Cthulhu
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
- Messages
- 234
freejroll said:But how do we know the alternative is chaos, terror, and anguish? And how do we know that adopting it will lead us to happiness? It seemed to happen that way in the past, but that really says nothing about what will happen in the future. You can't draw this conclusion without presupposing it first. In other words, you are merely restating it. There is no argument here. It's actually a type of an appeal to emotion. A claim. You want to believe this.
If you say that it will lead to happiness, you are already presupposing that it's a good method of reasoning, in order to come to this claim. Why is it a good method of reasoning, though? Or, rather, how do we know that it is? You are essentially saying, it is a good method of reasoning, it is a good method of reasoning. That's not justification.
Let me ask you another question. You clearly think induction is a good method of reasoning. Do you think this is the case all of the time? See the questions that start to arise?![]()
I've tried to give sensible arguments that I'm sure made sense to you, and I'm positive that you yourself will use induction the rest of your life... But you seem to want a purer, more logical argument.
If you want to take it this far... fine, here's where it gets interesting. How do YOU know what induction is? Maybe you knew in the past, but how can you be sure that the word "induction" still refers to the same thing? How do you know that any of the words you're saying mean what you think they mean? You originally learned them through induction, whereby a specific word gradually generalized into a concept... but how do you know that still holds? How do you know that the words you type, aimed at a receiver/debater (me) will actually make their way to my computer screen? When you say that we cannot presume that induction will work in the future, what do you mean by "future?" Sure the concept of future made sense in the past because induction seemed pretty reliable, but what about now? Since we cannot reason that induction will work now or tomorrow, none of your words, or your argument, have any validity to them because they themselves came about through induction.
Do you see? By questioning induction, you automatically use and presume induction, thereby contradicting your own argument and nullifying your questioning.
Interested to see your response to this
