This is literally someone asking “what comes before what comes first?”
He seems not to comprehend the meaning of “first.”
He seems not to comprehend the meaning of “first.”
https://twitter.com/fustbariclation/status/1329538597230436355
To ask “what is before what is first?” is a nonsense question.
To deny first principles is to invoke an infinite regress in which nothing can be known or shown to be true.
So he’s either irrational by dint of nonsense or by the rejection of reasoning.
So he’s irrational.
To deny first principles is to invoke an infinite regress in which nothing can be known or shown to be true.
So he’s either irrational by dint of nonsense or by the rejection of reasoning.
So he’s irrational.
We have to be careful of spurious “how” questions, e.g. of the sort Kant made famous. 
There is perhaps a good deal to be said and thought about HOW we cognize the First Principles, the Ἀρχαί, but it is a very different matter to deny that we DO cognize First Principles.
The First Principles AND our cognition of them are BOTH self-evident.
The First Principles AND our cognition of them are BOTH self-evident.
HOW do we KNOW that “all wholes are composed of parts”?
That is a very difficult question.
DO we KNOW that “all wholes are composed of parts”?
Yes, we do know that. THAT is not a difficult question.
We must not conflate WHETHER with HOW.
That is a very difficult question.
DO we KNOW that “all wholes are composed of parts”?
Yes, we do know that. THAT is not a difficult question.
We must not conflate WHETHER with HOW.
It is the First Principles and our cognition of them which give us our HIGHEST STANDARD of what it means to BE EVIDENT.
The concept of “evidence” is DERIVATIVE from our awareness of the First Principles.
The concept of “evidence” is DERIVATIVE from our awareness of the First Principles.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
