December 26, 2023 • 9 mins
The Trilemma of the Criterion is a philosophical problem that challenges how we can establish knowledge or truth. It suggests that when trying to determine what is true or justified, we face three main options, but each option comes with its own set of issues.
Website: https://learnphilosophy/learn-philosophy-education
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/library-of-philosophy--5939304/support.
Website: https://learnphilosophy/learn-philosophy-education
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/library-of-philosophy--5939304/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Sounds right.
(00:02):
Today's episode is about the trulema of the criterion.
Leave a follow if you enjoy.
Imagine you're on a quest to find the truth.
You want to know something, but how can you be sure that what you find is actually true?
(00:26):
That's where this trulema comes in.
The first part of this trulema is called the regress argument.
It's like a never-ending loop.
Say you believe something because of another thing,
and then you're asked, "How do you know that other thing?"
And if your answer is because of this other thing,
the cycle just keeps on going.
It's like a chain that never reaches its end.
(00:46):
So how do you really prove something without going in circles forever?
Then there's the problem of the criterion.
This one's all about figuring out how we can tell if our way of finding out stuff is actually reliable.
Think of it like trying to find the best way to know if something is true or false.
If you're trying to figure out if your way of knowing stuff is good,
how do you judge that without already knowing what's true?
(01:09):
Finally, we've got the agrippant trulema.
Imagine you say something, and someone asks, "Why do you think that?"
So you explain.
Then they ask, "But why do you think that explanation is true?"
And you give another reason.
It's easy some going, but there's a problem.
It either goes on forever or ends in one of three not-so-cool ways.
(01:30):
You repeat yourself, you go in circles, or you say, just because.
So the big headache here is this.
These three parts of the trulema of the criterion make it super tricky to figure out
how we can really know something for sure.
It's like being in a maze where every turn leads to more questions instead of clear answers
(01:50):
now that we've dipped our toes into the puzzling world of the trilema of the criterion.
Let's explore how folks have tried to tackle this headscratcher.
It's like trying to solve a tough riddle.
People have come up with different ways to deal with this tricky problem.
One approach to this trulema.
It's called "Foundationalism."
(02:10):
It's a bit like building a solid house.
Foundationalists believe that to know something, you need a rock-solid foundation.
Some basic beliefs that don't need any further proof.
These beliefs are like the unshakable base of all your other ideas.
They say, "Okay, we might not be able to prove everything."
But we've got these core beliefs that we just know are true.
Then there's coherentism, the core cousin of foundationalism.
(02:34):
Instead of relying on one super strong foundation, coherentists think of knowledge like a web.
Every belief is connected to others, forming a big, interconnected network.
They say, "Sure, maybe we can't have rock-solid foundations."
But as long as all our beliefs fit together nicely and make sense as a whole, we're good to go.
Another gang tackling this trulema is the pragmatists.
(02:56):
These folks say, "Hey, instead of worrying about whether our beliefs are true or not,
let's focus on whether they work."
It's like testing if a tool actually helps you fix things,
rather than worrying if you fully understand how the tool works.
They're all about practicality and usefulness.
And don't forget about skepticism.
These peeps take a different route.
(03:19):
They're like the doubting tomases of philosophy.
Skeptics say, "Hold on a second, folks."
Maybe we can't really know anything for sure.
They question everything and raise doubts about whether we can truly have certain knowledge about anything at all.
Each of these approaches brings its own flavor to the table when dealing with the trulema.
They're like different strategies in a game, some build sturdy foundations,
(03:43):
others weave intricate webs of beliefs, while some focus on practicality,
and then there are those who cast doubt on everything.
None of these approaches has completely cracked the code of the trulema.
They each have their strengths and weaknesses just like different tools in a toolbox.
Some might seem more appealing than others,
(04:04):
but they all grapple with this tricky puzzle in their own.
So while philosophers keep on pondering and debating,
trying to crack this trulema wide open,
it's clear that finding a one-size-fits-all solution isn't a piece of cake.
It's like trying to solve a puzzle without knowing all the pieces.
Tricky, confusing, and sometimes a little frustrating.
(04:24):
All right, let's take a stroll down memory lane
and peek into history to see how this trulema of the criterion
has tickled the brains of some big-shot philosophers.
These intellectual heavyweights have been wrestling with this puzzle for centuries,
each bringing their own flavor to the mix.
Let's kick it off with our friend Socrates.
(04:45):
Yep, the old Greek dude.
He was all about asking questions, questioning everything really.
Socrates wasn't a big fan of claiming he knew stuff for sure.
He said, "The only thing I know is that I know nothing."
He doubted everything, giving birth to a whole
philosophy of skepticism.
Then there's good old Renee Disgarts,
(05:06):
the guy famous for saying, "I think therefore I am."
He was on a quest for certainty trying to find something he could know for sure.
He wanted to build a rock-solid foundation for knowledge,
but Scarts is all about starting from scratch,
doubting everything until he found an unquestionable truth.
Jumping ahead a bit, let's meet David Hume.
This Scottish thinker had a knack for poking holes in how we think we know things.
(05:31):
He was all about challenging our beliefs and showing how our ideas might not be as solid as we think.
Hume raised serious doubts about cause and effect,
shaking up the way people saw the world.
And how could we forget?
Emanuel Kant.
This dude was a heavyweight in philosophy.
Kant had this whole idea about how our minds shape the world we see.
(05:53):
He believed that our brains aren't just passive receivers of info,
but actively shape our understanding of reality.
He shook up the game by questioning whether we can truly know things as they are.
From each of these legends brought their A-game to the table.
When it came to wrestling with this trilemma,
they had different takes, different ideas,
and different ways of approaching the puzzle.
(06:15):
But here's the kicker.
None of them cracked it wide open.
Nope, this trilemma is like that tricky puzzle
that just won't let itself be solved easily.
These philosophers laid down the groundwork for thinking about how we know stuff,
paving the way for future generations to pick up the baton
and keep on running with this mind-bending puzzle.
(06:35):
They might not have solved it,
but their ideas and debates have shaped how we think about knowledge and truth today.
Pass forward to the modern world where this trilemma of the criterion still keeps philosophers
up at night, scratching their heads and sipping lots of coffee.
Yep, it's a puzzle that hasn't lost its shine.
Enter the analytic philosophers.
(06:56):
These folks are all about breaking things down,
analyzing every bit, and using logic as their trusty sidekick.
They've jumped into the ring with the trilemma,
trying to dissect and analyze the very nature of knowledge.
They brought in fancy tools like logic,
language analysis, and rigorous reasoning to tackle this puzzle.
They've but hold your horses because here come the continental philosophers.
(07:19):
They're the rebels, the ones who take a different route,
instead of chopping things into tiny logical bits.
They dive into the messy, human side of things,
emotions, culture, society.
You name it?
They've got their own take on the trilemma.
Often focusing on how our understanding of truth is shaped by our experiences
(07:40):
and the world around us.
And then there's the pragmatists making a comeback.
These practical-minded folks aren't just about theory.
They're all about putting ideas to the test.
They're like, hey, if it works, it works.
Pragmatists are interested in the practical consequences of beliefs,
rather than getting lost in debates about whether they're objectively true.
(08:02):
Meanwhile, skepticism hasn't left the building.
Nope, these doubting tomases are still here asking questions
and raising doubts about whether we can ever really know anything for certain.
They keep the fire of uncertainty burning bright,
reminding us that the quest for absolute certainty might be a never-ending one.
But wait, there's more.
Enter the epistemologists, the specialists in knowledge itself.
(08:26):
They like detectives trying to uncover the mysteries of how we acquire knowledge,
how we justify it, and what it even means to know something.
They're at the forefront of the ongoing debate.
Bringing in new ideas, theories, and ways of the...
in this modern landscape of philosophy,
the trillema remains a hot topic,
with different schools of thought bringing their unique perspectives to the table.
(08:49):
They like players in a grand orchestra,
each playing their part in the symphony of ideas and debates.
So, as we navigate this maze of thoughts, theories,
and perspectives, one thing's for sure.
The trillema of the criterion isn't a puzzle with an easy solution.
It's a complex knot that keeps philosophers on their toes,
(09:10):
sparking debates, and pushing us to rethink how we understand knowledge and truth.
This is the end of the episode.
Listening to an episode many times may help you memorize and utilize its information more effectively.
Sounds right.
(00:02):
Today's episode is about the trulema of the criterion.
Leave a follow if you enjoy.
Imagine you're on a quest to find the truth.
You want to know something, but how can you be sure that what you find is actually true?
(00:26):
That's where this trulema comes in.
The first part of this trulema is called the regress argument.
It's like a never-ending loop.
Say you believe something because of another thing,
and then you're asked, "How do you know that other thing?"
And if your answer is because of this other thing,
the cycle just keeps on going.
It's like a chain that never reaches its end.
(00:46):
So how do you really prove something without going in circles forever?
Then there's the problem of the criterion.
This one's all about figuring out how we can tell if our way of finding out stuff is actually reliable.
Think of it like trying to find the best way to know if something is true or false.
If you're trying to figure out if your way of knowing stuff is good,
how do you judge that without already knowing what's true?
(01:09):
Finally, we've got the agrippant trulema.
Imagine you say something, and someone asks, "Why do you think that?"
So you explain.
Then they ask, "But why do you think that explanation is true?"
And you give another reason.
It's easy some going, but there's a problem.
It either goes on forever or ends in one of three not-so-cool ways.
(01:30):
You repeat yourself, you go in circles, or you say, just because.
So the big headache here is this.
These three parts of the trulema of the criterion make it super tricky to figure out
how we can really know something for sure.
It's like being in a maze where every turn leads to more questions instead of clear answers
(01:50):
now that we've dipped our toes into the puzzling world of the trilema of the criterion.
Let's explore how folks have tried to tackle this headscratcher.
It's like trying to solve a tough riddle.
People have come up with different ways to deal with this tricky problem.
One approach to this trulema.
It's called "Foundationalism."
(02:10):
It's a bit like building a solid house.
Foundationalists believe that to know something, you need a rock-solid foundation.
Some basic beliefs that don't need any further proof.
These beliefs are like the unshakable base of all your other ideas.
They say, "Okay, we might not be able to prove everything."
But we've got these core beliefs that we just know are true.
Then there's coherentism, the core cousin of foundationalism.
(02:34):
Instead of relying on one super strong foundation, coherentists think of knowledge like a web.
Every belief is connected to others, forming a big, interconnected network.
They say, "Sure, maybe we can't have rock-solid foundations."
But as long as all our beliefs fit together nicely and make sense as a whole, we're good to go.
Another gang tackling this trulema is the pragmatists.
(02:56):
These folks say, "Hey, instead of worrying about whether our beliefs are true or not,
let's focus on whether they work."
It's like testing if a tool actually helps you fix things,
rather than worrying if you fully understand how the tool works.
They're all about practicality and usefulness.
And don't forget about skepticism.
These peeps take a different route.
(03:19):
They're like the doubting tomases of philosophy.
Skeptics say, "Hold on a second, folks."
Maybe we can't really know anything for sure.
They question everything and raise doubts about whether we can truly have certain knowledge about anything at all.
Each of these approaches brings its own flavor to the table when dealing with the trulema.
They're like different strategies in a game, some build sturdy foundations,
(03:43):
others weave intricate webs of beliefs, while some focus on practicality,
and then there are those who cast doubt on everything.
None of these approaches has completely cracked the code of the trulema.
They each have their strengths and weaknesses just like different tools in a toolbox.
Some might seem more appealing than others,
(04:04):
but they all grapple with this tricky puzzle in their own.
So while philosophers keep on pondering and debating,
trying to crack this trulema wide open,
it's clear that finding a one-size-fits-all solution isn't a piece of cake.
It's like trying to solve a puzzle without knowing all the pieces.
Tricky, confusing, and sometimes a little frustrating.
(04:24):
All right, let's take a stroll down memory lane
and peek into history to see how this trulema of the criterion
has tickled the brains of some big-shot philosophers.
These intellectual heavyweights have been wrestling with this puzzle for centuries,
each bringing their own flavor to the mix.
Let's kick it off with our friend Socrates.
(04:45):
Yep, the old Greek dude.
He was all about asking questions, questioning everything really.
Socrates wasn't a big fan of claiming he knew stuff for sure.
He said, "The only thing I know is that I know nothing."
He doubted everything, giving birth to a whole
philosophy of skepticism.
Then there's good old Renee Disgarts,
(05:06):
the guy famous for saying, "I think therefore I am."
He was on a quest for certainty trying to find something he could know for sure.
He wanted to build a rock-solid foundation for knowledge,
but Scarts is all about starting from scratch,
doubting everything until he found an unquestionable truth.
Jumping ahead a bit, let's meet David Hume.
This Scottish thinker had a knack for poking holes in how we think we know things.
(05:31):
He was all about challenging our beliefs and showing how our ideas might not be as solid as we think.
Hume raised serious doubts about cause and effect,
shaking up the way people saw the world.
And how could we forget?
Emanuel Kant.
This dude was a heavyweight in philosophy.
Kant had this whole idea about how our minds shape the world we see.
(05:53):
He believed that our brains aren't just passive receivers of info,
but actively shape our understanding of reality.
He shook up the game by questioning whether we can truly know things as they are.
From each of these legends brought their A-game to the table.
When it came to wrestling with this trilemma,
they had different takes, different ideas,
and different ways of approaching the puzzle.
(06:15):
But here's the kicker.
None of them cracked it wide open.
Nope, this trilemma is like that tricky puzzle
that just won't let itself be solved easily.
These philosophers laid down the groundwork for thinking about how we know stuff,
paving the way for future generations to pick up the baton
and keep on running with this mind-bending puzzle.
(06:35):
They might not have solved it,
but their ideas and debates have shaped how we think about knowledge and truth today.
Pass forward to the modern world where this trilemma of the criterion still keeps philosophers
up at night, scratching their heads and sipping lots of coffee.
Yep, it's a puzzle that hasn't lost its shine.
Enter the analytic philosophers.
(06:56):
These folks are all about breaking things down,
analyzing every bit, and using logic as their trusty sidekick.
They've jumped into the ring with the trilemma,
trying to dissect and analyze the very nature of knowledge.
They brought in fancy tools like logic,
language analysis, and rigorous reasoning to tackle this puzzle.
They've but hold your horses because here come the continental philosophers.
(07:19):
They're the rebels, the ones who take a different route,
instead of chopping things into tiny logical bits.
They dive into the messy, human side of things,
emotions, culture, society.
You name it?
They've got their own take on the trilemma.
Often focusing on how our understanding of truth is shaped by our experiences
(07:40):
and the world around us.
And then there's the pragmatists making a comeback.
These practical-minded folks aren't just about theory.
They're all about putting ideas to the test.
They're like, hey, if it works, it works.
Pragmatists are interested in the practical consequences of beliefs,
rather than getting lost in debates about whether they're objectively true.
(08:02):
Meanwhile, skepticism hasn't left the building.
Nope, these doubting tomases are still here asking questions
and raising doubts about whether we can ever really know anything for certain.
They keep the fire of uncertainty burning bright,
reminding us that the quest for absolute certainty might be a never-ending one.
But wait, there's more.
Enter the epistemologists, the specialists in knowledge itself.
(08:26):
They like detectives trying to uncover the mysteries of how we acquire knowledge,
how we justify it, and what it even means to know something.
They're at the forefront of the ongoing debate.
Bringing in new ideas, theories, and ways of the...
in this modern landscape of philosophy,
the trillema remains a hot topic,
with different schools of thought bringing their unique perspectives to the table.
(08:49):
They like players in a grand orchestra,
each playing their part in the symphony of ideas and debates.
So, as we navigate this maze of thoughts, theories,
and perspectives, one thing's for sure.
The trillema of the criterion isn't a puzzle with an easy solution.
It's a complex knot that keeps philosophers on their toes,
(09:10):
sparking debates, and pushing us to rethink how we understand knowledge and truth.
This is the end of the episode.
Listening to an episode many times may help you memorize and utilize its information more effectively.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.