,*APT] #ad ,! ,LIMITS ( ,PHILOSOPHICAL ,KN[L$GE #aiabaiab ,PEOPLE 3 ,AU?OR 3 ,B]TR& ,RUSSELL ,TEXT 3 ,*,A,P,T,] ,X,I,V ,! ,L,I,M,I,T,S ,( ,P,H,I,L,O,S,O,P,H,I,C,A,L ,K,N,[,L,$,G,E ,9 ALL ?AT WE HAVE SAID HI!RTO CONC]N+ PHILOSOPHY1 WE HAVE SC>CELY T\*$ ON MANY MATT]S ?AT OCCUPY A GREAT SPACE 9 ! WRIT+S ( MO/ PHILOSOPH]S4 ,MO/ PHILOSOPH]S -- OR1 AT ANY RATE1 V]Y MANY -- PR(ESS TO BE ABLE TO PROVE1 BY A PRIORI METAPHYSICAL REASON+1 SU* ?+S AS ! FUNDAM5TAL DOGMAS ( RELIGION1 ! ESS5TIAL RATIONALITY ( ! UNIV]SE1 ! ILLUSOR9ESS ( MATT]1 ! UNREALITY ( ALL EVIL1 & SO ON4 ,!RE CAN BE NO D\BT ?AT ! HOPE ( F9D+ REASON TO BELIEVE SU* !SES AS !SE HAS BE5 ! *IEF 9SPIRATION ( MANY LIFELONG /UD5TS ( PHILOSOPHY4 ,?IS HOPE1 ,I BELIEVE1 IS VA94 ,IT W\LD SEEM ?AT KN[L$GE CONC]N+ ! UNIV]SE AS A :OLE IS NOT TO BE OBTA9$ BY METAPHYSICS1 & ?AT ! PROPOS$ PRO(S ?AT1 9 VIRTUE ( ! LAWS ( LOGIC SU* & SU* ?+S MU/ EXI/ & SU* & SU* O!RS CANNOT1 >E NOT CAPABLE ( SURVIV+ A CRITICAL SCRUT9Y4 ,9 ?IS *APT] WE %ALL BRIEFLY CONSID] ! K9D ( WAY 9 :I* SU* REASON+ IS ATTEMPT$1 ) A VIEW TO DISCOV]+ :E!R WE CAN HOPE ?AT IT MAY BE VALID4 ,! GREAT REPRES5TATIVE1 9 MOD]N TIMES1 ( ! K9D ( VIEW :I* WE WI% TO EXAM9E1 WAS ,HEGEL 7#a#g#g-#a#h#c#a74 ,HEGEL'S PHILOSOPHY IS V]Y DIFFICULT1 & COMM5TATORS DIFF] AS TO ! TRUE 9T]PRETATION ( IT4 ,ACCORD+ TO ! 9T]PRETATION ,I %ALL ADOPT1 :I* IS ?AT ( MANY1 IF NOT MO/1 ( ! COMM5TATORS & HAS ! M]IT ( GIV+ AN 9T]E/+ & IMPORTANT TYPE ( PHILOSOPHY1 HIS MA9 !SIS IS ?AT EV]Y?+ %ORT ( ! ,:OLE IS OBVI\SLY FRAGM5T>Y1 & OBVI\SLY 9CAPABLE ( EXI/+ )\T ! COMPLEM5T SUPPLI$ BY ! RE/ ( ! WORLD4 ,JU/ AS A COMP>ATIVE ANATOMI/1 FROM A S+LE BONE1 SEES :AT K9D ( ANIMAL ! :OLE MU/ HAVE BE51 SO ! METAPHYSICIAN1 ACCORD+ TO ,HEGEL1 SEES1 FROM ANY ONE PIECE ( REALITY1 :AT ! :OLE ( REALITY MU/ BE -- AT LEA/ 9 ITS L>GE \TL9ES4 ,EV]Y APP>5TLY SEP>ATE PIECE ( REALITY HAS1 AS IT W]E1 HOOKS :I* GRAPPLE IT TO ! NEXT PIECE2 ! NEXT PIECE1 9 TURN1 HAS FRE% HOOKS1 & SO ON1 UNTIL ! :OLE UNIV]SE IS RECON/RUCT$4 ,?IS ESS5TIAL 9COMPLET5ESS APPE>S1 ACCORD+ TO ,HEGEL1 EQUALLY 9 ! WORLD ( ?\T$ )1 WILL BE F\ND1 NEV]!LESS1 TO BE /ILL NOT :OLLY COMPLETE1 BUT TO PASS 9TO ITS ANTI!SIS1 ) :I* IT MU/ BE COMB9$ 9 A NEW SYN!SIS4 ,9 ?IS WAY ,HEGEL ADVANCES UNTIL HE REA*ES ! ',ABSOLUTE ,IDEA'1 :I*1 ACCORD+ TO HIM1 HAS NO 9COMPLET5ESS1 NO OPPOSITE1 & NO NE$ ( FUR!R DEVELOPM5T4 ,! ,ABSOLUTE ,IDEA1 !RE=E1 IS ADEQUATE TO DESCRIBE ,ABSOLUTE ,REALITY2 BUT ALL L[] IDEAS ONLY DESCRIBE ALITY AS IT APPE>S TO A P>TIAL VIEW1 NOT AS IT IS TO ONE :O SIMULTANE\SLY SURVEYS ! ,:OLE4 ,?US ,HEGEL REA*ES ! CONCLUSION ?AT ,ABSOLUTE ,REALITY =MS ONE S+LE H>MONI\S SY/EM1 NOT 9 SPACE OR TIME1 NOT 9 ANY DEGREE EVIL1 :OLLY RATIONAL1 & :OLLY SPIRITUAL4 ,ANY APPE>ANCE TO ! CONTR>Y1 9 ! WORLD WE KN[1 CAN BE PROV$ LOGICALLY -- SO HE BELIEVES -- TO BE 5TIRELY DUE TO \R FRAGM5T>Y PIECEMEAL VIEW ( ! UNIV]SE4 ,IF WE SAW ! UNIV]SE :OLE1 AS WE MAY SUPPOSE ,GOD SEES IT1 SPACE & TIME & MATT] & EVIL & ALL /RIV+ & /RUGGL+ W\LD DISAPPE>1 & WE %\LD SEE 9/EAD AN ET]NAL P]FECT UN*ANG+ SPIRITUAL UNITY4 ,9 ?IS CONCEPTION1 !RE IS UND5IABLY SOME?+ SUBLIME1 SOME?+ TO :I* WE C\LD WI% TO YIELD ASS5T4 ,NEV]!LESS1 :5 ! >GUM5TS 9 SUPPORT ( IT >E C>EFULLY EXAM9$1 !Y APPE> TO 9VOLVE MU* CONFUSION & MANY UNW>RANTABLE ASSUMPTIONS4 ,! FUNDAM5TAL T5ET UPON :I* ! SY/EM IS BUILT UP IS ?AT :AT IS 9COMPLETE MU/ BE NOT SELF-SUBSI/5T1 BUT MU/ NE$ ! SUPPORT ( O!R ?+S BE=E IT CAN EXI/4 ,IT IS HELD ?AT :ATEV] HAS RELATIONS TO ?+S \TSIDE ITSELF MU/ CONTA9 SOME REF]5CE TO ?OSE \TSIDE ?+S 9 ITS [N NATURE1 & C\LD NOT1 !RE=E1 BE :AT IT IS IF ?OSE \TSIDE ?+S DID NOT EXI/4 ,A MAN'S NATURE1 = EXAMPLE1 IS CON/ITUT$ BY HIS MEMORIES & ! RE/ ( HIS KN[L$GE1 BY HIS LOVES & HATR$S1 & SO ON2 ?US1 BUT = ! OBJECTS :I* HE KN[S OR LOVES OR HATES1 HE C\LD NOT BE :AT HE IS4 ,HE IS ESS5TIALLY & OBVI\SLY A FRAGM5T3 TAK5 AS ! SUM-TOTAL ( REALITY HE W\LD BE SELF-CONTRADICTORY4 ,?IS :OLE PO9T ( VIEW1 H[EV]1 TURNS UPON ! NOTION ( ! 'NATURE' ( A ?+1 :I* SEEMS TO MEAN 'ALL ! TRU?S AB\T ! ?+'4 ,IT IS ( C\RSE ! CASE ?AT A TRU? :I* CONNECTS ONE ?+ ) ANO!R ?+ C\LD NOT SUBSI/ IF ! O!R ?+ DID NOT SUBSI/4 ,BUT A TRU? AB\T A ?+ IS NOT P>T ( ! ?+ ITSELF1 AL?\< IT MU/1 ACCORD+ TO ! ABOVE USAGE1 BE P>T ( ! 'NATURE' ( ! ?+4 ,IF WE MEAN BY A ?+'S 'NATURE' ALL ! TRU?S AB\T ! ?+1 !N PLA9LY WE CANNOT KN[ A ?+'S 'NATURE' UNLESS WE KN[ ALL ! ?+'S RELATIONS TO ALL ! O!R ?+S 9 ! UNIV]SE4 ,BUT IF ! WORD 'NATURE' IS US$ 9 ?IS S5SE1 WE %ALL HAVE TO HOLD ?AT ! ?+ MAY BE KN[N :5 ITS 'NATURE' IS NOT KN[N1 OR AT ANY RATE IS NOT KN[N COMPLETELY4 ,!RE IS A CONFUSION1 :5 ?IS USE ( ! WORD 'NATURE' IS EMPLOY$1 BETWE5 KN[L$GE ( ?+S & KN[L$GE ( TRU?S4 ,WE MAY HAVE KN[L$GE ( A ?+ BY ACQUA9TANCE EV5 IF WE KN[ V]Y FEW PROPOSITIONS AB\T IT -- !ORETICALLY WE NE$ NOT KN[ ANY PROPOSITIONS AB\T IT4 ,?US1 ACQUA9TANCE ) A ?+ DOES NOT 9VOLVE KN[L$GE ( ITS 'NATURE' 9 ! ABOVE S5SE4 ,& AL?\< ACQUA9TANCE ) A ?+ IS 9VOLV$ 9 \R KN[+ ANY ONE PROPOSITION AB\T A ?+1 KN[L$GE ( ITS 'NATURE'1 9 ! ABOVE S5SE1 IS NOT 9VOLV$4 ,H5CE1 7#a7 ACQUA9TANCE ) A ?+ DOES NOT LOGICALLY 9VOLVE A KN[L$GE ( ITS RELATIONS1 & 7#b7 A KN[L$GE ( SOME ( ITS RELATIONS DOES NOT 9VOLVE A KN[L$GE ( ALL ( ITS RELATIONS NOR A KN[L$GE ( ITS 'NATURE' 9 ! ABOVE S5SE4 ,I MAY BE ACQUA9T$1 = EXAMPLE1 ) MY TOO?A*E1 & ?IS KN[L$GE MAY BE AS COMPLETE AS KN[L$GE BY ACQUA9TANCE EV] CAN BE1 )\T KN[+ ALL ?AT ! D5TI/ 7:O IS NOT ACQUA9T$ ) IT7 CAN TELL ME AB\T ITS CAUSE1 & )\T !RE=E KN[+ ITS 'NATURE' 9 ! ABOVE S5SE4 ,?US ! FACT ?AT A ?+ HAS RELATIONS DOES NOT PROVE ?AT ITS RELATIONS >E LOGICALLY NECESS>Y4 ,?AT IS TO SAY1 FROM ! M]E FACT ?AT IT IS ! ?+ IT IS WE CANNOT D$UCE ?AT IT MU/ HAVE ! V>I\S RELATIONS :I* 9 FACT IT HAS4 ,?IS ONLY SEEMS TO FOLL[ BECAUSE WE KN[ IT ALREADY4 ,IT FOLL[S ?AT WE CANNOT PROVE ?AT ! UNIV]SE AS A :OLE =MS A S+LE H>MONI\S SY/EM SU* AS ,HEGEL BELIEVES ?AT IT =MS4 ,& IF WE CANNOT PROVE ?IS1 WE ALSO CANNOT PROVE ! UNREALITY ( SPACE & TIME & MATT] & EVIL1 = ?IS IS D$UC$ BY ,HEGEL FROM ! FRAGM5T>Y & RELATIONAL *>ACT] ( !SE ?+S4 ,?US WE >E LEFT TO ! PIECEMEAL 9VE/IGATION ( ! WORLD1 & >E UNABLE TO KN[ ! *>ACT]S ( ?OSE P>TS ( ! UNIV]SE ?AT >E REMOTE FROM \R EXP]I5CE4 ,?IS RESULT1 DISAPPO9T+ AS IT IS TO ?OSE :OSE HOPES HAVE BE5 RAIS$ BY ! SY/EMS ( PHILOSOPH]S1 IS 9 H>MONY ) ! 9DUCTIVE & SCI5TIFIC TEMP] ( \R AGE1 & IS BORNE \T BY ! :OLE EXAM9ATION ( HUMAN KN[L$GE :I* HAS OCCUPI$ \R PREVI\S *APT]S4 ,MO/ ( ! GREAT AMBITI\S ATTEMPTS ( METAPHYSICIANS HAVE PROCE$$ BY ! ATTEMPT TO PROVE ?AT SU* & SU* APP>5T FEATURES ( ! ACTUAL WORLD W]E SELF-CONTRADICTORY1 & !RE=E C\LD NOT BE REAL4 ,! :OLE T5D5CY ( MOD]N ?\ TO BE 9F9ITE 9 EXT5T1 & 9F9ITELY DIVISIBLE4 ,IF WE TRAVEL ALONG A /RAILY1 IF 9 IMAG9ATION WE TRAVEL BACKW>DS OR =W>DS 9 TIME1 IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE ?AT WE %ALL REA* A FIR/ OR LA/ TIME1 ) NOT EV5 EMPTY TIME BEYOND IT4 ,?US SPACE & TIME APPE> TO BE 9F9ITE 9 EXT5T4 ,AGA91 IF WE TAKE ANY TWO PO9TS ON A L9E1 IT SEEMS EVID5T ?AT !RE MU/ BE O!R PO9TS BETWE5 !M1 H[EV] SMALL ! DI/ANCE BETWE5 !M MAY BE3 EV]Y DI/ANCE CAN BE HALV$1 & ! HALVES CAN BE HALV$ AGA91 & SO ON AD 9F9ITUM4 ,9 TIME1 SIMIL>LY1 H[EV] LITTLE TIME MAY ELAPSE BETWE5 TWO MOM5TS1 IT SEEMS EVID5T ?AT !RE WILL BE O!R MOM5TS BETWE5 !M4 ,?US SPACE & TIME APPE> TO BE 9F9ITELY DIVISIBLE4 ,BUT AS AGA9/ !SE APP>5T FACTS -- 9F9ITE EXT5T & 9F9ITE DIVISIBILITY -- PHILOSOPH]S HAVE ADVANC$ >GUM5TS T5D+ TO %[ ?AT !RE C\LD BE NO 9F9ITE COLLECTIONS ( ?+S1 & ?AT !RE=E ! NUMB] ( PO9TS 9 SPACE1 OR ( 9/ANTS 9 TIME1 MU/ BE F9ITE4 ,?US A CONTRADICTION EM]G$ BETWE5 ! APP>5T NATURE ( SPACE & TIME & ! SUPPOS$ IMPOSSIBILITY ( 9F9ITE COLLECTIONS4 ,KANT1 :O FIR/ EMPHASIZ$ ?IS CONTRADICTION1 D$UC$ ! IMPOSSIBILITY ( SPACE & TIME1 :I* HE DECL>$ TO BE M]ELY SUBJECTIVE2 & S9CE HIS TIME V]Y MANY PHILOSOPH]S HAVE BELIEV$ ?AT SPACE & TIME >E M]E APPE>ANCE1 NOT *>ACT]I/IC ( ! WORLD AS IT REALLY IS4 ,N[1 H[EV]1 [+ TO ! LABORS ( ! MA!MATICIANS1 NOTABLY ,GEORG ,CANTOR1 IT HAS APPE>$ ?AT ! IMPOSSIBILITY ( 9F9ITE COLLECTIONS WAS A MI/AKE4 ,!Y >E NOT 9 FACT SELF-CONTRADICTORY1 BUT ONLY CONTRADICTORY ( C]TA9 RA!R OB/9ATE M5TAL PREJUDICES4 ,H5CE ! REASONS = REG>D+ SPACE & TIME AS UNREAL HAVE BECOME 9OP]ATIVE1 & ONE ( ! GREAT S\RCES ( METAPHYSICAL CON/RUCTIONS IS DRI$ UP4 ,! MA!MATICIANS1 H[EV]1 HAVE NOT BE5 CONT5T ) %[+ ?AT SPACE AS IT IS COMMONLY SUPPOS$ TO BE IS POSSIBLE2 !Y HAVE %[N ALSO ?AT MANY O!R =MS ( SPACE >E EQUALLY POSSIBLE1 SO F> AS LOGIC CAN %[4 ,SOME ( ,EUCLID'S AXIOMS1 :I* APPE> TO COMMON S5SE TO BE NECESS>Y1 & W]E =M]LY SUPPOS$ TO BE NECESS>Y BY PHILOSOPH]S1 >E N[ KN[N TO D]IVE !IR APPE>ANCE ( NECESSITY FROM \R M]E FAMILI>ITY ) ACTUAL SPACE1 & NOT FROM ANY A PRIORI LOGICAL F\NDATION4 ,BY IMAG9+ WORLDS 9 :I* !SE AXIOMS >E FALSE1 ! MA!MATICIANS HAVE US$ LOGIC TO LOOS5 ! PREJUDICES ( COMMON S5SE1 & TO %[ ! POSSIBILITY ( SPACES DIFF]+ -- SOME MORE1 SOME LESS -- FROM ?AT 9 :I* WE LIVE4 ,& SOME ( !SE SPACES DIFF] SO LITTLE FROM ,EUCLIDEAN SPACE1 :]E DI/ANCES SU* AS WE CAN MEASURE >E CONC]N$1 ?AT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISCOV] BY OBS]VATION :E!R \R ACTUAL SPACE IS /RICTLY ,EUCLIDEAN OR ( ONE ( !SE O!R K9DS4 ,?US ! POSITION IS COMPLETELY REV]S$4 ,=M]LY IT APPE>$ ?AT EXP]I5CE LEFT ONLY ONE K9D ( SPACE TO LOGIC1 & LOGIC %[$ ?IS ONE K9D TO BE IMPOSSIBLE4 ,N[ LOGIC PRES5TS MANY K9DS ( SPACE AS POSSIBLE AP>T FROM EXP]I5CE1 & EXP]I5CE ONLY P>TIALLY DECIDES BETWE5 !M4 ,?US1 :ILE \R KN[L$GE ( :AT IS HAS BECOME LESS ?AN IT WAS =M]LY SUPPOS$ TO BE1 \R KN[L$GE ( :AT MAY BE IS 5ORM\SLY 9CREAS$4 ,9/EAD ( BE+ %UT 9 )9 N>R[ WALLS1 ( :I* EV]Y NOOK & CRANNY C\LD BE EXPLOR$1 WE F9D \RSELVES 9 AN OP5 WORLD ( FREE POSSIBILITIES1 :]E MU* REMA9S UNKN[N BECAUSE !RE IS SO MU* TO KN[4 ,:AT HAS HAPP5$ 9 ! CASE ( SPACE & TIME HAS HAPP5$1 TO SOME EXT5T1 9 O!R DIRECTIONS AS WELL4 ,! ATTEMPT TO PRESCRIBE TO ! UNIV]SE BY MEANS ( A PRIORI PR9CIPLES HAS BROK5 D[N2 LOGIC 9/EAD ( BE+1 AS =M]LY1 ! B> TO POSSIBILITIES1 HAS BECOME ! GREAT LIB]ATOR ( ! IMAG9ATION1 PRES5T+ 9NUM]ABLE ALT]NATIVES :I* >E CLOS$ TO UNREFLECTIVE COMMON S5SE1 & LEAV+ TO EXP]I5CE ! TASK ( DECID+1 :]E DECISION IS POSSIBLE1 BETWE5 ! MANY WORLDS :I* LOGIC (F]S = \R *OICE4 ,?US KN[L$GE AS TO :AT EXI/S BECOMES LIMIT$ TO :AT WE CAN LE>N FROM EXP]I5CE -- NOT TO :AT WE CAN ACTUALLY EXP]I5CE1 =1 AS WE HAVE SE51 !RE IS MU* KN[L$GE BY DESCRIPTION CONC]N+ ?+S ( :I* WE HAVE NO DIRECT EXP]I5CE4 ,BUT 9 ALL CASES ( KN[L$GE BY DESCRIPTION1 WE NE$ SOME CONNECTION ( UNIV]SALS1 5ABL+ US1 FROM SU* & SU* A DATUM1 TO 9F] AN OBJECT ( A C]TA9 SORT AS IMPLI$ BY \R DATUM4 ,?US 9 REG>D TO PHYSICAL OBJECTS1 = EXAMPLE1 ! PR9CIPLE ?AT S5SE-DATA >E SIGNS ( PHYSICAL OBJECTS IS ITSELF A CONNECTION ( UNIV]SALS2 & IT IS ONLY 9 VIRTUE ( ?IS PR9CIPLE ?AT EXP]I5CE 5ABLES US TO ACQUIRE KN[L$GE CONC]N+ PHYSICAL OBJECTS4 ,! SAME APPLIES TO ! LAW ( CAUSALITY1 OR1 TO DESC5D TO :AT IS LESS G5]AL1 TO SU* PR9CIPLES AS ! LAW ( GRAVITATION4 ,PR9CIPLES SU* AS ! LAW ( GRAVITATION >E PROV$1 OR RA!R >E R5D]$ HITICUL> ?+S ) :I* WE >E ACQUA9T$1 & PURE A PRIORI KN[L$GE1 :I* GIVES US CONNECTIONS BETWE5 UNIV]SALS1 & 5ABLES US TO DRAW 9F]5CES FROM ! P>TICUL> FACTS GIV5 9 EMPIRICAL KN[L$GE4 ,\R D]IVATIVE KN[L$GE ALWAYS DEP5DS UPON SOME PURE A PRIORI KN[L$GE & USUALLY ALSO DEP5DS UPON SOME PURE EMPIRICAL KN[L$GE4 ,PHILOSOPHICAL KN[L$GE1 IF :AT HAS BE5 SAID ABOVE IS TRUE1 DOES NOT DIFF] ESS5TIALLY FROM SCI5TIFIC KN[L$GE2 !RE IS NO SPECIAL S\RCE ( WISDOM :I* IS OP5 TO PHILOSOPHY BUT NOT TO SCI5CE1 & ! RESULTS OBTA9$ BY PHILOSOPHY >E NOT RADICALLY DIFF]5T FROM ?OSE OBTA9$ FROM SCI5CE4 ,! ESS5TIAL *>ACT]I/IC ( PHILOSOPHY :I* MAKES IT A /UDY DI/9CT FROM SCI5CE1 IS CRITICISM4 ,IT EXAM9ES CRITICALLY ! PR9CIPLES EMPLOY$ 9 SCI5CE & 9 DAILY LIFE2 IT SE>*ES \T ANY 9CONSI/5CIES !RE MAY BE 9 !SE PR9CIPLES1 & IT ONLY ACCEPTS !M :51 AS ! RESULT ( A CRITICAL 9QUIRY1 NO REASON = REJECT+ !M HAS APPE>$4 ,IF1 AS MANY PHILOSOPH]S HAVE BELIEV$1 ! PR9CIPLES UND]LY+ ! SCI5CES W]E CAPABLE1 :5 DIS5GAG$ FROM IRRELEVANT DETAIL1 ( GIV+ US KN[L$GE CONC]N+ ! UNIV]SE AS A :OLE1 SU* KN[L$GE W\LD HAVE ! SAME CLAIM ON \R BELIEF AS SCI5TIFIC KN[L$GE HAS2 BUT \R 9QUIRY HAS NOT REVEAL$ ANY SU* KN[L$GE1 & !RE=E1 AS REG>DS ! SPECIAL DOCTR9ES ( ! BOLD] METAPHYSICIANS1 HAS HAD A MA9LY NEGATIVE RESULT4 ,BUT AS REG>DS :AT W\LD BE COMMONLY ACCEPT$ AS KN[L$GE1 \R RESULT IS 9 ! MA9 POSITIVE3 WE HAVE SELDOM F\ND REASON TO REJECT SU* KN[L$GE AS ! RESULT ( \R CRITICISM1 & WE HAVE SE5 NO REASON TO SUPPOSE MAN 9CAPABLE ( ! K9D ( KN[L$GE :I* HE IS G5]ALLY BELIEV$ TO POSSESS4 ,:51 H[EV]1 WE SPEAK ( PHILOSOPHY AS A CRITICISM ( KN[L$GE1 IT IS NECESS>Y TO IMPOSE A C]TA9 LIMITATION4 ,IF WE ADOPT ! ATTITUDE ( ! COMPLETE SKEPTIC1 PLAC+ \RSELVES :OLLY \TSIDE ALL KN[L$GE1 & ASK+1 FROM ?IS \TSIDE POSITION1 TO BE COMPELL$ TO RETURN )9 ! CIRCLE ( KN[L$GE1 WE >E DEM&+ :AT IS IMPOSSIBLE1 & \R SKEPTICISM CAN NEV] BE REFUT$4 ,= ALL REFUTATION MU/ BEG9 ) SOME PIECE ( KN[L$GE :I* ! DISPUTANTS %>E2 FROM BLANK D\BT1 NO >GUM5T CAN BEG94 ,H5CE ! CRITICISM ( KN[L$GE :I* PHILOSOPHY EMPLOYS MU/ NOT BE ( ?IS DE/RUCTIVE K9D1 IF ANY RESULT IS TO BE A*IEV$4 ,AGA9/ ?IS ABSOLUTE SKEPTICISM1 NO LOGICAL >GUM5T CAN BE ADVANC$4 ,BUT IT IS NOT DIFFICULT TO SEE ?AT SKEPTICISM ( ?IS K9D IS UNREASONABLE4 ,DESC>TES' 'ME?ODICAL D\BT'1 ) :I* MOD]N PHILOSOPHY BEGAN1 IS NOT ( ?IS K9D1 BUT IS RA!R ! K9D ( CRITICISM :I* WE >E ASS]T+ TO BE ! ESS5CE ( PHILOSOPHY4 ,HIS 'ME?ODICAL D\BT' CONSI/$ 9 D\BT+ :ATEV] SEEM$ D\BTFUL2 9 PAUS+1 ) EA* APP>5T PIECE ( KN[L$GE1 TO ASK HIMSELF :E!R1 ON REFLECTION1 HE C\LD FEEL C]TA9 ?AT HE REALLY KNEW IT4 ,?IS IS ! K9D ( CRITICISM :I* CON/ITUTES PHILOSOPHY4 ,SOME KN[L$GE1 SU* AS KN[L$GE ( ! EXI/5CE ( \R S5SE-DATA1 APPE>S QUITE 9DUBITABLE1 H[EV] CALMLY & ?OR\D TO SU* KN[L$GE1 PHILOSOPHICAL CRITICISM DOES NOT REQUIRE ?AT WE %\LD AB/A9 FROM BELIEF4 ,BUT !RE >E BELIEFS -- SU*1 = EXAMPLE1 AS ! BELIEF ?AT PHYSICAL OBJECTS EXACTLY RESEMBLE \R S5SE-DATA -- :I* >E 5T]TA9$ UNTIL WE BEG9 TO REFLECT1 BUT >E F\ND TO MELT AWAY :5 SUBJECT$ TO A CLOSE 9QUIRY4 ,SU* BELIEFS PHILOSOPHY WILL BID US REJECT1 UNLESS SOME NEW L9E ( >GUM5T IS F\ND TO SUPPORT !M4 ,BUT TO REJECT ! BELIEFS :I* DO NOT APPE> OP5 TO ANY OBJECTIONS1 H[EV] CLOSELY WE EXAM9E !M1 IS NOT REASONABLE1 & IS NOT :AT PHILOSOPHY ADVOCATES4 ,! CRITICISM AIM$ AT1 9 A WORD1 IS NOT ?AT :I*1 )\T REASON1 DET]M9ES TO REJECT1 BUT ?AT :I* CONSID]S EA* PIECE ( APP>5T KN[L$GE ON ITS M]ITS1 & RETA9S :ATEV] /ILL APPE>S TO BE KN[L$GE :5 ?IS CONSID]ATION IS COMPLET$4 ,?AT SOME RISK ( ]ROR REMA9S MU/ BE ADMITT$1 S9CE HUMAN BE+S >E FALLIBLE4 ,PHILOSOPHY MAY CLAIM JU/LY ?AT IT DIM9I%ES ! RISK ( ]ROR1 & ?AT 9 SOME CASES IT R5D]S ! RISK SO SMALL AS TO BE PRACTICALLY NEGLIGIBLE4 ,TO DO MORE ?AN ?IS IS NOT POSSIBLE 9 A WORLD :]E MI/AKES MU/ OCCUR2 & MORE ?AN ?IS NO PRUD5T ADVOCATE ( PHILOSOPHY W\LD CLAIM TO HAVE P]=M$4 ,*RONOLOGY 3 ,NOVEMB] #c1 #aiaa 3 ,*APT] #ad -- ,PUBLICATION4 ,JANU>Y #a#f1 #bb 3 ,*APT] #ad -- ,ADD$4 FILE G5]AT$ FROM 3 HTTP3_/_/REVOLTLIB4COM_/