as I understand it - Epicurus argued for the moral life
and the search for truth but did not regard such pursuits
as holding any value in themselves
now this view can be seen - and Epicurus I imagine saw it
this way - as an argument for pragmatism - practical
philosophy - in particular - ethics
it could also be seen as an argument regarding self
reference
self referential statements
a perennial problem of metaphysics
and - anti-metaphysics
and I think the central problem of rationality
Karl Popper - used it ruthlessly against everyone
but himself
Wittgenstein used it ruthlessly - against himself
anyway
let's say meta statements
statements about the status of other statements -
can only be regarded as having the status they predicate -
of other statements
if they are covered by - their own meta statements -
a higher order statement - that states their status
and we go into an infinite regress
if - we want to keep determining the status of our
status statements
of course we don't do this
we stop - pretty much where we started
well mathematicians don't -
and as a result - to keep from going mad they think
of themselves as artists
anyway
what is the problem with infinite regress?
only that it suggests that the argument we start with
about the status of a statement - (whatever that
statement is)
finally does not have the status - we thought
we were ascribing to it
and so - you might ask - what then can be said?
this though is only one view of infinite regress
perhaps the infinite regress - is not - a strange result -
that leads us astray - but rather - a clearer picture
of just how it is
and the original quest for the logical - rational status
of the statements in question - is in fact the flaw
in the glass
at this point I think we can go back to Epicurus -
and see the point of it -
as incurably practical
needing to get a hold on how to proceed - to act
it's fishing - with a net
and do we need a net for the net?
