![]() ![]() Hume’s example demonstrates the impossibility of inductive reasoning via an infinite regression. Similar to Aristotle, the argument depends on the absurd of fallacious nature that the infinite regression brings to our attention. Since there cannot be a cause that caused its self, we either accept vicious circularity or some being that is infinite in nature. With Aquinas, we have an example of a constructive infinite regression that depends on vicious circularity. Both stop the regress, if accepted.īut what we must takeaway from Aristotle is that the absurdity of regression can be used as a justification for various beliefs. Or, we can suppose of a more immediate premise, perhaps premise one or two, that it is intrinsically good and desired for its own sake. We can, like Aristotle, suppose that the highest good exists, so as to avoid the absurdity of regression. Without a highest good, the regress has the potential to go on forever and we have two ways of dealing with that. If we genuinely viewed something as good simply because it brought us something else, of which we presumed to be good, then we would have an infinite regression more specifically, if apples are good because we want to be fit, then being fit is only good because we want to feel healthy, and feeling healthy is good because we want to live longer…ad infinitum. For Aristotle, infinite regression presents as something absurd. The Two Types Of Infinite Regress ArgumentsĪs seen in the example given to us by Aristotle, regress arguments can be constructive that is, they are used as justifications for belief. Source: An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Chap. Hence: you will never justify any inductive inference. ![]() As a solution, you again rely on the assumption that, in this case too, the future resembles the past. Yet, you cannot justify the initial inference unless you justify this assumption. As a solution, you rely on the assumption that the future resembles the past. Suppose you want to justify an inductive inference. There must be a first cause which is not finite or contingent, namely God. Hence: it is not the case that every cause is a finite and contingent being. Suppose that every finite and contingent being has a cause, and that every cause is a finite and contingent being. Hence: at least one thing is good and not desired for the sake of something else that is good, I.e., the highest good that is desired for the sake of itself. Suppose anything is good only if we desire it for the sake of something else that is good. Infinite Regresses have to demonstrate, step-by-step, how each conclusion is derived and how each assumption leads to the regress.When used destructively, infinite regression can demonstrate the falsehoods and fallacies of other epistemic frameworks.Īnd in philosophy, each infinite regress abides by the following: When used constructively, infinite regression arguments can create Epistemic Infinitism which can either function as a framework to solve problems of infinite regression or create justified beliefs. Infinite regression has been used in philosophy to justify and negate different arguments within philosophy, from greek to modern philosophy. In philosophy, the infinite regression phenomenon frequently takes the form of an argument. That is, since each premise is contingent on some reason, we then require another premise to justify that reason. An Infinite regression is a loop of premises that continue on in ad infinitum.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |