tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30379986.post1352084448427189565..comments2023-12-10T07:55:27.177+00:00Comments on kenodoxia: Thick epistemologyJames Warrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02262258553733864003noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30379986.post-72889165046049217732007-04-03T13:08:00.000+01:002007-04-03T13:08:00.000+01:00So, where do "gut feeling" and "intuition" differ ...So, where do "gut feeling" and "intuition" differ from "deictic" proof and (say) "cogito, ergo sum"?<BR/><BR/>And are we after "absolute" truth, or "probably sufficient" truth? Is it a worthwhile goal for humanity to strive for a society in which truthiness is an asymptote to truth? Can we quantify "probably sufficient"?<BR/><BR/>And just how fundamental to truth value is consensus? Is there any truth value without consensus? Is there any privileged kind of consensus in that case? In the struggle between conflicting consensuses (ends), what weapons (means) have the most clout? (eg Galileo's or the Inquisition's?)<BR/><BR/>What use is technical logic, no matter how sophisticated, if the axioms it works from are crap?<BR/><BR/>It's indisputable that authenticity lends clout to rhetoric, but just how much anti-clout (fact/logic, authority, charisma, eloquence - FACE) is required to neutralize it? Are authenticity and FACE in tandem an unbeatable combination?Choppahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04980510007443012482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-30379986.post-7049875835305239082007-04-02T13:09:00.000+01:002007-04-02T13:09:00.000+01:00Lionel Trilling's classic _Sincerity and Authentic...Lionel Trilling's classic _Sincerity and Authenticity_ (?1977?) is interesting on the historical changes in the concept of sincerity -- a mainly literary-historical argument on moral thought but an engaging read nonetheless!stchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05042701870307800845noreply@blogger.com