Self Evidence is The Proper Foundation for One's Epistemology
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 7 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
Round 1: Opening Statements, No Rebuttals.
Round 2: Rebuttals of Round 1 Statements
Round 3: Rebuttals of Round 2 Statements.
Round 4: Interrogation. Questions Only about any part of the topic.
Round 5: Answering Round 4 Questions and then closing statements.
Con must accept this format in order to debate this topic.
It is sometimes said that a self-evident proposition is one whose denial is self-contradictory. It is also sometimes said that an analytic proposition is one whose denial is self-contradictory. But the concepts mean different things.[further explanation needed]
Provided that one understands and believes a self-evident proposition, self-evident propositions are not in need of proof. Likewise, that their denial is self-contradictory does not have to be proven. It is in this sense that the self-contradictions at work in self-evident and analytic propositions are different.
Not all analytic propositions are self-evident, and it is sometimes claimed that not all self-evident propositions are analytic: e.g. my knowledge that I am conscious.
Epistemology, the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. The term is derived from the Greek epistēmē (“knowledge”) and logos (“reason”), and accordingly the field is sometimes referred to as the theory of knowledge. Epistemology has a long history within Western philosophy, beginning with the ancient Greeks and continuing to the present. Along with metaphysics, logic, and ethics, it is one of the four main branches of philosophy, and nearly every great philosopher has contributed to it.
Self-evidence doesn't exist. On semantics alone I could win since Pro clearly means something else. Pro can't even me self-evident truths since this is about something that actually proves itself true to the person.
Self-evident truths are firstly axiomatic in their fruition and secondly tautologous in their justification. Pro may be trying to prove that logic itself necessitates these two things (axioms and tautologies) but how can Pro possibly justify that with regards to epistemology (which is not just logic at all, since it's applied to real knowledge and reasoning in the actual realm of nature, physics, knowledge etc)?
You cannot justify the 'self-evidence' without it being justified entirely by things that are non-self-evident in nature. This alone means there's permanently one layer deeper than the axioms and tautologies when it comes to determining what is and isn't necessary axiomatically, in order to understand the reality as is.