Hacker News Reader

Comment by ethn | Hacker News Reader

To be clear this trilemma is only a problem for rationalists, like Hans Albert. This problem doesn't exist for German Idealists like Kant or Schelling or even the empiricists.

You escape the problem of infinite regression through acknowledging that the only thing real is experience, which lends you to the haven of relative objectivity, which is that of which modern science has become.

You would think that the conjurer of the paradox would have shifted to empiricism or idealism—maybe my faith in people betrays me.

View on HN

> You would think that the conjurer of the paradox would have shifted to empiricism or idealism—maybe my faith in people betrays me.

What does this mean?

> Karl Popper argued that a way to avoid the trilemma was to use an intermediate approach incorporating some dogmatism, some infinite regress, and some perceptual experience.

> One example of an alternative is the fallibilism of Karl Popper and Hans Albert, accepting that certainty is impossible, but that it is best to get as close as possible to truth, while remembering our uncertainty.

The only difference I see between "This is true to the best of my knowledge and experience" and "This is true because to the best of my knowledge and experience, therefore it is certainly true" (empiricism) or how conceited the thinker is about their own infallibility. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism)

Isn't this taking the 'axiomatic' path?

> through acknowledging that the only thing real is experience

This seems like the key axiom for idealists/empiricists. Of course that leads you to many other details and questions (namely, which experiences?)

It is an observed axiom, rather than an "accepted" axiom, which the article implies is the only kind.

Why does observing something mean that something is true?

If you keep asking questions, at some point you must get to either an accepted axiom, a circularity, or infinite regress.

There is no possible reality in which the observation of anything can be explained by absolute nothingness. We know that existence exists, and that within that existence is consciousness capable of perceiving it. These are self-evident axioms upon observing anything at all. I think it's fair to say that we don't know why reality exists, but we know that it is true that something exists at all.

See my above comments but what else would "true" mean?

No, Experience is forced upon you, it is neither an assumption or something discovered through reason.

Additionally, words like "real", "exists" or "reality" only have meaning in this way, otherwise it would be impossible to understand them since understanding is only through terms of experience.

However, it's important to note that idealists aren't naive realists, they acknowledge that what they see is created by their own sensory organs. That is, there is the not-object that cannot be discussed or learned about further than the knowledge obtained from the negative predicate of the object—hence why you can only see one side of a coin or why your experience can change through hallucinatory drugs.

The not-object is also necessary for communication between individuals, where the inter-subjective experience must be mapped to do so.

> Experience is forced upon you, it is neither an assumption or something discovered through reason.

Why? That claim must be justified by reference to other truths, or taken itself as an assumption. So doesn't the trilemma still apply, but at one more remove?

Note that 'assumption' does not necessarily mean an arbitrary statement, but includes statements that we consider self-evident, e.g. 'something exists'.

It doesn't have to be explained why, it is. The why would be a separate question requiring reasoning. Things can be true without an explanation as to why they happen. It's not an assumption as experience is not a choice, in fact experience is a prerequisite to then be able to assume (as well as to reason).

Yes, but so many tech people see themselves as rationalists or at least rational utilitarians, and I'm going to guess most of this forum does as well. Given that so many tech people see themselves this way, diving into the trilemma (and discussing how Idealists or empiricists moved past it) is important and probably eye-opening for many.

I would suggest reading Quine’s ‘Two Dogmas of Empericism’ for the relevant issues there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com