...
I'll raise you a step. Cognitive relativism is an interesting position on the nature of the philosophical concept of truth and reality, but in the end like all relativists you cannot avoid adopting specific standpoints, choosing between theories, and endorsing particular beliefs and values. Which standpoints, theory and methodology do you use to assess the existence of things and if it's not a consistent frame for all things, why did you made that choice?
You know this. For it not to be to long, I will leave out some justifications.
For philosophy over I go with the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of the fundamental dimension of human experience. In short I will accept epistemological solipsism. Thus I also reject the existence of things and for "das Ding an sich" as for objective reality, I accept objective reality as independent of the mind, but that is all I know of it. I.e. objective reality is independent of the mind, but since I know through the mind, we get epistemological solipsism. It relates to the evil demon of Descartes and in practice I believe, but do not know, that objective reality is in itself as it appears to me.
Now that was level one. Now for the everyday practice of it. There are 3 overall categories of experiences. Objective, inter-subjective(there appears to be other minds) and subjective. The way I see that is that we always end with in effect ethics and aesthetics. I.e. what matters, as what I want to happen because I consider it good/useful/beautiful. That is the same for other humans.
Side note: If you start analyzing debates not for truth or evidence, but for what is going on, you will find, that all debates end in what matters individually to someone.
So for the objective as objective for all humans I use science and not just natural science. For the inter-subjective I end with that I believe all humans have intrinsic worth and dignity. As for reason, logic and all that jazz I view that as limited and don't believe in a strong, coherent, rational and objective world view. The utility of rationality and so on have limits. As for the individual subjectivity I believe that those humans capable of holding a world-view always end up going for what makes sense to them individually.
Now as a skeptic I accept that "man is the measure of all things..."; the 5 tropes of Agrippa; Descartes' point that rationality can only get you so far; Kant's view that you shouldn't do metaphysics and ontology, but rather it is a form of psychology as to how the mind words as for categories in thinking/cognition; and the pragmatic view of truth: Truth is what appears to work and matter for someone.
As for religion I accept Descartes' point that you in practice have to trust reality to be fair and that is a form of faith. So this "God" which doesn't cheat and allows you to use knowledge, is not necessarily a theistic God.
Rather it matches the assumptions behind science:
- Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.
- We can know nature.
- All phenomena have natural causes.
- Nothing is self evident.
- Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
- Knowledge is superior to ignorance.
Now for what I "hate". Non-religious people who don't understand how it is called methodological naturalism and in effect believes as dogmatically and fundamentalistic as some religious people, that reality is physical and that everything can be done with objectivity, rationality and evidence.
In other words to me there is a funny effect in beliefs. Namely that the opposite sides between strong naturalists and strong super-naturalists in effect do the same. They individual claim a knowledge, they apparently don't have with the same certainty that the other side do to.
Regards and love
Mikkel
