>>17625637
>building on a foundation you refuse to name
Not a rock floating on nothingness but a web of beliefs which are true in relation to one another. If you want to be an evidentialist you cannot also be a TAGgot. This is textbook opposition to foundies in philosophy known as coherentism: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-coherence/

>anything can be relativistically true to itself
Valid concern. This is where dialectical expansion plays in via Hegel. A cohering whole which accounts for wider variety of phenomena (flat Earth might cohere to it's own commitments, but not to outside neutral evidence). Hegel aimed this expansion at a Geist. An ultimate endpoint is not required. Post-Hegel non-absolutist dialectics isn't "no truth" but the alternative offered to those who found that foundationalism failed (Descarte Locke Kant -> Nietzche Wittgenstein Quine). Gadamer interprets the basis of things like knowledge with history not as incorrigible but a dynamic medium of interpretation. Truth is temporally emergent between past/present dialogue without being an absolute anchor.

Standards emerge from historical constrained dialogue, rather than "anything goes". Darwin wasn't absolutely true, but he explained more evidence than Lamarckism and withstood criticism, so it became the new center of biology upon the constantly moving horizontverschmelzung. Historical events push back against misinterpretation. The interpreter's pre-understandings are revised in the process.

Video volume

Video muted

Loop video

Back | Go to board

Board:

/his/

Thread:

>atheists be like prove to me God exists>don't understand the essence–energies distinction>don't understand the…

>atheists be like prove to me God exists
>don't understand the essence–energies distinction
>don't understand the…