Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 18:26:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199802242326.SAA10303@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: Summary so far on DJUNO X-To: amadan@usa.net X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan X-UIDL: 0975c394d20b9fa124929cedcb90de7b X-Mozilla-Status: 8011 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Feb 25 09:22:29 1998 X-From-Space-Address: - >> On the other hand, djuno is distinguished from >--More-- >> birti in that I can be birti of something without being able to justify it, >> or epistemologize it. I can also djuno something without being birti of it, >> if I have one epistemology which without doubt "proves" the x2, whereas anot >r >> epistemology supports doubt. > >... but here you lose me. How can I be certain of something without >anything to support it? How can YOU be certain? No idea - you may be a rationalist that demands evidence for evertything. But there are people who believe thinsg with no evidence supporting that belief at all. If their belief is strong enough one could easily say that they were "certain" of it. >How can I djuno je na'e birti? You said >yourself, you should not have doubt regarding something you djuno. Given a particular epistemology, you should be certain that epistemology generates the knowledge (I kinda like the version Erik and Chris just started discussing, but am not ready to commit that this is what I have been trying to say all along aboiut djuno). But I gave examples before (probably before you resubscribed) such that my son both knows and rejects the idea that Santa Claus exists using two different epistemologies. By one epistemology (faith and the evidence of the presents on Christmas morning), he knows it. By another (the authority of his peers), he knows it is false. How certain he is of the truth in either direction depends on his mood and emotional state. Buit he knows it in one sense. lojbab