Political Ignorance Judge Brett Kavanaugh. One of the most striking aspects of the debate over the sexual assault accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is the extremely high correlation between what people think of the allegations and whether they believe Kavanaugh should be confirmed aside from them. Conservatives Republicans who like Kavanaugh's jurisprudence tend to dismiss the accusations. Liberal Democrats who oppose Kavanaugh on jurisprudential grounds tend to think the accusations are true or at least highly likely to be so.
I think the term "epistemic nihilist" makes arguing any position a self refuting proposition, so perhaps "dreadful semantics" is the best you can hope for from such a self contradicting position.
Its self refuting because it implicitly contains the self referential paradox, any effort to make a reasonable argument would necessarily entail that it is false to believe that it reasonable from an epistemic nihilist position.
I think the juxtaposition of the words epistemic and nihilist together with the concept of "arguing my position" is in effect, just another way of restating the self referential liar"s paradox, "this statement is not true".
That said, perhaps at issue here is that the problem of knowledge contains the very same self referential paradox at its core. The uncontested fact is, without a distinction between subject and object, between the knowing subject and the objective fact known, the fact of "knowledge" would be unaccountable.
I will contend that this requisite bifurcation between subject and object, between knower and known, is not true to reality, it is in fact, the first instantiation of self referential liar"s paradox.
It"s fair to say that we must "face reality" right? Well no, that common expression is not right, we don"t stand apart from it and face reality, we are a part of reality. What made knowledge possible in the first place was an evolutionary event whereby an animal, arguably the first human, gained access to self reflective consciousness, and that humanizing event itself introduced the self referential paradox.
The moment in our evolutionary development when we gained self reflective consciousness was a cognitive break with the whole, after which, what we were seeing was a reflection, a "mirror image" which inverted reality into an artificial image of ourselves as independent beings separated from the reality we are actually a part of.
The first humans were the first animals to image reality in a detached and symbolic manner, and everything that is distinctively human, language, culture, science, technology, it all followed from that "break" with the true reality we were once part of. We are consequently separated from reality by this bifurcation of things into "us" and "not us", by this "illusion" that reality is not an unbroken whole, the illusion that we can somehow stand outside of and apart from reality and "face" it.
What makes us human is self reflective consciousness, and therefore what humans see is only a reflection of reality, and as it always goes with reflections, the image is inverted, what we perceive is an artificial image of ourselves as independent beings that are separate from the reality we are part of.
For knowledge to be considered "true" it must correspond to reality, but correspondence calls for representation, and the very act of representation is a process that inverts the reality known, in the end, knowledge is itself paradoxical because it is founded on the self referential liar"s paradox.
It is only this artificial distinction we make in our minds, this self reflective bifurcation of reality into "us" and "not us" that makes knowledge possible in the first place, and consequently, "knowledge" is based on this illusion that reality is not an unbroken whole, the illusion that we can somehow stand outside of, and apart from reality and "face" it.
The distinctions we make in our minds that we call "knowledge" may be useful, but they are only artificial distinctions that we make, only an illusion, they are not true to reality.
So it appears that the problem of knowledge all really just comes down to "Seeing things as they really are", and recognizing that the problem of knowledge is an unsolvable problem. I think "Seeing things as they really are" is important because it"s possible that most, if not all, of our problems result from one single problem, and that is a problem with human perception.
I think it follows that the problem of knowledge and the problem with human perception are one and the same problem, and perhaps all we can do is fall back on that recurring and ancient wisdom that knowledge and wisdom must go together to be complete.
If we can complement our so called "knowledge", with the "wisdom" that life is more than the simple duality of oppositions that we impose onto reality and call knowledge, perhaps we can recognize that these artificial distinctions in our minds are what result in so much conflict.
With a deep conviction in the fundamental solidarity of life maybe we can can come to understand that life is not a "conflict" between opposites, and we can begin to think differently about other things and other people.
We can begin to see that cooperation is what is natural, that competition is what doesn"t make sense, and we can see that religious one-upmanship is a betrayal of spirit, and intellectual one-upmanship is a betrayal of reason. If we can come to see that everything is an essential part in a greater whole then maybe we can start seeing value in the differences between people rather than meet it with fear or resentment.
Perhaps then we can learn to love the ultimate reality and at the same time, love one another as we love ourselves, because we know in our hearts that there is no real distinction between the two, that in the true unbroken reality of wholeness, they are one and the same, merely inverted reflections of each other.
Then maybe we can stop confusing unity with sameness, and find unity in the diversity by loving one another as we love ourselves.
Maybe we can begin to realize that if we could just think differently, we could stop killing each other and live in harmony, and then, and only then, we will be back on our way to the "Promised Land", so to speak.
It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive.Minnesota Rep.
Keith Ellison (D), who is running to be Minnesota’s next attorney general, was grilled during a debate Friday over multiple domestic abuse allegations against him.
Ellison, who also serves as the deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee, denied the allegations and.  Although evidence-based arguments are used, the central focus of IPDA is to promote a debate format that emphasizes public speaking and real-world persuasion skills over the predominate use of evidence and speed.
Who’s winning the post-Parkland debate over guns? It depends where you look. Legislatively, anti-gun control forces remain in control. President Donald Trump, after veering towards the NRA.
Debate is a process that involves formal discussion on a particular topic. In a debate, opposing arguments are put forward to argue for opposing viewpoints. Debate occurs in public meetings, academic institutions, and legislative assemblies.
It is a formal type of discussion, often with a moderator and an audience, in addition to the debate participants. Dec 06, · love is a certain inborn suffering derived from the sight of and excessive meditation upon the opposite sex. the true lover is always fearful- of being rejected, betrayed.
What constitutes. Dec 02, · Perhaps then we can learn to love the ultimate reality and at the same time, love one another as we love ourselves, because we know in our hearts that there is no real distinction between the two, that in the true unbroken reality of wholeness, they .