The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 13, 2017 13:37:39 GMT
Couldn't you take the position that this most intelligent philosopher is right in this instance but may not be right in every instance? Therefore he is right in saying we should not always go by what he says. Or have I missed something?
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 13, 2017 14:09:27 GMT
Couldn't you take the position that this most intelligent philosopher is right in this instance but may not be right in every instance? Therefore he is right in saying we should not always go by what he says. Or have I missed something? Whether he is correct or not has nothing to do with the puzzle. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 13, 2017 14:14:54 GMT
What I mean is I don't think there is a contradiction in believing what the philosopher says since the theory is that we should believe him in all instances. That we believe him here doesn't mean we think we should always believe him.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 13, 2017 14:33:07 GMT
What I mean is I don't think there is a contradiction in believing what the philosopher says since the theory is that we should believe him in all instances. That we believe him here doesn't mean we think we should always believe him. actually nevermind my last post you were right |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Apr 13, 2017 14:36:15 GMT
It's only a contradiction if I'm believing him because he should always be believed (ie in line with the theory). If I am taking the stance that he doesn't always have to be believed, but he is worth believing in this specific instance then I don't think there is a contradiction. Or so it seems to me, I might be misunderstanding.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 13, 2017 14:47:34 GMT
It's only a contradiction if I'm believing him because he should always be believed (ie in line with the theory). If I am taking the stance that he doesn't always have to be believed, but he is worth believing in this specific instance then I don't think there is a contradiction. Or so it seems to me, I might be misunderstanding. see my last post, I changed it |
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Apr 13, 2017 17:12:43 GMT
Once the philosopher negates the viability of the premise that the smartest man be believed, yes it creates a paradox. The only proper course of action is to disregard both the philospher and premise and move on in search of another acceptable source of information.
The reason this type of scenario doesn't happen in reality is because it's an overly simplified case, for a variety of reasons, that will never take place in the real world.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Apr 14, 2017 13:06:29 GMT
The "theory" isn't true because no normatives, no "should" statements are true. That it's not true doesn't imply that the opposite statement is true. Whether one should do such and such isn't true or false. Truth and falsehood are a category error with respect to "should" statements.
|
|
