I'm not making an argument against axioms I don't think, I'm just trying to establish if we mean the same thing by the word "axiom". Any help you can give me on what you mean by the word would be appreciated. Is it the same as the "basic beliefs" in Plantinga's argument?
No, I really do mean "ignore". I'm aware that there are alternative explanations for what I experience, but that awareness isn't enough to keep me functional. The darn things keep demanding a response.
So you basically said "this is driving me so crazy that I'd rather start believe it even if it isn't so than deny it and be driven crazy by it?"
that apparent understanding can often disguises serious disconnects that the participants either are not aware of, or do not find necessary to resolve for the purposes of the conversation
Sure, that's fine; the participants don't need to resolve those things in order to reason about whether the tea will stain the carpet, and that's why it's where I think we should start. Someone who replies to "pass the spoon, will you?" with "there is no spoon" isn't a deep philosopher, just a pain!
no subject
No, I really do mean "ignore". I'm aware that there are alternative explanations for what I experience, but that awareness isn't enough to keep me functional. The darn things keep demanding a response.
So you basically said "this is driving me so crazy that I'd rather start believe it even if it isn't so than deny it and be driven crazy by it?"
that apparent understanding can often disguises serious disconnects that the participants either are not aware of, or do not find necessary to resolve for the purposes of the conversation
Sure, that's fine; the participants don't need to resolve those things in order to reason about whether the tea will stain the carpet, and that's why it's where I think we should start. Someone who replies to "pass the spoon, will you?" with "there is no spoon" isn't a deep philosopher, just a pain!