In this light, I want to suggest that the solution to the problem is in finding a way to accept the reality that universal, transcendental, and foundational knowledge is not possible while at the same time finding a way to warrant the willingness to continue to make truth-claims in such a way that the one making the claim is justified in believing that the claim is universal, transcendental, and foundational without imposing those criteria as a standard.

Yeah, that's what everyone thinks, therefore it's boring, therefore it's wrong. QED.

The history of philosophy in the west is a history of one crisis after another. The contradictions and miscommunications facing the Scholastics or the ancient Greeks were just as absurd and insurmountable as the ones faced by our precious academics today...it's just that we don't find the modal logic of the resurrection to be particularly relevant to our inane quarrels over whether to deconstruct Derrida or examine the wrinkles in his brain with an x-ray scanner. One imagines that, in simpler times, truth announced itself from the mouth of the pope, and before that, Plato lounged in his academy wondering if the metaphysical nature of mud was a one or a many. No, philosophy has always been a plurivocal exchange. As Nietzsche points out, for every Plato there is an Epicurus (or two) seeking revenge.

Comte de St.-Germain wrote:Outside of the realm of atheism, no one has heard of Daniel Dennett (and in the studies of religion he is looked upon with suspect eyes) and outside his field in general, no one cares about his argument (no one cares about consciousness).

Is that really true? Look at the discussion of him on Wikipedia. For the Wikipedian philosophy project he is rated mid-importance, so he seems not to be completely unheard of. It's the same rate of importance Ayer got.

Lol Ayer is a relatively minor figure, Dennett is a clown.

think wrote:Lol Ayer is a relatively minor figure, Dennett is a clown.

Dennett is the tenth most cited contemporary philosopher in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

http://schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2010/05/forty-most-cited-contemporary-authors.html

It doesn't surprise me that someone who is brilliant and unashamed about boldly stating that consciousness is in the brain is also the most hated and criticized philosopher of the day.

SpeedOfSound wrote:It doesn't surprise me that someone who is brilliant and unashamed about boldly stating that consciousness is in the brain is also the most hated and criticized philosopher of the day.

There's nothing 'brilliant' about asserting that consciousness is in the brain. Most naive realists think that.