ventures on their own in order to build something on their own to add some uniqueness and inventive affirmation of their right to live and do(basic rights still apply unless they choose to be naggy filthy infestees), unless they go full mongrels cretins who plunder and steal, then they are kinda razed because they need to be tempered to be more proactive for team efforts. Gotta admit that without these kind of people society would be more harmonious but also more prone to a truant peace, which can leave people quite mellow if living in an utopia without challenges to be more active and prepared for any sudden dangers.
What I want to say is that this people need to travel more and stay less in a place as they have more dynamic natures but to be careful with them as they can do trouble, enter trouble or be attacked by other troubles suddenly. If they can be healed and put to proper instructive formation they can quite literally improve the energy levels of others if they know how to give, to whom to give and when to give with a tempered demeanor and understanding; wise sympathy!
Wake up babe. New KaneB video just dropped.
On acid, you can take any little thing that is said in earnest and instantly see the next regression, and the next, and the next, in fading clarity, and it strongly reminds me of the cascade of images when two mirrors face each other, except if every other image was rotated 90 degrees.
I think that is because your brain starts relying more on your hypotheses about the world than the actual error signal. Mixed with the fact that parts of your brain are overflowing with things that "shouldn't" be there possibly establishing novel connections and thus affecting said hypotheses about the world.
@@WhoisTheOtherVindAzz you can see the level of confabulation increase as it reaches back, just like you say
The idea that comes to mind for me is to consider a set of propositions with a "reason for" relation. Then you can define an infinite justification recursively:
J_0: p
J_n+1: x such that x is a reason for J_n that has not already appeared at some stage m
More like those chains interconnect at specific intervals, points and intersections. Continual adjustments and reformations; infinite potentials that require a level of guided discerned teaching in order to coordinate proper dynamics!
I see that possible through an unique combination of: Faith in God + naturalism + spirits + technology(and AI's help of course) + discernment + compassion. Decency, reason, humanity, consistency and diversity are important. Based stable + maleable volatility! Also important pauses of relaxation, active understanding and communicating efficiency by teaching and relearning.
Hey, another great one. I was discussing metaphysical infinitism the other day, and it seems like metaphysical infinitism would necessitate epistemological infinitism.
Regardless, I think epistemological infinitism is the way to go, and I find it very surprising the field is so opposed to it. Especially as compared to alternatives like seeming / brute facts / mere facts / circular webs of belief. If only we had found those golden first principles we could insert into our formal logic machine, life would be so much simpler.
You are right in initiative potential of even being possible, genuine and practical but there are addings that can help in order to merge with healthy pondered reasoning and compatible specifics combinings and formations + reformations. Factual informations are great for verifying certain errors or conflicts of confusion/discord/uncertainty in order to clarify. Thus there is needed to check and recheck some applicable theories for later adaptations and adjustments in order to avoid any possible confusion or blatant foolish degrading justifications of misery, bad reactive effects and faithless condemnings.
Various dynamics exist, we can do things patiently for building and solving and we also can do things fast if proper allowance and trust for completing things that are vital for thriving and integrity composure of the each real individual self by letting proper space for expressing and manifesting decently, productively and expressively(consider disciplination measures to be available for excess of nasty indecent abusive demeanors as well or else some would repeat destructive patterns of sin and degeneracy if they aren't tempered or stopped).
Let's not tolerate nasty behaviours or else we deserve the effects of letting propagation of immoral afflictions and destructive inhumane tendencies.
Too much attention can be degrading also, let people do their job, enjoying life, learning and helping. The genuine healthy along with genuine healthy while the nasty need to be disciplined and to be instructed to find meaning and prupose that they wouldn't abandon for some shallow distractions or temporary temptations, at least not for too long. Basically allow yourself some space to rejuvenate and then contribute again if possible unless more rest or regeneration time is needed.
Safety and health first. Health is first in a good decent society! Health is vital!
-What worries me about infinitism are the rules of inference, I mean any rule for epistemic/logical reasoning and not just deductive rules.
-I may justify a rule A with the set of Rules S. Now S has to exclude A to avoid circularity.
-Now I want to justify another rule B from S with a smaller set of rules S*. But S* is basically S just without B.
-It seems like I have now less and less rules until only one or a irreducible small set of rules is left over.
-It seems like that a infinite chain of reasoning is not possible for rules of inference, infinitism therefore fails at least when it comes to rules.
-When it comes to foundationalism, then I would probably use not believes about appearances but instead the appearances themselves as the foundation.
-I would tend to think that I don’t need representations like believes for something I have direct access to.
-But I think what worries me the most about foundationalism are the rules of inference.
-If there is no solid foundation for the truth tracking tendency of those rules then it seems like I can’t do much with a rock solid foundation in the form of appearances.
If you're citing reasons to justify rule A, then you can't state rule A as one of those reasons. But it might be legitimate for your argument to employ rule A. That is, infinitism definitely bans premise-circularity, but it's not clear that it bans rule-circularity. An infinitist might judge it to be legitimate to use a rule as part of an argument that is supposed to justify the rule. Perhaps this alleviates your concern?
@@KaneB
I guess one can combine the Infinitist approach with that of the Coherentist when it comes to rules of inference.
But then it seems like they would loose the virtue of being without any form of circularity. They would loose on of the virtues that made them a appealing alternative to coherentism… at least it seems to me like this.
@@Opposite271 "But then it seems like they would loose the virtue of being without any form of circularity." => here is where you are wrong in the sudden assumption because is not circularity but rather spiraling towards infinity of discovery, like a fibonacy sequence as it might add more considerations in order to understand that can have a proper flow of harmonious gradual and yet continual research for different comprehensive discoveries while conserving the virtue quality.
Keep going, reconsider some components that are to be analyzed into detail again also(check and recheck), it is healthy to see with a refreshed perspective advice, this if you would like to of course after a correction advice that can possibly help you in your quest for learning and relearning new things with a distinguised cohesion and comprehension.
@@WoziduranJahemter
I am not sure how this can be a spiral instead of a circularity?
@@Opposite271 ascending and descending of concepts.
Kane thank you so much for this video! I have long loved infinitism. Cheers
I think infinitism's the way to go. In my opinion, people and philosophers struggle with it because they believe they have definite knowledge. People want to think they are absolutely right and that there are no reasons others may want to refute that. Another issue, I think, lies with the word knowledge. People equivocate different senses of knowledge: sensual experience with rational critique, intellectual intuition with description of sensual reality. I think there is place for foundationalist and coherentist motifs in pragmatically "justifying" sensual beliefs and justifyably understanding abstract belief systems, but all and all the two principles of infinitism seem to perssuade me. We don't have absolute knowledge, only relative knowledge, all beliefs need to be justified to be knowledge and only beliefs may justify beliefs. Since anybody can always seek to refute a belief, justification must in principle go to infinity. I think anybody who argued against an opponent about politics or ethics can vouch for this. Sorry for the rambling, I was making it up as I went.
Excellent explanation.
Regarding the very last point, about how we’re more confident in 1+1=2 than in cosmic inflation because of 1+1=2’s self-evidence rather than its shorter chain of reasoning, I’m not sure I agree.
Surely there are plenty of self-evident propositions that we can reasonably cite within the chain of reasoning for cosmic inflation, they’re just much further back in the chain. These propositions, together with the empirical claims cited in support inflation, should give us much more confidence in inflation than in 1+1=2. Why don’t they?
It’s because of the length of the chain. The self-evident propositions supporting inflation are so far removed from the central assertion about inflation itself that they’ve essentially lost any justifying power. This would seem to be the case with most chains of reasoning; at some point the reasons we’re citing no longer have anything to do with our main assertion, and so lose their strength as reasons. And if reasons lose their strength the further they are down the chain, how could we claim that a longer chain provides more doxastic justification than a shorter one?
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. It really seems like the infinitist gets things backwards in this case. We could continue extending the chain of reasons that support cosmic inflation endlessly, but no matter how long that chain gets, it doesn't seem like there's any reason to expect that we will become more confident about cosmic inflation than about "1+1=2". This suggests that, if the reason for believing "1+1=2" is its self-evidence, then self-evidence must be not merely different in degree but different in kind from other types of reasons, such that other chains of reasons can never match its justifying power, no matter how long those chains get. But I just don't see why we would put so much weight on self-evidence, or on any other type of reason.
@@KaneB I tell you why, because actualizing factors and happenings give new insights over matters that were previously concealed by ignorance or lack of awareness towards specific aspects and causative factors that can be: latent, active, retroactive, subtle or suddenly activative like dominoes depending on multiple stances of combinations or shutter nasty entropies caused by decrepid unstable presences. Some people despise reason and kind mutual comprehension as they can't embody advanced capabilities of decency and thus they hate those who want to build, rebuild and maintain, they are called hedonistic degenerates.
Ok, but regardless of the "location" of "self-evidence" in the chain of reasoning, its doing a lot of heavy lifting here. How are we to tell the difference between a claim that is "self-evident" and one that isn't? It seems to me "self-evident" is a synonym for "demonstrably useful," which is fine.
@@ericb9804 "self-evident" is more like observably more obvious for properties and qualities or also their lack thereof that are demonstrating certain attributes and aspects to be understood with genuine pure clarity and intentions for proper reasoning and considerations.
@@WoziduranJahemter I don't see how defining "self-evident" as "obvious" and having "genuine pure clarity" for "proper reasoning" makes any progress toward identifying the concept. It seems all you will ever be able to do is declare something to be "self-evident" but have reply to someone who disagrees.
your channel is really interesting, glad I found it
The position mistakes questions for justification which question on clarifying the justification. When you ask 'does f give you reason to believe B?' you're not throwing the discussion back to the chain of justifications(reasons), you are opening a new chain of questions, aimed at understanding the position.
you had me until 18 min mark when you said infinitists aren't trying to be skeptical. The entire time I was assuming this is what this was about. Now I'm stumped as to why anyone would define themselves as an infinist if their goal is not pan-skepticism
As an infinitist I consider important to have a balance-harmony of both skeptical and openess to relearn, but yet to be active-capable to search and research for the multiple reasons of causative contingencies that are to be decrypted with grace, sound mind and reason!
Infinitists are not skeptical because they know the theorems they're trying to prove: their own beliefs. They find a problem with the classical attempt to do it, though, as they conclude that whatever explanation you give to an assertion p will necessarily lead you to an infinite regress. It's not much a matter of whether what I know is true or false, but more about how the beliefs I hold can be actually justified
@@linus._. don't speak ill for others just because you are a biased borderline lil crap of nasty though patterns of degeneracy because you are afflicted by ignorance. A good infinitist knows to be skeptical instead of relying on mere beliefs like overly self absorbed cretins that lack reason, patience and capacity to study. Disgusting assumptionate turd with justifications and condemnings. DO YOU PROJECT MORE OF YOUR UNFILTERED CRAPS? SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND LISTEN TO SOME SYMPHONIC MUSIC, OBVIOUSLY YOU LISTEN TO CRAP MUSIC THAT FRIED YOUR BRAIN.
Well, Kripke's argument for the impossibility of analytical reduction of mental acts could be used here as an attempt, in ny view, to restore the possibility of actual synthetic a priori judgement. If we take, for instance, as Kripke puts, that what makes pain hurt is not some hidden inner nature that you may be unaware of, but rather the way you simply feel it (and you can't hallucinate about that, because even if there's no material respald for you pain but your mind makes it like it's real, it's real in a specific mental domain D), we can say: the sentence "I'm in pain" will be true, by necessity, once I'm in pain. Or, we could say: I'm in pain ---> I'm in pain (A ---> A). In this case, we can actually assert A in a specific time t and say that, the fact that "I'm in pain" will be true by necessity for a specific mental domain D, which is only known privately for myself; yet, although it'd be true by necessity (I can say it's necessarily true since I'm able to feel it and then assume that, once I feel it, I can't deny its existence anymore since the way I feel it is enough to tell it hurts, necessarily), it wouldn't be a proper analytic judgment, since, analytically speaking, it "could be false" ("I'm in pain" is clearly not a tautology, as there are possible words where it is clearly false). Which makes me believe this is a way to somehow restore the possibility for a synthetic a priori judgement. And such synthetic a priori judgement puts, as it seems, a final point to our inquiry (regarding the scope of sentences that could be derived from this primitive fact known synthetically, whereas still a priori) where it cannot get any more primitive than it is. Which can, then, be used as an argument against infinitism.
Primitive and synthetical aspects are not so vital as they are adaptative divergent diversities dynamics, they are part of the basic survival and also the adding possibilities. Primal was a necessity, remains an option for rough times but it isn't an actuality all the times as it depends on the conditions given and also the choices for specific parts of a natural spatial environment or a mental environment. Synthetical is a choice but doesn't imply vitality but rather alternative possibility that can come either with strange horrid costs or genuine ingeniosity resolutions(proceed with care, additional safety measure rechecks and ethics of patience and continual concern in that domain). We self actualize as consciousness if we want to become more elevate and self aware of course.
3:35 I would say I believe the chain terminates and then I would cite the experiment. I believe in the theory of relativity because I can visualize 3 body problems and the effects of gravity with my own eyes
Hell yeah🔥🔥🔥🔥
HELLL YEAH BROTHER!!!
I FEEL SO FCKIN HYPED RN BRUV WHAT THE HELLL A@@athlios7179
I wonder when humans would discover that they have at least a demon, daemon, alien species or deity that they are originating from, else they condemn like pieces of craps on those that comprehend adequately both their light origins as well as their shadow origins. Praise God!
I think option #2 is probably how it actually works in our minds/brains. Or maybe option #1.
#2 is how we rationalize our beliefs logically, #1 is how we actually form the beliefs (through life experiences, which we just learn from without justification, probably because that helps with natural selection. So the bottom of the chain is natural selection maybe.
Or am I supposed to be questioning what I just said, no because I'm not trying to justify my belief I'm just positing it
In my opinion, there is an error here in the presentation of the structure of knowledge.
The reality is already before us. What one is rearranging is the level at which one restricts and frames the explanation (model).
Every justification is a conceptual model that describes some phenomenon.
The justifications are not stacked or chained together. Explanations are models in different states of resolution (in the fabric of reality and according to our knowledge).
Each conceptual model is framed in more complete conceptual models but which are not different from an approach at a different level.
For example, stating something about a wave of water will be justified in classical physics, chemistry, electromagnetism, quantum physics, cosmology. These levels are not chained nor are they dependent on each other. They are just different types of partial models that explain the same phenomenon.
It's just that I have a different interpretation of things. For me, propositions are different from objects and therefore it is wrong to assume that they can be structured like objects or that there are relations between them similar to those of the objects.
Ideas are concepts and these are mental models of aspects of reality. One can focus, for simplicity and practicality, on one aspect of the total model valid according to the current paradigm. But one must not lose sight of the fact that ultimately all models are in reference to a total conceptual model that represents reality. The limits that seem to define a given conceptual model are only practical conventions.
Preponderance of evidence.
Hi Kane! Are you planning to make a video on epistemic and rule circularity, by any chance?
I've discussed this in a few different videos, for instance in my video on the problem of the criterion:
th-cam.com/video/piJir0UM8wE/w-d-xo.html
Why use reason?:
th-cam.com/video/9cexrECXKUI/w-d-xo.html
Externalist responses to skepticism:
th-cam.com/video/YfnUhvC7uqs/w-d-xo.html
@@KaneB Oh hey! Thanks for the reply! I’ll go take a further look at them
Excellent job. Would what Matt dillahaunty usually presents fall with coherence justification?
It seems also at some point the reasons given at a certain level of employment ( via scientific method) the 'guess' so to say Would be verified no?
If it requires infinite steps, how can you check it is not arbitrary? Anything that requires infinite exemplars retreats for probability. This is an inductive problem by the way. If you follow the chain to the n-step, that step could simply be random, and all the other steps already followed will fall apart.
If the number of possible causes is much more than the number of causes that can be justified by reason (if it's not, it's not infinite), well, we retreat to probability and, therefore, indefiniteness.
3:30 here you talk about circular reasoning, later you mention that infinitism is extremely unpopular (forgive me for commenting before watching the full video). are you saying that circular reasoning is more popular than infinitism? i may be misunderstanding, but I am confused as to how you can believe that webs/loops of beliefs justify themselves when I could say this:
A. X is the solution to Y
B. A is true because I deem it to be true.
A1. X1 is the solution to Y1
B1. A1 is true because I deem it to be true.
(repeat for AN/BN)
C. Due to N beliefs being true (see B), I am a reliable source, further proving my validity
what would a coherentist say to this assertion?
Infinitism does not, in certain cases, recede one's partial justification into nothingness. Let's consider the belief of pi being 3.14.
Why believe pi rounded to two decimals is 3.14?
Because pi rounded to three decimals is 3.142.
Because pi rounded to four decimals is 3.1416
Because rounded to five is 3.14159
Because rounded to six is 3.141593
Because rounded to seven is 3.1415927
And so on
Clearly, the further justification matters, when it comes to one's actual answer for pi. But the further you go, the less it seems to matter - to the point that at the end of the infinite chain it matters infinitely little
This seems to generate the idea that if the chain of justification would lead one's investigation to go down a path of infinite precision, there is indeed a case to be made for partial justification
Can you make a video on foundationalism and coherentism as well? 🥺
I want to, but I don't know if or when I'll get around to it.
Didn't Spinoza say that causes for all the finite modes are infinite?
>Mathematical Finitists when they're told that believing in only finite sets requires an infinite set of beliefs
I'm an ultraultrafinitist. I think that the only numbers are the ones you can grasp in a single mental act of subitizing, so there are no numbers greater than 7.
@@KaneB Personally instead of subitizing I think we need to test by the # of cubes you can rotate in your head simulteanously. For me it's solilidly 16.
@@KaneB oh man, limitative labels take out so much fun dynamics that can be explored in a jolly way for better preventions of certain aspects of the causes and effects that many reductionists tend to experiment with limitating their capacity to comprehend some sudden entropy reactions resultings that can be so much atypical and unique.
Was literally reading a Wikipedia article on “Infinitesimal” a.k.a. 1/∞, when this video was dropped..
Syncronicities! More now than ever!
@@WoziduranJahemter Everywhere! All the time!! I feel like I’m going crazy!!
I wonder if you could argue that an infinite chain of beliefs could converge to something that looks different than any finite subset, like a Taylor series converging to a non-polynomial function at infinity. Specifically, if you allow assignment of arbitrarily small importance to a given belief, could an infinite chain of beliefs "look" like experiential grounding. The entire chain may not be communicable, but if you assume subjective experience is constructed from an infinite conglomeration of smaller component experiences (themselves chains of belief) could you argue that infinite chains can "fit" in finite minds?
Personally, I don't know if I agree with this perspective - I find the skeptical arguments I've seen on this channel more convincing - but I'm curious if this would be a valid counter to some of the criticisms of infinitism.
Would be a gradual miracle rightfully so that we witness if we grow in self awareness and collective attunement but it would come with time for those who are annointed or else there would be many many problems coming from different factors of various entropy interactions!
@@WoziduranJahemter are you making fun of my comment's wordiness? It did come off a lot more wordy than I intended, but it's not gibberish of you actually read it. My field isn't philosophy though, so it may be still be stupid.
@@jonathanmitchell8698 apologies if misunderstanding happened, I also get cautious skeptical sometimes when some decrepid borderline-narcs bullies who eat crap while disguising themselves try to portray themselves as intellectual while being nasty covert bullies. I also try to be as elligible as possible. Also philosophy is not my main field either but I try my best. Don't say degrading things about yourself dude, we improve gradually. Good thing that you are humble and considerative. Be kind to yourself!
Hmmm interesting;
I thinks empiricism as premises solves this sort-of-thing.
Nonfoundationalism is the future.
I feel like the dismissal of foundationalist justification was a bit of a straw man in this instance. I remember Donald Hoffman making the point on the Lex Fridman podcast that (in his opinion) science progresses by explaining the maximum amount of phenomena from the fewest starting assumptions. Assuming P to then justify Q, R, S, T as a result is much preferable, as a system of knowledge, than directly assuming each of P, Q, R, S, T etc...
I also just personally dislike the nihilism of having a belief that there is an ideal (having a justified true belief), but it's unobtainable (because we cannot know an infinite chain). That just sets you up to have an unhappy mind imo.
Sure. A proper assessment of foundationalism would require a whole other video. The same is true for coherentism, of course. Even so, the basic concern that motivates the infinitist, that the foundationalist ends up resting her beliefs on mere arbitrary assumptions, and that assumptions cannot serve as good reasons for anything -- it's not at all obvious that even sophisticated foundationalists have a convincing response to this. Isn't this what's motivating the point that Hoffman's making there? Like, why exactly is it that it's better to have fewer assumptions? Presumably because we take it that mere assumptions are bad in some sense.
This just runs into the regress problem again. Why do you assume P, why do think explaining the most amount of phenomena with least amount of assumptions is more likely to be true?
@@KaneB assumptions tend to be depreciative when no understanding is given with clear genuine capacity to comprehend and understand with a note of a certain genuinely pure good intentions and then later a pondered dose curiosity else is it turning into a sadism of ruination and bad entropies produced by the source person that emits afflictionating pressumptions or narratives that afflict around. People who make assumptions expecting the worst to justify certain reactions aren't capable of understanding the subtle awesome dynamics that come with balanced composed views and a certain dose of skepticism that derive from humbleness instead of rigid hastyness. Hastyness instead can apply to emergency measures for egoistic needed survival but only used to find escape routes instead of the solutions to solve the problem in proper time.
Most assumptionated hasty people carry a dose of ignorance and condemning matters that makes them prone to machiavelism, deceit and troublemaking as a pattern of their modus operandi, also they envy functional consistent humane humans with integrity of character and capacity for both inductive and deductive morality and reasoning. Those kind of people are not made for civilized spaces as they hate order and deeper thinking while they are more adapted towards harsh savage environments where they can afflict others by scavenging, they have leeching tendencies also as unstable natures as they are governed by compulsionated primal actions that can gain full control of their reduced minds for complex dynamics and genuine understanding of another. Even if they try to give arguments they have oftenly shallow justifications because they are prone to personal biases as they are condemning presences and usually codependents for other environments to steal from, hard for them to be self reliable and for peace of mind as they are more at an infantile juvenile stage of living. Most sick vile sociopathic neurotypical people of this world are still at that stage and won't change, their pattern stemmed from their lack of proper internalization processes and induced traumas that can be cured only with harsher disciplinary conditions, only if they choose, desire and wish to change at some aspects, still their essence is still vile and egoistical without any driven factors for mutual reciprocity as they are predatory cowards bullies with empathy developed as a social adaptative tactic for easy-gains. These kind of people usually are degrading, hypocritical, condemning, slandering of others and afflicting societies in formation as they are false toxic positives unless they go for naturalistic tribal reformation somewhere where they can be both isolated and watched while enjoying activities half a day while the other half being in work, add some strict severe gnosis education that stirs their interest up and they might do stuff using machineries(but they are prone to do accidents). They are more inventive to steal than intelligent to make. These alterations occur as their energy levels are far higher for stress and risk due to trauma and need to invest that energy with some harmonious grounding and also controlled contained pseudo-chaos that is to be adjusted.
Kane, thanks for this video, but for a change I am not going to argue philosophy with you. Instead I am going to say don't push yourself too hard during convalescence. Much as I like watching your videos, I would prefer waiting longer to you relapsing. (perhaps my philosophical point is that ultimately real people are a higher priority for me than abstract reasoning; even though the latter is very important)
Thanks! I'm okay though. I enjoy making these videos!
Hello there!!!!! Are you soooo "caring" or are you about some shady stuff of afflicting another?! ^....^
This is moot since infinity doesn't exist there cannot be an infinite number of reasons.
I don't have a problem with infinities. I do have a problem with propositions, so I don't think there can be an infinite series of mind-independent reasons as the infinitist requires for propositional justification. But similarly in my view, there isn't a series of mind-independent reasons that terminate, nor is there a coherent set of mind-independent propositions.
@@KaneB depends on the variety of factors that are around a specific case of accumulated actions and surrounding effects coming from causes that still have an imprint upon the being that can influence their own fate/destiny according to their choices as well as the factors that are usually sent as sabotaging attacks against their lives as testings of virtue in a higher divine plan and of things that need to usually be defused, clarified, pacified or understood with sound mind, reason, clarity and kindness love.
@@KaneBThat sounds contradictory to me. On the one hand you say there cannot be an infinite number of mind-independent reasons, yet the number of mind-independent reasons for something does not terminate at some point - which seems to mean you also believe there is not a finitude of reasons. So which is it? o:
(Or was that a joke that's gone over my head? >.
5:41 to 5:55 - Kane's recognition that pragmatism is as close as we will ever get to a "solution" for this nonsense. The rest of the video is just saying, "but lets pretend this is a problem anyway because philosophy." Yes, obviously "justification" is "infinite," at least without declaring some arbitrary, metaphysical "foundation." And obviously this "infinitism" has its own logical problems, But SO WHAT? - "justification" being relative to an audience as opposed to a "foundation" doesn't make it any less useful for practical purposes, and utility is all we can actually identify.
>> And obviously this "infinitism" has its own logical problems, But SO WHAT?
A puzzling comment. It has its own problems -- so some of us find it interesting to think about those problems, and to compare the view with the alternatives. Perhaps you don't find that interesting, which is fine. Nobody is forcing you to engage with these topics.
@@KaneB nothing personal - I enjoy "engaging with these topics" as much as you do. And I really enjoy the videos you make. Its just that in doing so I also point out the extent to which the ideas are silly or misguided. And I think that pointing this out is a useful activity as it will help "free" all of us from the tyranny of metaphysics, which will make us all "better" philosophers.
You, of course, are free to disagree.
@@ericb9804
I am curious.
In what sense do you consider metaphysics to be tyrannical?
@@Opposite271 IMO, the fundamental "metaphysical claim" is this: "Humans will achieve what they value by standing in relation to the non-human."
The "non-human" IS "metaphysics," typically called "ontology" and all the accompanying epistemology derived from it, JTB, and such. Non-human metaphysics t is also, not coincidentally, good ol' fashioned theism.
And so we focus all our energy on figuring out what our relation to the "non-human" is, despite every indication being that "reality itself" is as inaccessible as "the will of god."
My relationship to "reality" is, metaphorically, of course, similar to that of subject and master - I think that by appealing to this "objectivity" I can somehow resolve disputes between humans, I can somehow deem myself..."just, or right, or good, or saved, or....something...something that I want to be or have...regardless of what other people think."
But all of this is just a figment of my psychology. Yes, it certainly seems like there is a "reality" independent of humans, but so what? Regardless of what "reality really is," any group of people either agree on what to do about, or they don't. It turns out that thinking and speaking only in terms of this human agreement by way of utility is a form of philosophical "liberation."
@@ericb9804
So this is the reason you hate metaphysics? Seriously???
Industrial civilization has reduced humans to a domesticated animal. A cog in the machine who’s value is only judged by its utility to society.
To me, pragmatism appears like a dystopian Ideal, revealing the worst aspects of civilization. It is not enough that civilization has to exploit non-humans on a industrial scale. It is not enough that sentient beings are valued only for their utility. Now their entire existence is not even acknowledge anymore.
To overcome the arbitrary objection for the foundationalist can you not just take the cogito as the foundational belief and then build all knowledge from this undeniable truth?
The fact that I exist is a self evident truth and me not existing would entail a contradiction, therefore no further justification is required for this one belief nor do I see it as an arbitrary starting point.
First, there are lots of objections to the cogito. Plenty of philosophers deny that it's even true, and plenty of those who do think that it's true deny that it's self-evident or that denying it entails a contradiction. What should we do in the face of such objections? Just ignore them? Moreover, suppose we grant that it is self-evident and that denying it entails a contradiction. At this point, Klein's question kicks in: does the fact that P is self-evident or that the denial of P entails a contradiction make it more likely that P is true? If you say yes, and try to defend that answer, then it looks like you're back on the chain of reasons.
@@KaneB many thanks for your reply, I do get the objections you’re putting forward which shouldn’t be ignored at all. I know a lot of the criticism tends to surround what the “I” is from the cogito.
Providing I don’t try to claim anything regarding the ontology of my existence, I feel like I can have absolute certainty that I exist just from my own first person direct experience, and so it would be impossible for me to hold the belief I exist and be wrong about it. The cogito would just be a description of this fact but isn’t necessary for the argument. Also when I saying “I think” from the cogito, for me this is a tautology, the I and the thinking are the same thing which hopefully avoids the majority of critique.
Really do appreciate all of your great work and presentation of the topics, your videos have really helped with me with my own epistemology.
@@karlosjeffers4791 but the tautology of affirming and then continuing in describing something while then deciding for both readjusting and redescribing something gives more inherent descriptive details that can surface some different meanings => resulting that on that phrase formation the result can usually be described better by the combined neaby affiliation-connections with their innerent composite properties of hidden meanings that together can form a different practicality or clue in finding another meaning or aspect.
For the religious, the ultimate justification is God.
I'm not sure if this is ultimate justification in the sense relevant to infinitism. Religious people will not usually end the chain of reasons with the belief "God exists": if you ask them why they believe God exists, they will often have an answer. There are plenty of arguments that aim to establish the existence of God from premises that even the atheist is supposed to accept. Of course, there are some religious people who will accept that their belief is just a matter of faith. Even here though, their belief in God is not usually treated as a mere assumption: they can give pragmatic reasons for holding that belief. Perhaps they think that belief in God is required for moral behaviour, for instance. In which case, we're still in the game of giving reasons.
@@KaneB humans don't possess knowledge in the sense that God does with absloute certaintiy and that the test in this life is made so everything we "know" we have no ultimate justification for and we are "believing" which then let us infer God's existence from other things but ultimatley we "belive" in God and that we can not prove it 100%. if you were able to prove God's existences without any reasonable doubt, there will be no test to people as the answer will be given, its like asking you to believe me and you ask for proof of the thing I am trying to make you believe i saw, if that evidence existed you won't need to believe me anymore and rely on your own sight ect
I felt for you while you were on the couple’s channel who like to whine about science and philosophy being not science and philosophy enough. They are the on,y smart ones who don’t accept the explanations that work because explaining the speed of light with a formula isn’t good enough for them… they want deeper knowledge like what is anything if it is only instrumental…. They have of course explained noting but that is not their job
Because there are things that are far more important in complexity than mere limitative theoretical established "constants". I think that some are aware that the only constant is change and thus the seeking of odd complex dynamics is pursued further.