So you don't care about what you said viz. luck (Gettier cases) explains stupidity (I like sushi's razor)? — TheMadFool

It is pretty hard not to reply when you are claiming a quote you wrote were my words.

What actually said was this:

I was actually trying to sneak in that what he is really talking about (underneath) is more or less about plain bad luck framed as Stupidity.
— I like sushi

In reference to the specific definition of Stupidity given in the context of that thread.

I don’t see anything here other than some doctrine I don’t care about and some terms used that lack definitions.

Ignorance meaning what and knowledge meaning what? What is absolute and/or is there ‘absolute’ knowledge? Can anything we know everything about really make sense in the real world? What is ‘the real world’?

Why do you frame the “western” view as having ignorance as a singular ‘poison’ and what does any of that have to do with knowledge and luck other than some brief mention of Gettier?

The above is not what I would call ‘fleshing out’ at all. Let me go blow by blow:

In Buddhism there are The Three Poisons:

1. Moha (ignorance, pig)

2. Raga (greed/sensual attachment, bird)

3. Dvesha (hate/aversion, snake) — TheMadFool

I don’t care.

In Western traditions, from how philosophy, was (unfortunately) such a big deal, there's only one summum malum: — TheMadFool

Why? Because you say so? And if I take this as a given why does it matter?

Western philosophy, I reckon, sees/views the lack of knowledge as the root of all suffering. Buddhism too, by some accounts, traces all suffering back to not knowing. — TheMadFool

So what? You give me an opinion. Let’s see if the next line divulges anything …

Unfortunately for us, as Gettier demonstrates with his Gettier cases, there's an element of chance (luck) in knowledge despite the fact that we have what we believe is a method for distinguishing knowledge from mere opinion viz. logic. — TheMadFool

Knowledge in what form? I could repeat myself about the question of Justified True Belief as being used in ‘real world’ (clearly open to uncertainty) and in the abstract (truths in the abstract in set limits with set rules).

Am I correct in assuming you’re only interested in ‘knowledge’ framed in the ‘real world’ as in with vague speech and limit data?

Never heard of ‘Hackliste’ but it appears to mean a hierarchy of some kind.

I guess we could create a Hackliste for Buddhism as follows:

Prime evil: Ignorance

Lesser evils: Hate, Lust/Greed — TheMadFool

What is that for?

If you just asking how we judge and nothing more then I’m puzzled why you don’t just ask that and instead use ‘knowledge’ and ‘luck’ as a way to get to grips with this problem - without articulating exactly what you mean by ‘luck’ and ‘knowledge’ as these are the key elements you’ve chosen.

This could be boiled down to an example perhaps? How about this question in relation to whatever you’re trying to look at …

Is it better to steal from a thief or a murderer? Which is more justified? Is there any way to decide between the two that can be agreed upon?

This is the kind of moral investigation people shy away from. Ou can offer another more closely related to whatever you mean if you wish and show me via that what our point/question is.

Failing the above maybe reiterating certain Gettier cases might help here?

there's an element of chance (luck) in knowledge despite the fact that we have what we believe is a method for distinguishing knowledge from mere opinion viz. logic. — TheMadFool

Like I’ve tried to get across a number of times this ‘believing’ is key. Outside of the abstract ‘logic’ looses rigidity. We apply it in the real world because it is the only thing we know of that works in limited instances with 100% accuracy if the limit remains constant and rules are followed exactly without exception.

In the real world errors occur due to bad/good luck, lack of data (not necessarily ‘knowledge’ but that depends on how we’re distinguishing terms?) and/or entropy (the ‘real world’ is not necessarily a static item like constructed abstractions are). No one has an answer to the relation/separation between consciousness, the physical world and mathematics - we’re not omnipotent.

This is the kind of quandary where nihilistic notions often begin to germinate. There are different reactions where people lean into the nihilism, or generally side more readily with physical positivism or metaphysical ideals.

Yes. — TheMadFool

You were talking about ‘knowledge’ and ‘luck’ right in terms of the Gettier problem? That is what I was talking about.

isagree. Nothing systematic about luck. — TheMadFool

‘Entropy’ is ‘systematic’? I don’t understand. How do you define luck? I view it as a simple distribution issue. Some people will necessarily have things go for them more than against them and vice versa.

As the old physics joke goes ‘if you don’t know what something is just call it Entropy’. There is nothing systematic about something we know understand … or is there? :)

I've been over morality numerous times before and noticed a reluctance from many to make any serious kind of moral investigation.
— I like sushi

And you're not one of them? :lol: — TheMadFool

Poor wording! ‘Refusal’ for ‘reluctance’. We’re all reluctant as it is painful. I don’t ‘refuse’ to but I can understand why people make excuses not to cause themselves distress and pain.

If you can flesh out what it is you wish to discuss a bit more I’m game :)

or every single thing he did that night was heroic — Miller

That is a hard sell to say the least. I guess you might have a certain view of what a ‘hero’ is that I don’t share.

You provided evidence that was summed up by questions that were not clear with an explanation that amounted to ‘Yes’ for each answer.

I did my best to offer up reasons for your Yeses but never held that they were your reasons. I also asked if you’d watched much of the trial which you didn’t answer so I a inclined to belief ou haven’t (rightly or wrongly).

You set out the questions and answered them with a simple ‘Yes’. I probed and you accused me of fallacies. I do actually want to know the reason for the Yeses but if you’re unwilling so be it.

@Miller Ask yourself if you wish to provoke people or to present a reasonable point in a calm manner.

The main problem is people don’t want to talk as much as they want to shout at each other about why they are right and someone else is wrong.

There is nothing ‘heroic’ about what he did. There are clearly a number of people who are not aware of several facts about this case and that is not exactly unusual.

1. Did R defend himself with his AR-15?

Yes — 180 Proof

Perhaps we can go through these one at a time?

Starting with number 1 I don’t think ‘Yes’ is sufficient. How do you know he defended himself rather than attacked someone? When we ‘defend myself’ what do we mean?

It could be proposed that he in fact went out with the intent to shoot someone and looked for conflict. If so what evidence could there be that would back up this position and is the evidence strong enough to warrant us to take it seriously?

2. All but one of his victims were unarmed?

Yes. — 180 Proof

The judge in this case did not allow the people you refer to to be called ‘victims’. The one that was armed was moving towards Rittenhouse and pointing his gun at him when he was shot (he also said that Rittenhouse acted in self defence).

The other two involved circumstances where they were actively lunging at Rittenhouse. Were they merely trying to disarm him? In the first shooting this doesn’t seem to be so as there were threats to kill Rittenhouse. In the second instance Rittenhouse was on the ground after being attacked by several people. The second person shot was trying to take his gun from him during this attack on Rittenhouse. I don’t see how it isn’t a reasonable threat under the circumstances.

3. Did R go well out of his way to unjustifiably put himself in harm's way?

Yes. — 180 Proof

This is what I would call an unclear statement without any attempt to mark out what is meant by ‘unjustifiably put himself in harm’s way’. Where is the line between justified and unjustified? To say he went ‘well out of his way’ is unclear.

If you meant geographically that doesn’t really hold up given that he had relatives living in the area. This may be assumed when you hear people talking about him ‘crossing state lines’ which sounds like a long long way away, but he couldn’t hand himself into the police in Kenosha.

That aside, it was foolish and naive of him to go alone. He did state in the trial that he was cut off from his original group and the police wouldn’t allow him through. He should’ve realised that things were getting heated maybe? Whether he was aware or not of the danger he was in he did go out alone to apparently deal with a fire in a car. This was stupid. Would I call this going ‘well out of his way’ to ‘put himself in harm’s way’? Going well out of his way is at best a stretch, but putting himself in harm’s way was clearly the case given what happened. He reported trying to make his way back to the group he had found himself with but the way was blocked by those who then proceeded to chase him and threaten him.

What part of this, or other points reported in the trial, lead you to the ‘Yes’ answer?

4. Was R's three casualties the only one's shot during the entire, heavily policed pro-BLM demonstration that night in Kenosha?

Yes. — 180 Proof

Heavily policed yet there were no police around during the shootings. Rittenhouse was not going to ‘get away’ and he was moving towards the police yet people were attacking him with violent intent (ie. hitting him about the head or trying to stamp on his head). If you watched enough of the trial you would know already that he didn’t simply shoot the first person who threw a rock at him.

Other than you maybe trying to portray that the police were all around I don’t see much relevance to this point.

5. Weren't (mostly) unarmed demonstrators, exercising their constitutional right to protest (and the moral principle of civil disobedience), more justified defending themselves against R brandishing his AR-15 than R was against them?

Yes. — 180 Proof

If they were attacked by Rittenhouse. They were not attacked by him though. If someone with a gun is running away from you and trying to avoid conflict you are absolutely not justified in any violent action against them and any serious violent action against them could be framed as ‘wantonly and unjustifiably putting yourself into harm’s way’ more so than someone having a weapon and offering medical aid to people.

I don’t agree with the gun laws in the US and I think he is guilty of being naive. He clearly understood the situation was potentially dangerous but he almost certainly underestimated how dangerous. I hope this instance will bring a change to the laws. I see no good reason why anyone, let a alone a teenager, should be allowed to walk around openly displaying a firearm of any kind - and I would include the police in this too unless it was special forces police. I think any change in the law will be quite difficult as I see no reason to disallow members of the public from owning firearms. The problem becomes how and why weapons are carried and to regulate their use. Also, not having regular police armed is problematic in the US too due to the proliferation of firearms. It is easy to idealise what should be but it is difficult to transition sometimes.

More focus on the incidents that led to the protests and how police are trained and recruited is better all round for everyone. Politics and media don’t seem to be helping the situation so more protests and demonstrations are something I would actively encourage even though they will inevitably be used to bolster this or that political agenda, or as media content for the sake of increasing revenues for media outlets.

I’ve said it before though. I don’t see the US surviving as one unit into the next century so I’m just looking at how nations may split up with minimal conflict and how they such splits can be used to make things better rather than assuming such historical moments have to involve violence and death.

Yeah, because he was white. That's the point. — James Riley

You missed my point. I meant in respect to someone black carrying gun because that is what I said. You sound emotional so I’ll stop.

I meant if they were there during the shooting.

You see, that the thing about video. I saw the cops all butt-hole buddy with him before the shoot. That's my outrage. Had he been black, he would have been on his face, or shot down like a dog. — James Riley

Maybe, maybe not. I’m sure given the circumstances the police were extremely mindful and trying to avoid such a thing though so I wouldn’t just assume they’d shoot someone black on that night for carrying a gun. Arrested? Very likely.

Pretty much. That was the source of my outrage. — James Riley

If the police were there it would have been different. They weren’t. That was one failing but they were literally pushed out. The incident that sparked the protests and riot should be the focus not Rittenhouse - I don’t see the use in framing Rittenhouse as hero or villain (just a naive teenager).

Done that already. Did you watch any of the trial? I assume you maybe caught some media snippets and not much more by your reaction.

Shortly after the initial incident, I saw videos and heard stories. My heart became bad. Very bad. Especially when I heard about the conduct of law enforcement officers who had interactions with the shooter before the shooting.

I decided my thoughts were bad for me, and that I could put it out of my mind, at least temporarily, by honoring the rule of law and awaiting action, if any, from the justice system. Some time went by.

Then the verdict came down, and my heart went bad again. — James Riley

If you interested/concerned then why not watch the trial and put your mind at rest rather than listening to stories? It looked crazy to me so I watched large portions of the trial. I still think it’s weird that a 17 yr old, or anyone, can walk around with a gun. That said, he clearly acted in self defence.

Try watching large portions of the actual trial. He was clearly not guilty and the guy he shot (who didn’t die) also said so.

Running away from people and being attacked whilst on the ground is not putting oneself in a position where you wish to use the full force in your possession.

Carrying a weapon (in this case) wasn’t and isn’t provocation in the eyes of the law.

Running away from and trying to deter someone screaming that they wanted to kill you isn’t provocation.

Falling to the ground after being chased and pelted by a mob, hit and kicked in the head and neck isn’t provocation.

Shooting someone who points a gun at you isn’t provocation.

Rittenhouse is guilty of being naive. He is a teenager though so that isn’t exactly shocking. I can only assume you have a vested emotional interest in this case yet cannot believe you actually watched much of the trial when you state ‘not self defence’.

I personally don’t see why a 17 yr old should be allowed to carry a gun around legally. It is insane to push for someone to be sent to prison for following the law instead of looking to change the law.

From what I can tell there is outrage simply because he was white and the police didn’t shoot him. There are clearly too many cases where the police use excess force resulting in the death of people. It would be manslaughter at least if they weren’t police officers.

He is guilty of being naive but not much more.

I can only assume you didn’t watch the trail or know much about it. In fact I know this.

We're going off-topic. Thank you for the conversation. It was interesting. If you feel that you have anything specific to say regarding the OP do post. If I can I'll try and respond. Keep an eye out for updates from me. — TheMadFool

Are we? If we're going to talk about knowledge then I think mentioning epistemology makes sense, and given my view of its connection to ontology that is also relevant.

'Luck' is just 'entropy' at work. I believe Fortune was one Roman goddess they all praised when something went well for them. When people laugh and say 'luck doesn't exist' they think of it as some mystical item rather than entropy at work.

I've been over morality numerous times before and noticed a reluctance from many to make any serious kind of moral investigation. People prefer to abscond from feeling and resort to logic as a means of shirking responsibility from making a poor choice. This is because they can always say after the matter of the fact that they used logic. Using logic in a given human situation is more correctly framed as 'rational' than 'logical' - things get complicated when the items involved are not discrete (ie. languages such as English).

Ethics is unethical because it is roughly framed as a one size fits all item rather than a more nuanced and personal thing where individuals act in ways they wish to act rather than acting in ways they are told is better to act.

Nietzsche respected the man who killed because wanted to kill but not the man who killed and then said they killed in the act of stealing. Covering up our acts with reasons is more often than not self deceit. Worded thought itself has embedded within it the 'society' so thought holding to speech cannot really escape the ties of society and therefore has to guard against acting out of social coercion rather than purposeful individual intent (which is generally what we all wish as we think of ourselves as acting as we wish to act rather than acting as we're taught to act).

Returning to what you said, mathematically ontology = epistemology, — TheMadFool

I didn't. but clearly I did to you as you're using the term 'mathematically' in a rather specific and rather unusual sense.

If I start throwing out terms like enantidromia (which funnily enough has a red squiggly line under it!) I think that is less tangible than what I may wish to get across.

My vocabulary is above average as I have a love of language and I'm far enough past juvenile years to have naturally amalgamated a quarry of terms and phrases into a broad enough lexicon.

The only problem with your point of view, if it is a problem at all, is that the rationale seems to be, for lack of a better term, fuzzy-logic based. — TheMadFool

Fuzzy logic in lived life not in abstract realms. Given that when we're talking about 'knowledge' and such and talk about it in terms of lived life then I very much side with fuzzy logic as I'm not omnipotent. When it comes to an easily appreciated set of rules and limits I wouldn't waste my time with fuzzy logic as we can easily determine what is or isn't.

It generally boils down to 'what do you mean?' and in situations where we are dealing with absolute universals there is no room for a 'what do you mean?'.

You said JTB was the standard yet you talk about Gettier (which shows problems with JTB.

My 'position' is not crystallised nor do I wish it to be.

I can dumb it down and state some points regarding ontology and epistemology?

It is nothing extraordinary but it may seem pedantic. Ontology deals with what is 'existent' (broadly speaking) and epistemology deals with 'knowledge' (broadly speaking). I am saying these are the same. We declare what is 'existent' through framed as 'knowledge' and what is 'knowledge' by what is framed as 'existent'.

There is use in splitting them to focus on different elements more specifically but if we ignore that they the same then we may miss out on an overarching philosophical view.

If you can understand that and understand the kind of problems it may pose as well as the kind of problems it may resolve then I don't really need to expound my point about 'beliefs' and 'knowledge'.

'Ken' was a common enough verb in English not so long ago. 'Truth attitude' is less tangible and more or less leaning towards something like 'Epoche' in a Husserlian phenomenological sense - meaning not being concerned with some 'truth' but simply observing and regarding in a freeform style rather than 'truth seeking' for the sake of bolstering some given position.

I might help to think about some people having a 'truth attitude' towards 'knowledge' and others having a 'truth attitude' towards 'belief'. The point is they are just 'truth attitudes' and it doesn't matter particularly what it is 'towards' - just like having a focus on ontology rather than epistemology doesn't really matter as they are effectively making the same misstep.

It will always be nebulous because as far as I can tell there isn't a form of communication available to express what I mean (or rather there is a lack of concepts OR I just haven't found them yet OR I'm too far gone to recognise them).

You seemed to be open so I threw some stuff out. If nothing sticks nothing sticks. Was fun making a vague attempt anyhoos :)

I mean, there really isn't anything being sold here in Buddhism apart for a way of living... — Shawn

I way of living by denying what many consider to be life - ie. no sex, no pain, no desire. It's just a warped nihilism.

virtue signalling — Tom Storm

To accuse someone (or groups) of virtue signaling must make said person a virtue signaler.

I am aware that this is virtue signaling too. I don't have an issue with putting myself on a moral pedestal though. I'm not apologetic about it.

As for epistemology and ontology it is just a convenient distinction not an actual one. We have to use words and define knowledge in order to talk about origins and being, as the terms 'origins' and 'being' must sit somewhere in terms of 'knowledge'. As knowledge only exists within set bounds (rules and limits) the ontological questions don't appear to have a way in yet we can only talk about ontological questions via epistemic understanding (as there is no other 'understanding').

All of these things axiological, yet we have to ask about what value means so we are required to think about the beginning of value and the meaning of value. The ontological and epistemic approaches are just a means of cutting up the problem into manageable pieces, but by doing so it creates the illusion of difference between what something is and what some thing does.

In short too many people fall into believing 'knowledge' is an absolute even when they keep saying they don't do this. I wittingly and willingly believe certain things and frame knowledge as something 'existing' (back to the ontological split from epistemic) as absolute only in abstract boundaries (with clearly defined rules in clear defined limits - a black box). The mistake is to think that the world we live in is a black box.

We are humans trying to be more. We can and will be more because enough of us are Stupid and enough of us are Intelligent.

Like I tried to outline, what we 'know' is not knowledge. We ken the world but we don't know it. We know only via abstraction but we don't 'ken' abstractions.

It should be the other way round, right? — TheMadFool

It depends what we're calling 'knowledge'. In the real world most certainly. In the abstract world most definitely not.

Care to share the details of your theory as regards "how we define evidence"? — TheMadFool

I never talked about a theory. It should be clear enough to you and everyone else that 'evidence' is not a rigidly defined thing. Evidence is often used in 'truth attitudes' too.

In logic we don't look for evidence we provide proofs. the real world plays with evidence whilst the abstract world works with proofs.

A man is wrongly accused at work of stealing. He is sacked and goes home early in an angry state. He walks into his house to find his wife having sex on the counter top with his best friend and neighbour. There happens to be knife readily to hand laying o the counter. In a rage the man picks up the knife and stabs his friend once in the neck cutting his artery. In horror he drops the knife and breaks down in tears whilst his wife screams. They then try and help him but he bleeds to death despite their frantic attempts.

Why did the man’s friend die?

It depends on your beliefs how you express your answer. The answer could be ‘he died because he was born, he died because his friend was wrongly accused of stealing at work, he died because not enough oxygen was getting to his brain, he died because he betrayed his friend, etc.,.

‘Knowledge’ (outside known sets of rules and limits) is always driven by ‘belief’ which is in turn framed by ‘truth attitudes’ (how we actively appeal to evidence and how we define evidence).

It probably helps to employ the Germanic term ‘ken’ rather than confuse it with ‘know’. We ‘ken’ the reason for something but we do not ‘know’ it unless we’re dealing with absolutes (abstract items).

An abstraction would be 1+1=2. We cannot ‘disagree’ that 1+1=2 within the rules and limits of basic arithmetic. Being human we can, and do, make mistakes but in the realm of abstracted functions we’re able to spot and prove our answers. Such answers are ‘knowledge’.

If someone shows their working to be:

1+1 = 1+1 Therefore 1+2 = 2-2 so 1+1= 2

They may not have knowledge, or they may have knowledge, of basic arithmetic. Their unconventional approach may actually be a requirement for them getting to the correct answer even though it may look nonsensical to us.

Abstractions are much easier to verify as such a person using the technique above (whatever it may be) would fail if their approach was faulty. The true benefit of abstractions is that we deal with universal terms not variables. We cannot say that it is ‘knowledge’ when we declare that ‘the Sun rises in the East’ even though we understand this to be evident from most perspectives. Just for clarification we’re not dealing with abstract universals when we talk about the Sun, rising and east. We can ask ‘east relative to what?’ or ‘Rising fro which perspective?’ Whereas we cannot ask ‘which number 1?’ in the same manner as we can ask about items experienced in reality.

A very common problem is applying logic as a means of making knowledge concrete and undeniable. That is nonsense. Knowledge is always an abstraction and even in that realm still requires verification.

In the lived world what is ‘known’ is that to which we are not directly conscious of. When we tend to anything consciously we must necessarily bring it into question. If we cannot tend to it we cannot cognise it - ‘it’ isn’t as ‘it’ for us.

If I refer to the chair I am sitting on it is not because I ‘know it’ it is because I am attending to it. As the chair is a concept I don’t fully understand it as an abstraction or as a specific item (because I cannot be aware of what I ‘know’), and the real functionality of a chair (being a non-universal) does not live in an abstracted realm where there is some ‘absolute chair’ - reference to ‘a chair’ as in ‘specifically this or that chair’ unlike in basic arithmetic where there is no ‘this or that’ number 1 in the abstract realm.

One thing we know about humans. They will adjust their view more if new facts favour them, yet they will not adjust as much for facts that don’t favour them. We are ‘hard-wired’ like this.

‘Stupidity’ is the genius of humanity - as in it is an ‘ethical’ way to do ‘unethical’ human experimentation.

I should probably confound even more by stating that ontology is just the same thing as epistemology and the ‘ethics’ is just some term made up for no apparent reason other than to justify ‘reason’. Mostly ‘ethics’ is ‘unethical’ as it looks to inhibit as any cost all in the name of ‘reducing pain and suffering’ (which I find to be Stupid so I just observe the Stupid and make notes from my ‘ethical palace in the sky’ with no apologetics). All too often people are more hell-bent on ripping down others beliefs than attending to their own. Then there are those that clamour over ‘knowledge’ and dismiss ‘belief’ outright … which is a bizarre ‘belief’ to hold for someone claiming to logical and rational.

You can probably get more of my view on this topic by looking at my first post on the first page.

A justified, true, belief is the current definition of knowledge. — TheMadFool

Not for me.

If you can't expand and elaborate your position nobody can and will take you seriously, right? — TheMadFool

Maybe not nobody, but very few. Because.

Try Camus. Absurdism is probably the best path out of nihilism :)

But you leave out the specifics, the details and the devil, they say, is in the details. Last I checked, negotiations involved justifications/argumentations and when that failed, punches/kicks/bullets/bombs...you get the idea ("aggressive" negotiations). I hope you don't mean that by "negoitiations" — TheMadFool

I was insisting that JTB must leave out the specifics to work flawlessly (see below) because it is only fully effective in an abstract realm.

I did mean all of the above in terms of 'negotiations'. In the real world claim of what is believed to be 'the truth' or 'justified' is often why violence can ensue. This is because each party thinks they own 'knowledge' rather than viewing knowledge as a tool used to lever individual beliefs that suit them. We're not robots.

The more important (the greater the value attached to the disagreement) the 'negotiation' the more likely the belief will bypass reasonable argumentation by sheer will.

So, the JTB is an abstract rule? I fail to see how that diminishes its value when it comes to knowledge and, possibly, other matters. — TheMadFool

Because with set abstract rules and limits we can differentiate between 'true' and 'false'. Outside of such set rules and limits (ie. real world situations where 'rules' and 'limits' are unknown) we cannot differentiate between 'true' and 'false' as we're not able to know anything for certain unlike in abstracted realms. Nature has a habit of showing us that what we took as a 'truth' here and there and in another place makes another 'truth' a mistake - too many variables/perspectives.

More simply put applying mathematical formula to the stock market will not guarantee profits only act as a tool to aid profits - that is diminished value. How diminished? Another layer of the problem cake.

Yep. JTB is JTB, as defined but it does have, like all things, limitations; I don't deny that. These limitations need to be known of course but there are situations in which the JTB is perfectly applicable/acceptable. — TheMadFool

Sure. But I have a feeling we might disagree what and where these limitations are due to our different beliefs.

Flesh that out for me, will ya? — TheMadFool

Nothing to flesh out. You will belief some things irrespective of any facts thrown your way, as we all will, because we're not robots.

There are little smudges in this area as Wittgenstein threw out. With the example of a game of chess two people playing what they believe to be the correct game of chess with the correct rules may not actually be playing the correct rules. Believing they are playing the game correctly is all that matters for them irrespective of whether they are or not. If they ever found out they had made a mistake they would still have been 'playing chess' but just not in absolutely the correct manner.

To relate more to what I said this needn't happen after the event. There could be one person arguing about a rule (and be correct) yet everyone else disagrees. People will follow their belief and they will still be 'playing chess' because they believe they are playing chess.

People can believe anything up to the point where they cannot deny it. I may believe that it isn't going to rain within the next 5 mins due to spotless blue skies yet if it did start to rain (by some freak occurrence) I would not question my initial belief but I would be intrigued as to why I was wrong and what freak occurrence caused the rain. This instance is completely different to chess though as we do not know the 'rules' or 'limits' of weather with absolute precision in the manner that I can know the rules and limits of chess.

That's new. Sounds interesting but I'll stick with JTB if it's all the same to you. — TheMadFool

Stick to the old ways then. It is an abstract theory set in an abstract realm that has some parallels to human life. the problem is if you apply it to language as if it is a mathematical model you're working within an unlimited world where the rules are unknown. So it doesn't hold up in real life as anything other than a simple belief like any other belief. It cannot justify itself in a true or believed way in the real world because we're oblivious to the limits and rules of the world.

I don't have to justify my beliefs to you and you would be perfectly ok with that, right? — TheMadFool

Yes. If they interfere with mine/others though we may have to negotiate. That is basically how the world works so no biggie.

If people hold rigidly to an abstract rule as a way of living in the world and it works for them so be it. Generally I'm more inclined to disbelief when it comes to bringing the abstract into the realm of lived lives.

JTB isn't a JTB if the limits and rules are unknown. Within known bounds (necessarily abstract) I'm ok with the theory of JTB.

TO repeat. 'Truth' is an attitude more than anything else ... that is my belief.

That said, I'm open to new ideas but they have to make sense at some level I suppose. Just sayin! — TheMadFool

Doesn't really matter. At the end of the day a 'belief' will overrule anything claimed by others to be 'known'. Nature will do as nature does regardless of what we call knowledge or belief. On top of that we're always going to lean towards justifying what we belief the most regardless of knowledge or we'd stagnate.

1. a−b=ca−b=c
2. a=c+ba=c+b
3. a+(−b)=c+b+(−b)a+(−b)=c+b+(−b)
4. a+(−b)=c+0a+(−b)=c+0
5. a+(−b)=ca+(−b)=c
6. a−b=a+(−b)a−b=a+(−b)
QED — TheMadFool

The above has nothing to do with JTB Mathematics is an abstraction and within an abstracted set limit knowledge is discernible.

In justified true belief the 'truth' is just an attitude/emotion and this is clear in the need to justify it. It is just a belief and the more 'truth' people have towards it the more they'll justify it even if it costs them to do so.

True things can be known ONLY within a set limit with set rules (abstracted not real).

Belief in the context of the theory is more easily described as 'strong conviction'.

Justified is just to say not by luck.

The obvious argument against this theory is that it could all be a combination of luck and belief. The knowledge only comes through abstraction, but again this means we can be hoodwinked by belief into thinking we've got the method just because we have the desired outcome. Abstractions thankfully can be checked to a decent degree though due to set rules and limits.

Abstractions are not reality though so in day-to-day life we don't operate by way of knowledge we operate by way of beliefs and often bolster our beliefs by any justification that suits our beliefs. Rationality and reason are more or less a soft balm to sooth a first degree burn ... doesn't do a lot for us at the base human experience.

I don't much care for the JTB view.

Epistemic responsibility has to do with attempting to gain knowledge i.e. it's, at the end of the day, a way of sorting one's beliefs into knowledge and non-knowledge. — TheMadFool

I'd rather not pretend my beliefs are anything but beliefs. Knowledge is for set discernable limits only (ie. abstract).

Beliefs don't require justifications because we've no idea what justification for any given myriad of beliefs there is.

Justification is really just a psychological analysis of what has happened and the degree to which one wishes to claim authorship over the actions that led to the result.

If a belief is fully justified in our minds then is it really a 'belief'? If it is then how does it differ from beliefs that possess little to no rational foundation?

If you don't know from reading I cannot help. Sorry.

We can take a person's actions and assess them in terms of gain and loss and judge those actions but people don't usually act as a result of such calculations. — Judaka

I think you missed something. He was saying that Stupid people are unpredictable whereas everyone else you can figure out roughly what their motivations are.

It is not, as many here seem to take it, some rule of life to live by that explains everything there is to know about every facet of human behavior. It is an interesting take on what people call Stupid and Intelligent.

The harrowing point behind what he is saying is that there is no cure for this kind of Stupidity as some people are simply born this way. Whether it is true or not doesn't make it uninteresting. If it is true then avoiding Stupid people seems to make the most sense. I then added that reducing the influence/status/power of Stupid people at the high end of the influence/status/power spectrum would make sense, but they'd also be hard to move as they're Stupid and so unpredictable.

we ask vague questions about things we kinda already understand because some of what we understand or could understand is hidden, and that's part of what we investigate too. — Srap Tasmaner

That is Husserl. Good summation here:

Intentional content can be thought of along the lines of a description or set of information that the subject takes to characterize or be applicable to the intentional objects of her thought. Thus, in thinking that there is a red apple in the kitchen the subject entertains a certain presentation of her kitchen and of the apple that she takes to be in it and it is in virtue of this that she succeeds in directing her thought towards these things rather than something else or nothing at all. It is important to note, however, that for Husserl intentional content is not essentially linguistic. While intentional content always involves presenting an object in one way rather than another, Husserl maintained that the most basic kinds of intentionality, including perceptual intentionality, are not essentially linguistic. Indeed, for Husserl, meaningful use of language is itself to be analyzed in terms of more fundamental underlying intentional states (this can be seen, for example, throughout LI, I). For this reason characterizations of intentional content in terms of “descriptive content” have their limits in the context of Husserl’s thought.

https://iep.utm.edu/huss-int/#H1

I assume you're buddhist too and don't like it when people say things that are true? Seems strange though.

You can wiki it if you want. Buddhism is theistic but it is not theistic in the same way that most judeo christian practices are (for the majority of buddhist practices).

Wayfarer is just sticking to one narrow definition of theism and seemingly refusing to accept that there are broader meanings beyond belief in 'a creator' or 'deity'.