I think this is the most comprehensive and clearly described point of view the thread has inspired. — Cheshire

Thank you, @Cheshire. I am very glad that you consider my contribution valuable! :)

What I meant to say was our world, i.e. our worldview, is determined by how many words (read concepts/ideas) we know/understand. In other words vocab is a good index of the richness of a life. For example if you don't know or don't recognize nautical terms it means your world is limited to land, you're what sailors call contemptuously a landlubber. — TheMadFool

Of course words enrich one's world. This is only logical. But imagine someone who is reading tons of books, he is assisted by dictionaries and has the richest vocabulary on earth. However since he was disabled since infancy and confined to a chair, he has very little experience of the world. Imagine now someone who is semi-literate, yet he is out there in the world, working, travelling, enjoying life, etc. How their worlds would compare? Whose world would be richest and fullest (subjectively or objectively)?

Re your example: One travels a lot and is very often at sea but has very little knowledge of nautical terms. Can you say that his world is limited to land?

Considering now both my and your examples, can you still say that (the number of) words determine one's world?

Nice topic!

I firmly believe things are right or wrong apart from who does them. But, I can't account for how this could be; because every case seems to be about an observer. — Cheshire

I assume that by "apart from" you mean "independently of" and that "about an observer" you mean "depends on the observer". Right?

I would also have to assume the term "morality" with the general meaning "The extent to which an action is right or wrong". Because it can be used with other meanings too (e.g. rules/principles of right or wrong behavior, etc.)

Finally, I consider as moral action as one that makes more good than harm. For whom? Well, for the greatest number. Humans are social beings. This means that if my action can affect others, I have to consider if it will make more good or harm to them. And if I have already done it, I have to ask myself if it made more good or harm to them.

Now, let's see your questions:

1. Is it Morally wrong to destroy a beautiful painting?
2. What if no one would have ever seen it?
3. What if you painted it? — Cheshire

We can apply the definition-criterion I mentioned above (I don't want to call it "rule" or "principle") to every one of them:
1. How destroying the painting (that you value as "beautiful") could affect others?
2. I'm not sure what do you mean by "no one would have ever seen it". How can this happen? For one thing, you must be one who has seen it! :))
3. It is you who painted it, you have basically the right to do whatever you want with it. However, on a higher moral plane, if you think that it would be good --for one or the other reason-- to show it and even give it as a present to other people, e.g. family, friends, etc. wouldn't it be wrong to destroy it?

Once we are talking about art, maybe you know about the Tibetan mosaics that are created with colored sand ... Very beautiful, very detailed and big. They take quite long to finish. Yet, when the group is satisfied with the result, they just destroy them with a few sweeping movements! This has of course an explanation, but the fact is that they all agree that destroying these creations is a good and meaningful act.

Conclusion: There are universal and thus objective criteria upon which a person can act or judge his actions. It does not matter how he (for brevity) evaluates good or harm, this is always subjective. But from the moment that he believes that something is right or wrong, and acts according to those criteria, his actions are moral. "Be true to yourself", they say. Moral integrity is one of the most important things in human behavior and consciousness. The only thing one can do wrong is breaking that integrity!

The limits of my language mean the limits of my world. — Ludwig Wittgenstein

This sounds unfortunate. One's world (reality) consists much more than words (language). It also contains images, sounds, feelings, experiences, ... In fact, one's world gets limited only when one tries to put it in words. This is what we mean when we say "I can't explain it in words ..."

Be your own "Wittgenstein" and let him be himself! :)

The OP is a paragraph drawn from the end of an essay, not really designed to justify everything. Its a conversation starter that doesn't stand alone, you've got to read the entire thread! I'm not being exhibitionistic, merely trying to refine my ideas by eliciting some constructive feedback from a few dudes, and you'll see that my theory did improve because of this discussion. — Enrique

How can you expect someone to read more of the topic if you start it with a whole paragraph that sounds like gibberish? This is "suicidal" (for your post). If you really want to get sensible responses, you have to start with something also sensible and undestandable. Isn't this obvious?

It's possible for one's own opinion to overlap with that of others. I don't think Enrique is claiming he came up will all this completely by himself. Not that I understand it particularly. — bert1

This is true. But the main point of my reply was that all that is gibberish and pretentious.

That is to say, we evolved capacities that make us suffer more than other animals. Those capacities that helped us survived also gave us that greater awareness of suffering. — schopenhauer1

I think I have already mentioned that humans seem to suffer more (i.e. are more aware of suffering than animals, although we can't know how much). But, godssake, this does not make humans less fit! Suffering is only a part of both the human and the animal life. Again, this is "too narrow a view".
So, after all this, I admit that I was unable to pass this message to you.

Conclusion: Thoughts are neither matter nor energy.

In other words, thoughts are nonphysical. — TheMadFool

I fully agree. I would like to make this more "real" by adding that while thought has no mass or wave length, it can create wave length and affect the phhysical universe. It is not and does not contain motion. It contains an image of mass, energy and motion. In this sense, it can be said that it is a "kind of energy", but which is not part of the physical universe.

Question: Is mind also nonphysical? If I see triangular objects (nonphysical things) popping out of a machine (the brain), there must be something triangular in that machine (the mind must be nonphysical). — TheMadFool

I can't answer staightly to this. Mind can be defined and described in different ways and in general it is something much more complicated than thought. It is easier to examine and describe functions, capabilities and in general parts of it separately.

The following is a description of what I think is the most valid framework for modeling consciousness that currently exists. Tell me what you think!
In my opinion, the most viable current theory is a sort of diversely pluralistic monism explaining perception as conventional chemistry infused with distinctly quantum dynamics, most essentially the superpositions or blended wavelengths which bring about complex assortments of color and feeling within matter. Yet it sharply differs from the physicalism that has been so pervasive amongst science’s monist accounts of material structure, instead regarding the hallmarks of perception as taking effect at a very basic level, something more akin to panpsychism. — Enrique

In this paragraph only I found the following rather exotic philosophical.scientific terms/concepts: pluralistic monism, quantum dynamics, superpositions or blended wavelengths, panpsychism. And then you pretend all this is your opinion and ask from people to tell you what they think!

So, here is what I think: All this is exhibitionistic gibberish.

(This is a honest answer.)

Maybe but Nietzsche has some good points and also his criticism need to be taken with a grain of salt. Mostly I take psychological points from his writing as does Jordan Peterson — Gregory

The statement I commented on was "Mercy is a weakness not a virtue". I don't remember Nietzsche's views on morality nor do I intend to study again his work just for that!

↪Alkis Piskas I like how you say i have no clue what it is without stating what it is — Gitonga

I am not going to "state" (!) what it is. You have to get your feet wet! However, because maybe you cannot select among the million of references in the Web on the subject, I can suggest a few standard sources:

- Utilitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)
- Utilitarianism (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/utilitarianism.asp)
- The History of Utilitarianism (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/)

And if you are wondering how I understood that you don't have any idea about the subject, it is because none of these references say that you have to give all your money and property to charity or something similar! This is your idea.

But I have said enough. I hope at least that it is not done it in vain.

It's always easier to critique something if you commence by misunderstanding it. — Banno

Of course, @Banno. In fact, I think you are quite lenient in your remark. For me, the content of this topic shows total irresponsibility --the person is talking about a subject without having any idea what it is really about-- and actually lacks any philosophical perspective.

Topic: (Close to) No one truly believes in Utilitarian ethics

Utilitarian ethics is supposed to be the greatest amount of good for the largest amount of people, but how many of you ACTUALLY live on the bare minimum and give all your money away to charity so that others can live on the bare minimum? — Gitonga

No one truly believes? What do you mean by "truly"? That what people believe about it is not actually true? That they are faking?

I am afraid that you don't even know what Utilitarian ethics is. And, most importantly, you didn't even care to explore the subject. Instead, you just took a statement that is attributed to it and judge a whole system and huge subject (33 million results in Google) based on an offhand, limited --and in fact, false-- interpretation of that statement. This shows total irresponsibility and lacks any philosophical perspective.

Zapffe's point was a little bit different than mine, but related. You have to read him in the full context. His was more about our general awareness of our own existence in general and our own understanding of our own suffering. Thus he thinks we use psychological mechanisms to prevent us from constantly hitting these "dead ends" in a way by sublimation (get involved in an engrossing activity), distraction, anchoring (like using ideas of "hard work", "society man", "good parent", "good citizen"), and isolation (narrowly focus on a particular thing). — schopenhauer1

I don't know exactly how "long" is this "full context", but if I had to sit down and read entire pages on what one philosopher or another say, that would consume more than 24hr a day, w/o considering breaks, sleep and eating! :) But even if I did, I could not discuss a whole book or work of a philosopher in this communication medium. So, I can only respond to statements that have been selected by the poster of the topic, who knows best about the philosopher, statements that are supposed to be characteristic and/or representative of his theory and views. And in this case, I have responded not to just one statement but to a whole paragraph. Isn't that fair?

Now, the details you are presenting may or may not change the message sent by the first paragraph. So, if that whole paragraph is not representative of this guy's theory or views or it is insufficient, then you should select one that is. Fair enough, too?

E.g, the good, the telos, the dialectical, etc. — Shawn

The philosopher, for himself or herself. — Shawn

OK. Thank you.

I was talking about letting people free when they deserve a punishment. — Gregory

I see. But this is not about mercy. It has rather to do with justice. Then of course, one should be punished when he has done harm. This is mainly the task of courts, committees, etc. However, even them consider various factors regarding a person before punishing him: prior honest life, honest repentance, etc.

Again, showing mercy is not a sign of weakness. The one who is weak is the person who asks mercy (instead of accepting the consequences of his actions). Isn't that so?

Topic: Nietzsche's condemnation of the virtues of kindness, Pity and compassion

I think Nietzsche was right. Mercy is a weakness not a virtue. — Gregory

First of all, "compassion" and "mercy" are two different things. Look them up. Compassion involves "showing concern". Mercy involves "forgiveness".

Anyway, since you brought up "mercy" ... Have you heard about merciless people? They only seek punishment. They have nothing to do with Nietzsche's "superhuman". In fact, the opposite: they are weak. They are coward, resentful, ruthless, unforgiving, even fascists ... People like them are despised in any society.

So, I believe you got it all wrong: Showing mercy (forgiveness) needs strength in most occasions. It indicates sanity and rationality. On the contrary, "ruthlessness" indicates weakness, insanity and irrationality. Nietzsche would never support such human attributes!

The description/analysis of your topic is too long for me, I am sorry about this, but please let me comment on the first paragraph.

Zapffe's view is that humans are born with an overdeveloped skill (understanding, self-knowledge) which does not fit into nature's design. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe#Philosophical_work

At first reading I found that an interesting view, holding some truth in it. But only for a few seconds. Because I then thought, "Indeed humans tend to suffer much more than animals, on both the biological and emotional level (although we can't say exactly how much animals suffer). Yet, how can one bring up this "overdeveloped skill" --in fact, skills-- as a factor of lack of fitting in the nature? It's an incredibly narrow view! It disregards how these skills make him not only survive and fit better than animals but also extending their control of their environment to an extent that is not even comparable to that of the animals.

It is true that man often abuses his abilities and skills and can create more harm than good. And it also true that he often tries to explain the unexplainable and exceed himself, becomes vain and so on, mainly because of these "overdeveloped" (actually superior) skills and abilities. But these things certainly cannot be used as arguments to support this guy's (Zapfie) theory.

The tragedy, following this theory, is that humans spend all their time trying not to be human. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe#Philosophical_work

Another total exaggeration: "all their time" ??

The human being, therefore, is a paradox. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Wessel_Zapffe#Philosophical_work

From false premises/assumptions/hypothesis he draws a false conclusion: a paradox. Well, I can't see any paradox in all that. (Except maybe this one: how these "overdeveloped" skills can make somemone have such narrow views and draw such false conclusions! :) )

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went. — PoeticUniverse

Your poem tried to create a confusion in me. But I din't let it do so! :)

You find me in total agreement with what you say @Jack Cummins. (This is something very rare for me to say to someone in these remote exchanges!)

I interact very often and have quite valuable exchanges with very interesting people in Quora, which I joined about 3 years ago. It is also a "human" place. Of course, it's an "all-subject" forum and cannot compare at all to this forum quality-wise, but still philosophy has a big share among all the various subjects.

Like you, I also enjoy a lot writing! In fact, exteriorizing my thoughts by writing them down and esp. sharing them with others and interacting with others on them, has expanded my awareness and strengthened my reality and my reasoning ability (critical thinking) to a very marked degree!

Thank you for your wishes! I have already started to like this place and feel quite positive about it for the future! :)

It does seem that philosophy as a way of life is important to profess or has value rather than not. Values seem important but are encapsulated in how we spend our time pursuing different ends. Is it really a matter of preference as I think your implicitly stating? — Shawn

Preference over what? (Preference refers to at least two items from which we like one more than another.)
Anyway, as I read the topic again, there's also another question that arises: "Value for whom?" The society, the philosopher himself or both? In my comment, although I had in mind "the philosopher himself", he is still the most qualified to talk about the value of philosophy, in general.
Who is the one to know better and talk about the value of computer programming if not the computer programmer himself?

I don't think someone can have an opinion on the value of philosophy as a way of life, if he has not lived such a life and for quite some time. Only philosophers, dedicated to this field of study can talk about this.

The value of philosophy in life is a totally different thing, of course

I think you have to look up the word "object" in a standard dictionary.

I can't see any "definition" or "theory" in all that. You must look up these words in a standard dictionary.

Thank you, @Jack Cummins. I will consider your suggestion about starting a new thread on utilitarian etchis (or other subject). For the moment though, I am getting acquainted with "The Philosophy Forum" and its various topics and members. And I am really glad that I met this Forum, because it is "human". One feels welcome and can get immediately involved, meet people, carrying discussions, etc. Three other forums I "tried" this month, were totally unacceptable! They either have a weird/bad administration system, or one feels a stranger if not ignored (unanswered questions and replies!), and so on. It was also a pleasure to meet you and have these exchanges with you!

First of all, thank you for considering my post as something "impressive". For me, what I exposed is like the air we breathe, that essential, for many years now.

I think that you are really describing a utilitarian approach to ethics, but more from the standpoint of the view that the individual subjects should be thinking of their own lives in terms of the greater good. — Jack Cummins

Right, it can be said that this is an utilitarian view. And it is the only view I can see "good" and "evil" (ethics) from.

I think that it may be easier to apply to the principle of evil than good in the sense of people wishing to avoid doing evil. I believe that is because most people fear evil to a large extent — Jack Cummins

As I have mentioned in parentheses. "evil" may be used also with some other meaning. One of them is e.g. "Evil" as some dark idea --even more than that: an entity-- that most people fear, and which has been manufactured and promoted by various religions, esp. dogmatic ones, who wanted to control people by creating fear in them. Devil, demons, hell and all these crazy and horrible stuff are the products of that and are haunting people since ever! Their purpose was to make people obey some other --also inexistent-- entity (God, angels, paradise), opposite to "Evil" and protecting them from Evil, of which they appear as representatives! No. I have no interest in considering "evil" from that viewpoint. It's a bogeyman for adults! This kind of "evil" and all its paraphernalia can only exist --actually, planted-- in our minds. And they indicate mental illness. (BTW, all kinds of "evils" indicate some kind of mental illness.)

So, since as can I see my post was not exactly what you expected as a response to your thread, and since you find it interesting, maybe you can keep it for some other thread of yours on "good and evil", utilitarian this time! :)

Topic: Can we explain the mystery of existence?

Nevertheless, I think that, even then, we can create our own sense of meaning and purpose. — Jack Cummins

I agree with that. It is worth listening to people's opinion on the subject, anyway. E.g. one may come up with an answer that it is up to use to create a purpose for/in life ... Besides, mine was one of them! :)

I think that some people have come up with some excellent attempts to answer this question during the last couple of weeks in this thread. — Jack Cummins

To be honest I didn't read much of the thread ... I have read so much already on the subject that I lost my appetite! Nevertheless, you are very right and thank you for bringing this up. I will certainly read more comments/replies in your thread. They might whet my appetite! :)

Thank you, @Jack Cummins. I look forward to your response!

Topic: Can we explain the mystery of existence?

Jack Cummins
58
I am raising this question partly because so many threads are based on the claim that no God exists. I realise that this is complex, but I do believe that it does lead to the question of why anything exists at all, which goes back to Spinoza. I am not sure that there any easy answers to the questions, but, aside from the question of whether or not there is a rational explanation for a God behind existence, I am left puzzling about the nature of existence. I don't know if anyone else wonders about this, or perhaps it has been tackled in previous threads, but I am wondering about the whole nature of existence, including sentient beings, like ourselves, and all forms of existence. How can we explain the existence and development of life at all? — Jack Cummins

I certainly don't have the answer or even an answer to this question! I have a question instead: Since this question exists since "ever" and still remains unanswered --letting aside, mythology and unproved metaphysical and theological views-- at least not answered to a common satisfaction for most people, shouldn't it be logical to say that either 1) there is no answer to it or 2) it cannot be answered by humans? The first case can be extended to mean that there is no reason/purpose for life. The second case can be extended to mean that there is or must/should be a reason//purpose for the existence but the human mind cannot solve the mystery.

Mysteries act as a very strong magnet to the human mind. The bigger the mystery, the stronger the magnet. That's why we can't get rid of this kind of questions.

But let's pause for a while and ask ourselves: Aren't we even near to the answer or at least getting closer to it? How long more should we wait before realizing that we are chasing phantoms?

Therefore: Shouldn't we at some point accept the fact and admit that we cannot solve the mystery, give up, and move on, creating other useful and fruitful questions?

Topic: What Is Evil

Is it totally relative to religion/culture you were brought up in? Or is there a totally SECULAR way to define it? Well, that’s the biggest question in philosophy! Ex: is killing Evil? What if you kill a person who has hurt many people? My definition of Evil is “That Which Increases Suffering (in magnitude or in numbers). In my definition for instance, the Catholic Church is evil because it’s No Birth Control policy has caused overpopulation and poverty to MILLIONS! Joe Rogan agrees and he was born Catholic. I deny the Abrahamic god and in my definition that god is Evil. — Trey

I like your definition of "evil" and I agree with it as a viewpoint. However, there's much more to say about that, which can prove that "good" and "evil" are or should be considered as objective things (attributes, attitudes, acts, etc.)

Yesterday I wrote a reply on a very similar topic: Thoughts on defining evil. So, if you are interested, you can read that reply at https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/comments/10626/alkis-piskas

is evil subjectively constructed, or does it stem from objective aspects of life, beyond our own human thinking and meanings? — Jack Cummins

This is a very interesting topic @Jack Cummins!

***

I assume that by "subjectively constructed" you mean something that is thought of as subjective in nature and it has such an application and value in life, in opposition of course to "objective".

Assuming also that "evil" is mainly the opposite of "good" (i.e. it may be used also with some other meaning), if we prove that "good" is something objective, then "evil" would also be something objective. Right?

Next, I will simply define "good" as something that helps, promotes and enhances survival in both the physical and mental planes. (If you are asking "Good for whom?", please read on.)

Now a lot would claim that "good" and "moral" is something subjective and that "what is good for me may not be good for you". So each one has his (for brevity) own point of view and should act accordingly. This is a totally wrong viewpoint and unfortunately it is taken by many people on the subject of morality! Because they consider it as something personal, to be compared only with what the other person accepts as and believes is good.

However, if one moves just a little out of this confinement of "self", and considers his family, he will immediately realize that he cannot apply "what is good for me may not be good for my family" anymore. Because he is part of his family and what is good for him must be also good for his family and vice versa. His actions must be directed more towards the survival of his family than towards himself. And in fact, helping his family he helps himself and becomes stronger.

Moving a little more outside the confinement of the family, one interacts with his friends, his colleagues, his company, and all kinds of groups with whom he shares a common purpose. (He has accepted and agreed to that, implicitly or explicitly.) So, since he is a member of these groups, what is good for him must be also good for his friends and groups. Again, helping his groups he helps himself and becomes stronger.

Finally, as a human being, and to live in harmony with his fellow men, he has to promote the survival of all as far as this is possible. (Because at this level he is facing also enemies with whom he has not made an agreement and with whom he may have conflicting purposes. Yet, even this can be often handled better by being "good" rather than "evil". But this is outside our subject.)

Now it's time to switch "good" with "evil", which is the subject of the topic. But I believe it has now become already very obvious: Like "good", "evil" is not something subjective but rather objective.

Ethics (and morality) is objective in nature and it has a single law: do the major good for the most. And so "evil" is the opposite: do the major damage for the most. They are both one-way streets.

Yep and yep. By pointing. By saying now. — Trinidad

Sorry about the huge delay of my response. I just saw your reply just now.
It was my mistake to ask two questions. You answered the second one only ("Can you locate a point in time or space?"). OK. But what about the first one (which is the most important): "Can you perceive time with any of your senses?" (I have removed "space", so that there are no two questions again!:)

I am aware of the facility of quotation marks. If I didn’t use them, I didn’t quote anybody. — Mww

OK.

Descartes/Kant 101 merely indicates a synopsis relevant to the topic. — Mww

OK.

You cannot doubt I said I live in Hawaii, so you can say it is true I said it. — Mww

This is shifting from the content, meaning of the message to pronouncing the words of the message. I didn't say I cannot doubt that you said, pronounced those words. I said that I cannot doubt that you are telling the truth (or lying), namely that you are indeed living there. Please read my statement again. So this argument of yours is evidently irrelevant to what I said, which I believe was very simple and clear.. I don't know if this "switch" is done on purpose (e.g. as a form of avoiding my statement) or not. But the discussion from this point and on is useless for me. I hope you can see that.

I believe this thing is on my right side.
I then have a reason to believe that same thing is on my left side.
It is not true that I must now doubt the thing is on my right side, although I might.
It is true I cannot say I know the thing is on my right or on my left. — Mww

I agree with your reasoning.
But next time please add a quote of my comment so that I can know what you are referring exactly to! (As I do myself here.)

Descartes 101: that which can NOT be doubted, must be true. You are saying for that which can be doubted, its negation must be true, which does not hold. — Mww

I don't agree with "that which can NOT be doubted, must be true". First of all, it cannot be doubted by whom? So I will assume that it is me who cannot doubt it. So, if you say to me that you live in Hawaii, I cannot doubt either that you are telling the truth or you are lying. I have no evidence for either case. So, I certainly can't say that it is true!

(I don't quite understand the remaining of the quote you brought up. It looks like it is a continuation of Descartes' quote but it doesn't make much sense ...)

Kant 101: no belief is ever sufficient for knowledge. You have no logical authority to claim affirmative or negative knowledge when given only reasons or no reasons to believe. So in effect, under the given conditions, you are correct in saying you cannot claim to know you are not a fool, but you would be equally correct in claiming you cannot know you are. — Mww

1) Re "No belief is ever sufficient for knowledge": I agree.
2) Re "You have no logical authority to claim affirmative or negative knowledge when given only reasons or no reasons to believe.": OK
3) Re "So in effect, under the given conditions, you are correct in saying you cannot claim to know you are not a fool, but you would be equally correct in claiming you cannot know you are.": Again I can't connect this to Kant's quote ...

Please try to differentiate (using quotation marks, italics, etc.) a third person's quote from yours! Otherwise, you only create confusion and your thoughts seem dispersed!

No. What's the name for someone that sees no reason to believe there is a god and no reason to believe no god exists? An agnostic. And that doesn't mean an agnostic knows that neither option is true.

As no evidence would prove one way or the other whether we are in reality or an illusion, it's reasonable to be agnostic on the question.

As to your fool analogy. Just because you, the potential fool, see no reason to believe you're a fool, it doesn't mean you know you're not a fool. — Down The Rabbit Hole

(Re 'agnostic': I asked you please not to bring up such terms. For one thing, we may have different definitions of them, which means we couldn't discuss on same grounds. That is why I avoid them, except when they are necessary in some way. But here we can very well do without 'agnostic'! :))

Right. If I have no reason to believe that there is a god, I can't say that god doesn't exist. No evidence about something cannot lead to any kind of knowledge about that something, positive or negative in nature.

Yet, this has nothing to do with my "fool" example. (Please notice my quotation marks. Otherwise a fool example means that the example is fool (i.e., foolish, silly)! :)) Because in that case, I am talking about something I know and about which I can bring acceptable (reasonable, conventional, etc.) evidence. So, not only myself but also others would know that I am not a fool.

If there is no reason to believe that I am a fool, it means I know I am not a fool.
— Alkis Piskas — Mww

Since when has a mere contingent cognition (belief) justified a certain cognition (knowledge)? — Mww

You must not interpret arguments the way you like, because it looks like you either don't really undestand them or that you avoid admitting that yours are false. And in the process, the discussion becomes a game in semantics.
So I will help you by rephrasing my argument: "If I had some reason to believe I am a fool, it would make me doubt about what I currently believe, namely that I am not a fool. Which means I could not claim that I know I am not a fool." Makes better sense?
And please, do not use terms like "contingent cognition". Plain English please. That is, "speak" in the same terms as I do.

My answer is No I don't know whether or not I'm a brain in a vat. On the basis that there is no reason to believe either way. — Down The Rabbit Hole

If there is no reason to believe we are a brain-in-a-vat and also there is no reason to believe we are in base reality, it means you know that neither of them is true. If there is no reason to believe that I am a fool, it means I know I am not a fool. So the answer is anyway "Yes, I know".

In other contexts it can also mean Original poster, meaning the person who writes the original post.

By the way, when you google "what is an OP?" you get the definition at the top of the results. — jamalrob

Thank you. Googling it was the first thing I did! Googling "what is an OP?" (verbatim) I get all sorts of irrelevant results (https://www.computerhope.com/jargon/o/op.htm, https://www.thebalancesmb.com/oped-what-is-it-and-how-to-write-it-1360714, ...)

I had to "dig it" to get to https://www.howtogeek.com/698508/what-does-op-mean-online-and-how-do-you-use-it/ where it says "'OP' stands for 'original poster' or 'original post.'"

But why should one do all that (and then not be really certain), when the easiest thing is for the writer of the introduction/documentation to define/describe the abbreviation "OP" within brackets ... It takes just two words! And the reader 1) does not get into trouble of looking it in the Web (which actually is an unacceptable way for an introduction) and 2) is certain that this is it, which is the most important.

No. There is no reason to believe we are a brain-in-a-vat, but there is equally no reason to believe we are in base reality - the experience would feel "real" either way. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That is, your answer to the question "Do you know whether or not you're a brain-in-a-vat whether or not you're a brain-in-a-vat ..." is actually Yes. You do know. Right? :)

What is an "OP"?
Please define it in your introduction for newcomers like myself. It is frustrating for somenone to have to read this abbreviation a dozen of times without knowing what it means.
Thank you