You seem to be ignoring the question I asked you. Why does the fact that someone will experience pain alone negate all the other things in life like happiness, success, learning, etc in life? It seems very odd to me that you're focused on only a slice of human existence, and ignoring all the rest.

You're assuming that a causeless cause is possible, simply based on the basis that anything exists -- this does nothing to refute the claim that all events must have causes, thus that the universe must be a causal loop.

The fact that anything exists still follows a causal loop model, where causal loops as a whole are not create and do not have a first cause - they simply exist. But causality still obeys a logical consistency within the loop (i.e. no event without a cause) — ChrisM

No, a causeless cause is the only logical conclusion. It is logically impossible for there not to be a causeless cause, even within the idea of a causal loop. That is because there is still the question, "Why is there a causal loop, instead of there not being a causal loop?" The answer cannot be found inside the loop, except for the fact it exists. There is no prior explanation as to why it exists, therefore it is a causeless cause.

Certainly causality is obeyed within the loop itself, or even within finite causality itself, but the only way to find the causality within that loop, is to observe it directly. We can conclude nothing greater about the universe whether there is a loop, or is not a loop.

One aspect I did not point out is that since a first cause has no prior reasoning for its existence (in this case, the infinite loop), it is not necessary that there be an infinite loop, or a finite regress. The only way we could determine it is if we reached that particular end. As we logically cannot tell whether we have an infinitely regressive loop, or we just haven't reached the logical end yet, we can just as easily claim there is an infinite loop as there is a finite end.

But we can logically conclude that there absolutely must be a "first cause" in some aspect. Feel free to propose a counter to this idea.

If we know pain and suffering exist, why then would it be justified to bring more people into a world with known and unknown amounts of pain and suffering? — schopenhauer1

Because existing is good! Again, pain is just a sign to your body that you need to change something, that you're being damage. Pain is letting you know, "Hey, existing and being healthy is good! Something is hindering this, do something about it!"

Pain tells you, "Take care of yourself, you're worth it."

Again, the only pain that is truly bad is the pain you can't fix. Most of us don't have that. Pain and suffering come and go, and there are other ways to cope with it when we cannot address the underlying cause of the pain itself.

I just don't understand why experiencing pain would be an argument against existing. Could you propose why?

There really is only one conclusion in thinking on infinite causality. In the end, the inception of the universe is a first cause, and has no reason for its being.

Take two options. Finite causality versus infinite causality. Finite causality means there is something in the beginning of it all that does not have a prior cause. In detail, this means it is not necessarily dependent on something prior for its existence. It simply...is. No reason, no rhyme, no limitations as to what it could have been.

If we look at infinite causality, there is still one question of cause left. Why does infinite causality exist over finite causality? There is no causal answer to that question besides the fact that it simply...is.

Meaning the infinite causality versus finite causality question is a false dichotomy (Love that phrase).
The reason for our universe's ultimate existence is the fact that it simply is. And if it simply is, there is no rule or necessitation of how exactly it had to have come about, or continues to exist.

In short, we can conclude absolutely nothing about the necessity or nature of our universe from looking at causality, because we reach a point in which there are no rules of prior necessitation, only the unyielding result of the existence that is there.

Pain is your bodies messaging system to tell you there is some harm going on that you should try to fix.

Pain that you can fix is good. Pain that you cannot is torture and unnecessary suffering.

I think a well intentioned person "believes they are being moral, and desires to be moral", but their actions may result in immoral outcomes. Ignorance in this case is causing evil, which is immoral. Thus we credit that if the person's ignorance was erased, they would cease to cause immoral consequences with their actions.

So it is the ignorance that is the root cause of evil in this case. But is the person committing an action which results in an immoral outcome? Yes. Good intentions are wonderful because if we erase the ignorance, we hope the person will not commit evil anymore. But the ignorant person is still committing evil. The difference is that ignorance is what must be stopped, not the person themselves.

A happy weekend! I can finally sit down and type this out.

First, I understand this is a draft, so won't be commenting on the order of things. Just on the ideas.

To sum up, I believe you've stated we have a search for a goal. Our beliefs regarding that goal must be applicable and consistent. Applicability means it must be able to be used in regards to one's goal. Consistency means it must not be a contradiction within one's set of beliefs, and in its application.

I think applicability and consistency works. I'm still a little hesitant on what a goal entails. Like this:

"Goals are hierarchical. Criteria of lesser goals are void if fulfilling them hinders the pursuit of goals that are designated with a higher status. As such, any sub-goal that does not include the adherence to consistency cannot be pursued whilst pursuing the search for knowledge."

I think you have a germ of an idea here, but I think it needs clarification.

Goals are the journey's start, and as such, they are not a criteria for evaluating knowledge itself. If a contradiction happens within your goals, you have to decide to throw something out. But there is nothing within the goals that you've put forward at this time that clarifies which contradictions we should throw out. So all that we are seemingly left with is our own personal belief system as to which goals are more important than others.

As an example, lets say that I have it as my primary goal to prove the Earth is flat. Lets say I encounter a contradiction to this by having a lesser goal of "Going into space". So I do, and it "appears" that the Earth is curved. So I just say, "This is a contradiction to my main goal, so I'm just going to invalidate this lesser goal." Maybe you say, "Well its obvious that space bends our viewpoint of the Earth the farther away from it we are," or even "Space must just be beyond our understanding," then you don't pursue that goal anymore because it contradicts your primary one.

If you are to claim a hierarchy on goals, I believe this must be fleshed out to avoid conclusions like above.

"Provisional knowledge". A good breakdown showing that knowledge is provisional. But I wouldn't classify a "provisional knowledge" and "final knowledge". The only thing we can conclude so far is that knowledge is provisional. Since "final knowledge" does not exist, there is no separation within knowledge. I think noting that knowledge is provisional is enough.

Just a little add, when comparing knowledge versus beliefs, you can note that beliefs are also provisional, but they lack the order and structure that reinforces knowledge.

Your unicorn argument is fantastic, nice job.

The unfalsifiability section just needs a second pass to clarify the idea you're positing. It seems like you're implying what is "unfalsifiable" is based on context. Like the unicorn, it is a belief that has been constructed with a context that we cannot apply. If we could somehow create a context in which it could be applied, it would no longer be falsifiable.

In the beginning, you note how you will explain how we can know definitions once the theory is explored. You don't follow up on this at the end.

My final thoughts are this is a nice start. The only thing which I think still needs some clarity is "What a goal is". If I did not have the knowledge of our past conversations, I'm sure I would not be able to understand exactly what a goal entails from reading this paper alone. But this is a good draft. Feel free to clarify or correct my assumptions here.

I can see it now! I won't be able to get to it tonight, but hopefully tomorrow.

I replied to a post months ago about what it was like to pursue philosophy in higher education. I can't find it though. =/

I have a masters in philosophy. I was also a math teacher for 5 years in high school. I have had students ask me why they should go to college.

There are 2 simple reasons to go to college.

1. A job which is in demand and will make you decent money.
2. Passion for a career.

Philosophy will not give you 1. Philosophy will only give you 2. And after I obtained my masters, I found that academia would not really give me number 2 either. It might for you, but it sounds like you're just curious.

If you are new in college, you might be interested in something fun and interesting as a career. Don't. You are paying a TON of money. Unless you have a passion you can see committing your life's work to, find a field that pays well and has high demand. Don't take "easy" classes except when you have to fill credits. If you can get out of college making 60k+, you'll thank yourself later.

You don't want to be a college grad making 30-40k a year. Been there, done that.

It is because conservatives are at minimal, content under the current system. Sure, it ain't perfect, but to a conservative, its good enough. Even if it was a coin flip of improvement, a conservative would still favor incremental change, because they fear loss more then they desire gain.

So is that the difference between the beliefs in your statement about knowledge (that I quoted earlier)? So the first belief (“belief in something”) is only a belief that something might be? And the second belief (“belief that ‘the something’ is co-existent with reality”) is a belief that something actually is? — Jarmo

" It is both the belief in something, and a further belief that “the something” is co-existent with reality."

-Quote from part 1

How we obtain that "that something is co-existent with reality", is through subjective deduction, or if a belief is not contradicted by reality. For what is not contradicted by reality, "is". At least, as a very simple start within our own minds. That's what is called "distinctive knowledge". Part 2 also identifies, "Applicable knowledge".

So to keep this within the context of the paper and ease confusion, make sure you understand what "Distinctive knowledge" is. Feel free to critique it and poke holes in it, as understanding this is required for anything else to make sense. And don't just look at my comment, please read the more fleshed out portion of the later half of part 1. The above is a summary, not a comprehensive answer.

Adults have more information, more types of goals and have more information including, for example, conclusions drawn from reasoning. But the motivation is still emotions/desire. — Coben

So this is a little personal, but I have had chronic depression since I was a teenager. Depression is not sadness, it is the absence of emotion. I have had to live my life despite this biweekly to monthly lack of emotion, and live my life by reason and a code.

While this is an extreme case, I have often faced great emotional frustration for a rational goal. I was a teacher for five years in inner city schools, and faced a lot of stresses and frustrations. If I were merely guided by my emotions, I would have quit in my first year.

You definitely can live your life by emotions alone. There are plenty of people who do. Plenty of us though realize that emotions alone do not always lead to the best outcome. This is not an emotional decision, but a rational one. We will forgo our emotions and power through them. Emotions stopped being my sole motivator for action a long time ago. They are still there, and I value them greatly when they are. But I have learned they are a fickle mistress, and cannot be relied on for any long term value.

What would I call this... Justice? I hope he learns from the experience and comes out of it a better person. I'm not holding my breath though.

I think what you're asking is whether reality can be reproduced, not simulated. A simulation is an attempt to emulate reality within a certain degree, but it is not a 1 to 1 reproduction.

Since we would have to reproduce reality within reality, reproduction doesn't seem plausible and would lead into some infinite mirror issues. The accuracy of the simulation might vary, so yes, simulation is very much possible.

Think of an atheist whose beloved, deep religious mother is dying and says that she is happy and content because she 's going to heaven, to God and she 'll meet her son again there someday in the future. And she asks him what he thinks of it. What should her son answer? — philosophience wordpress com

"I think that sounds wonderful Mom," The situation you painted will be mine in the future. My mother is fiercely religious. I still love her. I want her last moments on Earth to be wonderful. Its not about, "Who wins". If you're an atheist, you're pretty confident that the end is the end. It would be cruel to be petty and deny her those final moments of peace.

Emotions are part of your thinking brain. They are absolutely essential as you grow when you are just learning about the world. As you age emotions are still important, but they are no longer your sole motivator for action.

I view emotions as a digest or summary of your instincts and experience when you encounter a situation that is different from your current state. When a child first falls when trying to walk, they may cry out of fear. But after falling a few times, that fear goes away as they have new knowledge that a fall isn't damaging.

If you want to break down why you have a particular feeling, it requires rationality to get the full story. You might be angry at a person, but not know why. At that point you start breaking down the person's actions and mannerisms, and might be able to figure it out. Rationality is detective mode, while emotions are your daily impetus and first reactions. Sometimes emotions are all you need, especially if you've learned to temper and hone them with good experiences and a rational foundation over the years.

https://www.livescience.com/26914-why-we-are-all-above-average.html

A great livescience article explaining why we all believe we are better than average.

Well, unless you have depression, anxiety, or you're incredibly capable. It turns out having confidence in yourself is an important measure in asserting yourself to attempt that action, even if you're not very good at it.

Me personally? Give me the truth. The scalding unyielding truth. This is not an armchair ideal either. Early in my life, I could have avoided some seriously life impeding situations had people not lied to my face about certain things. They did it so they wouldn't hurt me, or they were afraid. That hurt me more than anything else when I found out years later.

Of course, what type of truth though? It should be truth that helps you grow. Yes, you might find out something terrible about yourself, but then you can attempt to fix it. If of course you're told a truth with the idea that you should jump off a cliff and end it all, that's no good either.

Lies can be comforting to yourself and those around you, but they simply put a rug over the issue. The truth is still there, and no lie will ever deal with it properly. So we should speak truth, but we should be gentle and understanding about it. It should be seen as giving another person an opportunity to pull the rug away and clean house. We should also understand that some people will hear the truth, recognize it, and put a rug over it anyway. Its their life to manage; let them do it as long as they aren't hurting others.

1. We often say that those who commit suicide are selfish for taking themselves out of others' lives and I wonder if sometimes we are the selfish ones for wanting them to continue living for us? — Anthony Kennedy

I've always felt this is a guilt trip strategy more than anything given careful thought. I believe it is honestly selfish of us to want another person to continue on when they truly do not want to.

2. If someone has decided to make the rational decision to commit suicide, does people trying to deter them from their rationality take away from their person? — Anthony Kennedy

We could replace the action "commit suicide" with any other X, and I don't think it takes away from the person. People like to challenge other people's conclusions. I think it is healthy because we introduce a perspective that might not have been considered. A person might also believe their decision is rational, but might be found to be irrational if new information is considered.

I'm going to second Pop here. Its a very nice paper. I would quickly add I do not believe language is required for consciousness. There are animals besides human beings that do not use language (at least in our sense), but seem to have a consciousness. I think consciousness might be necessary for language, though I'm quite sure our heavy emphasis on it has impacted our consciousness as well.

I really enjoyed your post! But Pop would likely be a better person to continue your discussion with.

Lets make the implicit explicit.

"Is this sentence of the post referring to itself"?

Yes.

We have completely opposing world views. — Megarian

I honestly think its not that different. Lets see if I can demonstrate this.

This is the rationale; genetically encoded in life long before there were any humans to use it to create logical systems. — Megarian

No disagreement. This does not counter my theory. I am observing the rules that result from our biological abilities and limitations, which does not require us to know how those come about. You'll notice in part one I mention that we do not need to understand why we discretely experience, only observe that we do.

The example of the toddler is not an philosophical abstraction created to illustrate a point. It's a real world phenomena to which I am giving explanation and I don't see that process in your paper. There are no real world testable conclusions in your paper. — Megarian

There is are plenty of tests in the paper. The reason why I like the theory is all of these tests can be done yourself. In fact, they have to be applied, otherwise they are only distinctive knowledge, and not applicable knowledge. The toddler is a real world occurrence, and we can abstract that occurrence into a methodology. For example, I can see a few blades of grass. I can then abstract each blade of grass as a number. My abstraction of the baby's actions do not deny the babies actions, only explain it in a logical methodology. I gave you a breakdown, is my breakdown incorrect? If not, why?

No, logic is a creation of rational thinking. — Megarian

That is perfectly fine, it does not change anything claimed here. If you are referring to logic as the formalized linguistic expression of rational thinking, then yes, I fully agree. When I am using logic here, I am only talking about rational thinking, minus the need for language. To me, linguistic logic would be formalized logic, but that is completely unnecessary here. Distinctive knowledge does not require any language. Same with applicable knowledge. Language is a result of distinctive knowledge. Useful language is a result of applicable knowledge. But language is not necessary for distinctive or applicable knowledge.

Encountering information, associating information and testing the association. — Megarian

This is mirroring my theory here. Create distinctive knowledge, and apply distinctive knowledge. Testing is an option within distinctive knowledge, but not a necessity.

But one problem in epistemology is determining the validity of different types of irrational thinking.
- Philosophim
 
I disagree, real irrational thinking is dysfunction, brain damage or chemical imbalance. — Megarian

I will clarify, as I am speaking within the context of the paper again. You'll notice that I summarize the theory of knowledge here as "subjective deduction". This leads into an analysis of induction. The "irrationality" is using induction at all. Using this theory, I am able to address the problems with induction, showcasing 4 levels of inductive thought, and demonstrating a tier system of cogency. One difficulty with knowledge is being able to demonstrate why is is more rational to use certain types of inductions over others. For example, intuitively why is it more rational to believe the sun will rise tomorrow then to believe that it will not rise tomorrow? A breakdown of the terms and logic can identify why.

A foundation for epistemology needs to produce testable claims about the phylogenic, ontogenic and cultural environments. — Megarian

Not a problem. Once we dissect the logic, we can easily go to any of these subjects. Have you read the paper fully yet? Please actually answer this in your next answer so I can know if I can start heavily pulling terms and referencing parts of the text. It will make our conversations go much easier.

On its utility in problem solving. (Does it work?) 
Yes. I use it in my daily life.

On its internal coherence.  (Is it self-contradictory?)
No, it does not contain any self-contradictions. At least, none that I've seen. Feel free to add your own insight on the paper.  

On its external consistency.  (Does it 'fit' in a framework of other claims about the world?) 
Yes. It is the base for all types of contextual knowledge theories. I am able to explain why a baby can know that the wet spot on the floor was caused by its actions. I can explain away the Gettier theory. (I had it in the paper at one time, but it was more like a book then. I mean, I can barely get people to read the 20 pages as it is). I can explain why a family has knowledge that is specific to themselves, but if taken in the greater context of the world, would not be considered applicable knowledge.
On its semenality.  (Does it/can it lead to new/more precise claims?) — Megarian

Absolutely. I can answer the riddle of Theseus' ship. I can give a logical evaluation of inductive claims. Its pretty darn useful.

I find no utility in the system you propose. — Megarian

Considering I can tell you still haven't read the paper, that's really not a solid claim. Read the paper, then get back to me showing why the system has no utility. All you are making is an opinion claim, you are not referencing the actual material.

The paper gives us no information promoting an understanding of the general nature of knowledge or the species-specific human nature of knowledge creation and use — Megarian

You obviously did not read part 3 or 4. Again, why make claims like this without reading it? I'm really scratching my head over here. Are you just wanting to argue for arguing's sake, or do you want to actually analyze the paper, do some fun thinking, and come to a reasonable conclusion? I mean, I might be wrong. I'm open to that. But you have to actually read the paper. I don't think this is unreasonable in the slightest.

So go read it! Its not a waste of your time. If we can spend posts here here discussing when you're not even talking about what's in the paper, and instead some imaginary idea you've come up with, imagine what we could generate if you read it and we can actually discuss about the real idea!

I'm floating a theory that philosophy, like all optional human activity, is primarily an emotional experience and that the intellectual content of philosophy is more of a cover story. — Hippyhead

Human beings are not rational beings with emotions. We are emotional beings with rationalizations. When someone is first learning philosophy, emotions often guide their actions more than rationality. Many first learn to type big words and start throwing them in your writing to make you look like you fit in with the rest of the group. Sometimes newer philosophers will read others and tend to look for the easy emotional highs.

If they have a mind for self-improvement, they are hopefully learning how to think better. Rationalizations soon start to give way to rationality. They begin to realize they don't have to use a lot of big words, but that simple, clear, and modern day language is often best. Soon they start looking for the greater joy, which is mastering a difficult problem. Not for status or recognition, but for the joy of solving the problem itself.

Being a good philosopher is an ideal good people strive for. Some of us are just starting this journey, while others are near the end. Has anyone ever reached the ideal? Perhaps in the history of mankind someone has, but I doubt it. Still it is better to be the person that strives for the ideal but falls short, then the person who does not strive at all.

My claim is that philosophers have to do better than mere subjectivity, otherwise their entire program turns to dust. — JerseyFlight

Then why are you insisting that your own subjectivity has any philosophical value? Objectively you know you cannot make a blanket statement that analytic philosophy is harmful to society. You have no statistics, no control and variable that has been tested. There is nothing objective in this thread. Your definitions are moot, because the entire premise of this argument from the beginning is a subjective opinion.

And that has been my entire point. You are the one who is continuing this. JerseyFlight, you got a lot going for you, but you seem completely unaware that this criticism you keep levying at others is the very thing you are doing. Many posters have tried to tell you this, and you keep focusing on the way they've crafted the message, instead of the message itself. Granted, it could be crafted better, but people expect you to be BETTER than a hypocrite, and often get mad that you would continue to insist on being one.

At this point, I have enough respect for your intelligence that I am going to assume that you must see this. It is your call what you do from this point. I would hope you take the path of someone who accepts they have made mistakes in the pursuit of their ideals and moves on to the next problem, and not the path of an intellectual narcissist.

I don't know, personally, if the entirety of analytic philosophy is useless to society - probably not, but a lot of it is. — BitconnectCarlos

As long as you don't pretend to claim you have the authority to blanket an entire history of thought process as useless to society, that's fine. To a person who cares about such things, analytic philosophy might provide some use to them as a tool. What an individual finds useful can vary from person to person, and it is not for us to judge if something we find personally meaningless provides another fulfillment.

I feel bad sometimes for studying philosophy. — BitconnectCarlos

True, the history of philosophy is often a study of its failures. Not everyone is interested in seeing how thought processes have evolved. Still, Karl Popper's contribution to the scientific method of today can be a nice read if you're interested in such things. The Gettier paper is a nice starting point for people interested in tackling epistemology as well.

Some philosophers are interested in the history of philosophy for its own sake. It is a hobby of puzzles to themselves. That is fine. We all entertain ourselves in our own particular way, and taken objectively, they're all frivolous in the face of the big questions in life. Sometimes people study it to improve their own and others lives. It sounds like you are interested in philosophy to tackle questions of today and the future. Then use that as your guide. Don't concern yourself with what others find meaningful, if it inhibits what you find meaningful.

JerseyFlight, you profess to be a man that wishes to foster thought that benefits human kind. Look at the replies to your responses in this thread. Are you meeting your goals? If you are to rise to the ideals you set, you must be the example of this.

Currently this thread is no longer discussing philosophy. It is an opinion pissing contest. Several people have remarked that you do not have the evidence to attribute the entirety of analytic philosophy as useless to society. It is useless to YOU. And that is fine. That is the only thing which can be logically concluded from this discussion.

So will you continue to partake in this pissing contest? Because this conversation is not furthering thought, or good will in mankind. Will you rise to your ideals, are are they simply words you put forth to make people think you are better than you are?

YOLO — Hippyhead

You Only Live Once

I respect your religion. :-) — Hippyhead

If a religion is an ideal that you live your life by in regards to what is beyond it, I suppose it IS a religion. We can call it the YOLO religion. What do you think?

They taught me so well that I find I'm an outsider in any social group as I'm always jumping to the opposite of the agreed upon consensus of that group, which tends to make me, um, extremely popular. :-) — Hippyhead

Ha ha! Hippyhead, you always strike me as the archtype of the Jester. Not the fool, but the clever pretender who mocks reality with a wink. We may have had some disagreements in past posts, but I do enjoy your presence here.

But I think it we're honest we'll agree there's also a lot more to it, and that emotional agendas are very often driving the phenomena. If we find that we're speed reading the post in search of something we can Gotcha! then emotional agendas are most likely at play. — Hippyhead

I agree. Motivation behind what we are trying to prove is just as important as the thing we are trying to prove. Or in other words, "Its not what you say, its how you say it". There are two general ways of breaking down how people view their own empowerment. Some feel empowered by their own accomplishments in life. Such people point out criticisms because they want other people to grow and become better. They are not afraid of bringing people up.

Then there are those who gain self empowerment by bringing others down. Instead of pride in their own accomplishments, they take pride that they are not as much of a failure as another person. While one can be confused for the other, often times this intent comes through. Ideally, we would all like to the be the former person, and not the latter.

It's interesting that so many of us are so sure we know such things. — Hippyhead

We can only know what is available to us. We know that the brain is where our ability to think comes from. Take some brain damage, and you're not going to be the same person. Loads of science backs this. We know that when you die, the brain stops working. Anything else is something from the imagination.

You and I will cease to exist Hippyhead. We are no different from the matter that is all around us. It too will change forms, break apart, and join into something new. But you are only "you" when matter organizes into a human being with your particular working brain. The glow from my screen only happens when matter organizes in that particular way. There is no heaven for your brain. There is no heaven for my monitor.

That being said, can we postulate that there is something underlying all of matter on Earth? Perhaps that we are part of some greater living consciousness, or that there is something beyond our observation? Absolutely. But that is not what we can know. Generally, we make decisions about how to live on what we know, not on what we imagine. For all you know, you have one chance at being you before you meet your permanent end. It is best you live your life according to this knowledge, as it would be a terrible tragedy for a person to live on the prediction of a fantasy.

Coben, I had accidently submitted my reply before it was finished. If you don't mind, feel free to re-examine it and see if it further answers your question.

There is an extra bit here though I think I should address as well.

The sentence preceding my particular sentence on belief is, "Knowledge expects a consistency.". I then explain that knowledge it the pairing of two beliefs together. The following sentence notes "Yet how can one be certain one’s belief is co-existent with reality?" The intent I was hoping to convey here was "Knowledge is a set of beliefs that people feel with certainty, but then we must be able to demonstrate that this "claim to knowledge" is correct.

So it appears my writing is poor and does not convey this. If I changed this section to identify what a "knowledge claim" was, would this make it more clear? As a rough draft, "So what can we call knowledge? At first glance, knowledge appears to be a claim that It is both the belief in something, and a further belief that “the something” is co-existent with reality"... and then continue on with a bit of the rewrite I've mentioned in the previous post. Essentially really emphasizing that at this point in the thought process that knowledge is a claim one's belief cannot be contradicted by reality, and that to do so, there must be some application of that belief to reality.

Though perhaps you meant 'cannot be contradicted now as far as we know.' — Coben

To clarify, it is not "as far as we know now", it is, "We cannot be contradicted." That can only be done, "now", as the future cannot contradict you. So yes, I could know one thing now, then later find that knowledge is invalided by a contradiction.

And another portion of your earlier reply:

So, pick a belief you consider false: an Abrahamic God, alien abductions, whatever you considera false belief. It is clear that believers in alien aductions believe in alien abducutions and consider these to be coexistant with reality. Or real. So this would mean it is knowledge. Or perhaps he is saying they consider it knowledge, which is often also true. Since most people conflate belief and knowledge or don't have any extra criteria except degree of certainty not based on thought out criteria. — Coben

Yes, this is good. What the paper will show is how we identify if something is not contradicted by reality. And yes, depending on your context of definitions, you can know that the God of Abraham is not contradicted by reality. We can also create another context in which you cannot know the God of Abraham, because such a context is contradicted by reality. How we tackle different contexts, and which contexts we should strive for is commented on in chapter 3, and would be a great discussion once you read that section. If I could explain all of the possible topics and consequences of a one sentence proposal on knowledge, I would. Alas, I had to write about 20 pages to do so. =P

Thanks for the feedback!

Then what does the “further belief that ‘the something’ is co-existent with reality” add here? — Jarmo

A good question. Lets look at the second portion of the definition.

roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.

Being co-existent with reality is an assertion of your belief "being the case", or yourself regarding it as true. What I've done is define what "being the case" is. If you have a belief that you can pick up a ball , then you believe reality will not contradict you when you go to pick up the ball. You believe it is the case that you will be able to pick up the ball. You believe that it is true that you will be able to pick up the ball.

The point of stating "not contradict reality", is to spell out what "being the case" is in a less clearly abstract manner. Basically, what is true is what cannot be contradicted.

I believe these to be two separate beliefs. For me, belief is more atomic. I can contain in my head different types of beliefs that I do not hold as "being the case". They "might" be the case. So if I go outside, it might be sunny, or rainy. These beliefs could be contradicted by reality. I don't know for certain, but I don't believe that if I go outside I'm going to warp to another dimension. This is a claim that I believe will not be contradicted by reality.

So to me, having a belief does not necessitate that it must be the case. Beliefs can be inductive, and doubted in one's mind. That does not mean they are not beliefs. A particular type of belief in which one also believes the belief is not contradicted by reality, is an attempt at a knowledge claim. If I believed that when I stepped outside it would be sunny, and not any other state, I am making a knowledge claim that could be contradicted by reality, but I believe will not be.

In the introduction, I am trying to use the most basic language and build up from there, but it seems this needs greater explanation at the beginning. If I added an explanation like the one I gave above, would that help clarify the issue? Do you think a better example or word can be given for what I am trying to describe? I appreciate the feedback!

Absolutely. Fear of death is an emotional motivation to stay alive. Death is game over. No do overs. No more accomplishments. Fear of death can be why you decide to do something with your life instead of sit on the couch all day and live a menial existence.

Does that mean we should be consumed by it or base all of our decisions off of it? No. Emotions are quick judgements that give us an over all digest of the situation. They are very useful when a bear is intending to maul you, but you need rationality to figure out the best way to handle the situation.

Emotions are an integral part of your thinking brain. In trying to conquer them, some believe we should pretend we do not feel them, ignore them, or crush them. Embrace them. Rationality alone or emotion alone leave you in a much more confused state in life, while marrying them together will leave you able to manage life at your most capable.

I think Jersey does want to claim worthlessness for the whole tradition, and even negative social value. Surely he couldn't be concerned about the negligible negative social value of just poor ole Davidson could he!? — Janus

I think he initially did, but realized his error later on and stated

I think it's best just to stick with Davidson. Just tell me about the value of his essay? This is all I really care about. — JerseyFlight

JerseyFlight is passionate and opinionated, but he also claims to value logical thinking. Philosophical arguments can get heated, and it is easy to push too far. I think when someone states they are willing to bring the scope of the argument back down to a reasonable and philosophical level, it is respectable to take it. If you are expecting any person in philosophy to come out and state, "I was wrong," you might be waiting until the heat death of the universe. Its not the point. The refocus is on a real philosophical question, and that is whether Davidson's particular paper had a point of value.

I do not know what the previous conversation on Davidson was, but if you want to salvage this thread from a PC vs. Apple argument, you could try presenting the positives that we can glean out of Davidson's argument, and JersyFlight can present his negatives. As long as it is understood this cannot be a judgement on analytic philosophy as a whole, there might be an actual conversation here worth salvaging.

My apologies then, I stepped out of line. I suppose I will weigh in then.

While we can criticize individual philosophy writings "style", noting one paper being of little use is not enough to criticize all papers using this style. Further, what can be attributed to analytic philosophy is broad and varied. It is a shed word that we shove a bunch of other tools of thinking into.

And tools are how we should approach methods of thinking. Sometimes one approach to analysis is successful where another tool would be better. Stating one tool is "worthless in all cases" requires a great amount of citation and logical critique, which is not being offered here. Without this, it is merely an opinion war. A screwdriver may be worthless when one wants to hammer nails, but its pretty effective when they want to use screws instead.

Unless someone can point out very real negative value to society caused by the countless analytic philosophy papers that have been released over the centuries, continuing to assert that analytic philosophy is harmful as a whole would not be a philosophical conversation.

Reading further replies, it appears JerserFlight realizes this and want to focus on Davidson again in particular. JerseyFlight, since you've read the paper, what did you find worthless about Davidson's argument? While we cannot say all of analytic philosophy is worthless, it may be the case for this particular paper.

The information is being tested. — Megarian

What is the information? Lets be generous and simplify it to "The wet spot on the ground and the liquid in the bottle."

What is a "hunch"? A belief that the liquid in the bottle caused the wet spot on the ground.

I think we're having a semantics issue. Part 3 covers this. We are speaking about the same thing, we're just using different words to represent those things. Lets not get caught up in that.

Logical systems are human creations based on the instinctual rationality formed by evolving in a rationale world. — Megarian

I agree. Part of the paper goes into the question of limiting one's context versus expanding one's context for knowledge. It notes that for some people, limiting their context might be more helpful for them. Like the example I use in part 3 with the biologist, the group of friends, and the "tree".

Rational thinking does not require a formal logical. — Megarian

I would disagree. Rational thinking requires logic. Now most of our thinking is not rational, because rational thinking would take too much time. But one problem in epistemology is determining the validity of different types of irrational thinking. This can also be called, "The problem of induction". Part of the theories purpose is to give a rational way of evaluating which forms of "irrational thinking" are most valuable. However, we must first understand what rational thinking is, and rationally evaluate which inductions are more cogent then others. That is covered in part 4.

If you wish to have this statement be more than an opinion, you'll need to point out in the paper why I am incorrect in making this conclusion.

Then you should be able unpack your conclusions from the system and return to the field where you encountered a sheep and apply them to the sheep (or any animal you're familiar with) to explain its knowledge system. (Non-human learning and knowledge) — Megarian

Ha ha! You need to read part 2. I do exactly that. It is a nod to the famous epistemological argument of course. And yes, my system can be used from an animal's context as well. I can show how a dog or a child can know. Of course, in the dog's case they would need to understand what a contradiction is. I believe they do at a basic level.

How would your conclusions explain people holding and acting on beliefs that they admit have no actuality to support them; in some case admitting that those beliefs are disproved? (Belief as emotional attachment to a social group.) How does it apply to Scientific Methodology's creating knowledge claims as a social activity? — Megarian

Part 3 and Part 4. Science is a context. As for holding beliefs that are not knowledge, I go over in part 4 what plausible and irrational beliefs are, and demonstrate that they are on the lower tier of beliefs when we have higher tiers available to consider. I give plenty of examples there, feel free to pull one out to discuss.

Well yeah, of course. You've carefully designed an enclosed abstract logical system where the design insures the premises support the conclusions. The only lines of criticism open are the premises. — Megarian

This is quite possibly the biggest compliment I could receive as a philosopher.

However, I believe you are drawing conclusions that are not being made from these premises in your criticism. You are thinking about where I'm going to go, instead of seeing where I am actually going. In essence, one cannot critique a conclusion or its premises in isolation from one another. Criticizing one or the other must take the other into account to be valid criticism.

an abstract formal logical system, no matter how carefully constructed, cannot be imposed on the world as foundation for an epistemology. — Megarian

All this translates to is, "I believe before I've read and understood your argument, that its wrong, because I believe it cannot be right".

Perhaps I have failed in my construction. You need to show me this. I would like to think you are a bit more charitable than that. But if you simply think I'm wrong, so wrong in fact that you won't even bother reading and understanding it, then further discussion will not get us anywhere. I understand that a lot of these questions are to feel out whether its worth your time to read it. But at this point, I think I've given plenty of reasons that are pertinent to your interest.

All of these questions you've pointed out are addressed in some fashion in the paper, and its no longer than a philosophy journal article. Keep your questions in mind while you read it. Read the whole thing through once. Then feel free to point out where I have failed so we can get to the meat of these questions. Thanks!

1. Sound Logical thinking

This is probably the pillar of professional philosophy.

2. Clear Communication

Language is a tool to convey our ideas. You should use the most simple and clear terms to convey your idea. The less time people spend trying to figure out what you are saying, the more time you get to discuss about the idea itself.

3. Relatability

You may be using clear and logical language, but if you do not relate to your audience, you will be ignored or misunderstood.

4. Premises grounded in reality

You may have a very interesting and logical theory, but if it is not grounded in reality, it is pointless. See Leibniz' Monad theory versus atomic theory.

5. Humbleness

This means knowing your limitations, acceptance of criticism by others, and the willingness to admit when one is wrong. These are the people who become masters at the craft, and never stop improving and learning.

There are almost certainly more attributes to add. But for myself, every philosopher I have read and spoken with who I respect and value has had these five attributes.

Why not message the moderators directly about this? This is unnecessarily dramatic. Talk to moderators if you wish to give feedback on moderation. Talk to the rest of us if you want to discuss philosophy.

Janus, if you wish to have a discussion, that is fine. But we should not call other members out on the board like this. If you wish to have a discussion with the people you are citing, then private message them. Calling them out, out of context publicly is not what we're here for.

Thank you again for contributing your thoughts! They are clear, concise, and seem sound.

Very nice! I did a quick skim over the theory and think this has a very sound basis. Consciousness is basically the part of us that manages other parts of the brain, and puts it all together. Its kind of like a gas pedal, break, and a steering wheel that sometimes likes to do its own thing.

Just a quick alternative look at emotions, I've always believed emotions are a digest, or quick summary of the mind's state that alerts the consciousness. Rationality is a tool that lets us take time to break down emotions into more cogent parts when we have time. As is often said, we are not rational creatures, we are rationalizing creatures.

Definitely look into neuroscience. Philosophies time in the sun on matters of mind is outdated and quickly becoming obsolete as we learn more.