You know, I feel certain but I cannot be certain.

If feeling certain is about one's confidence, being certain is about the truth of the belief, and the truth of the belief is not determined by the certainty of the individual, then it only follows that one's being certain is not determined by the certainty of the individual.

:yikes:

Looks like following the logic leads us to conclude that that is a bit of nonsensical language use.

What else could possibly be the determining factor regarding whether or not someone is certain that X is the case, or being absolutely certain that 'X' is true, if not the high level of confidence(the complete lack of doubt) that the believer has that X is the case, or that 'X' is true?

The certainty that S has about X is one thing, and X's being certain is another.

When S feels certain then they are. What does it mean for S to be certain if not that they are?.

How else is there to parse this?

:yikes:

...we can feel certain even we are not... — Janus

We can feel certain even when we are not right. We can feel certain even when we are not justified in being so. We can feel certain even when we're dead wrong.

We cannot feel certain when we are not feeling certain.

So, Janus, help me out here...

Would you agree to all of the above statements?

What I did say, very clearly and repeatedly, is that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners.

I also said that (1) this must be applied on the merits of each particular case, (2) no one says it must be applied by force of arms, and (3) nor can force or threat of force (or violence) be ruled out.

In other words, the principle should be applied if, when, and to the extent that, it is feasible. — Apollodorus

What a load of bullshit.

Suddenly it occurs to me now how much belief is a story or personal narrative for ourselves, our ego, strengthening individual as well as group identity.
— praxis

Exactly. — Isaac

MAGA world is prima facie evidence of the power of belief, as well as how easily others can directly influence our worldviews and behaviors. Intentionally creating all the necessary preconditions from which mass delusion emerges; a carefully planned coordinated effort to defraud The United States of America, is exactly what Trump and his close circle of co-conspirators successfully achieved.

So many bought into the big lie that we're suffering from a country with untold(perhaps hundreds of???) millions of people suffering from mass delusion or cognitive dissonance as a direct result of it. All the while Trump's personal versions of "Go Fund Me" were raking in hundreds of millions from those who trusted that Trump was telling the truth. His lies were layered. The supporters donated for the specified cause of helping fund a 'legal' fight that was unfounded to begin with and everyone already knew that. Untold numbers of judges threw the cases out as a result. It's no secret. Those allegations were being publicly presented to Trump supporters in such a way as to convince them that there was something to fight against. This was also being waged by so-called 'attorneys' who knew they had no evidence to support those very serious charges that Trump and others were making then, and continue to do so now.

There are some similarities between Trump supporters' unshakable conviction(unquestioned trust in the truthfulness of Trump's speech) and the religious faith being discussed here...

Yeah, we could swap some terms and likely make some sort of sense. Perhaps introducing how truth works in belief statements may be on the menu here.

"Certainty" is a term mostly used to indicate the level of confidence than an individual has that something or another is true and/or is the case. Let that something be X. When and where the confidence is highest, the individual has no doubt about X, and thus such individuals are certain that X is the case or that 'X' is true.







Being certain and feeling certain are the very same thing. Being true and being certain are not.

We begin to temper our confidence(and thus rethink our own certainty that X is the case or that 'X' is true) only after having become aware of our fallibility and mastering language that is replete with the ability to talk about our own mistakes. Skepticism based upon percentages and probabilities seems unhelpful here as far as I can tell. That applies to only the cases after we've become aware of our own fallibility. Certainty and belief precedes that.

We're certain that X is the case and/or that 'X' is true long before we become equipped with the language capacity to be able to apply probabilistic terminology to our beliefs, or to 'measure' our certainty in such terms.

All I'm advocating is that we call what is certain (in the sense that we can't imagine what its being false could look like) knowledge, and that we call what we feel certain about belief. — Janus

One can be certain and wrong. Thus, certainty does not equate to, nor does it always indicate knowledge.

If 'X' is certain, do we not also feel certain about 'X'? In other words, I do not think you've drawn a distinction here. According to what you've said above, 'X' is both knowledge and belief.

Nice attempt at correction.

I am reminded of Russell here who, like Kenny and yourself, also drew a distinction between faith and belief. Christianity has a well-established history of holding unshakable absolute certainty in some of their beliefs - as you've noted - even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Hence... Christian apologetics is faith-based, and makes concerted attempts at placing the evidence against the God of Abraham into question. Christians will even go so far as to be proud of themselves for maintaining absolute certainty in these beliefs. It is cultivated, praised, sought after, and rewarded amongst Christian communities.

"Walk by faith not by sight" is a common phrase supporting the idea to consciously and willfully ignore all the evidence against the God of Abraham that is plain to see...

No resemblance whatsoever — Apollodorus

The resemblance of Russia's current actions to others' throughout history is that Russia - like others - are forcing themselves onto another people, and stealing their shit(including their autonomy) against the will of those people.

Your claims of historical Russian boundaries is being used to justify current actions. Arbitrary points in time. Go back farther, use the same logic, and we'd be forced to give the land back to the first settlers.

Your position can be summed up here nicely.

Throughout history all sorts of nations have wrongfully imposed themselves upon others and stole their shit(including their autonomy), therefore it's okay if Russia does the same to Ukraine or everyone's a hypocrit.

Oh yeah, and I am most certainly not a Christian. I'm agnostic on matters like the origin of the universe.

The West has been doing the same thing to so many peoples and countries. Whether it was the native Americans, the Aboriginals, or the Russians: the Westerners unilaterally declared them to be their enemies. Regardless if the others initially felt any hostility against the Westerners or not. The perspective of the Westerners was all that matters. — baker

Not everyone living in the "west" fits into your preconceived notion of "Westerners".

The sheer number of nations, communities, and individuals around the world that are currently and/or historically guilty of totally unacceptable behaviors exactly as you've described above is far too numerous to cherry pick "Westerners". Humans in general have had to fight for their very lives with other humans throughout human history. Humans were often our own mortal enemies.

We're no longer living in those archaic times. We are interdependent social creatures, and we've no choice in the matter. We know this.

Here's the underlying problem in a nutshell:The obsession of obtaining wealth and an abundance of resources by whatever means necessary is not just a "western problem".

Although, at the heart of it all, I would tend to agree that American culture in general permits, perpetuates, and continues to cultivate treating others with unnecessarily harmful open baseless(tribalesque) contempt, personal inconsideration, and public ridicule, and that is likely an ethical/moral vestige stemming from what you've outlined...

Australia belonged to its indigenous Aboriginal inhabitants for 60,000 years. Then the Brits invaded in the 1700’s, massacred most of the natives and stole their land. — Apollodorus

And thus...

It's just fine if Putin does the same...

:zip:

Already when I was little, the Christians around me considered me their enemy. Because I was not one of them. They unilaterally declared me their enemy. I felt no hostility toward them, I didn't consider them my enemies, but they didn't care about that. I also know they took a measure of pride in "peacefully coexisting with their enemy, ie. me". To this day, I don't consider myself their enemy, but they still insist that I am. They don't care about what I think. In their eyes, I am whatever they say that I am. Beyond that I don't exist for them.

The West has been doing the same thing to so many peoples and countries. Whether it was the native Americans, the Aboriginals, or the Russians: the Westerners unilaterally declared them to be their enemies. Regardless if the others initially felt any hostility against the Westerners or not. The perspective of the Westerners was all that matters.

People who can in fact "peacefully coexist" are not enemies to begin with. — baker

Gratuitous assertions won't cut it.

The last statement does not follow from anything preceding it. That's a problem in a philosophy forum such as this one, because we philosopher-types tend to place the utmost importance upon logical well-founded conclusions. That's not one of them.

You've met some immoral people who called themselves "Christian". Not all Christians are like that.

So, assuming sincerity in speech, others used the phrase "peacefully co-existing with their enemies" to talk about you in the ways you clearly described above. Thanks for that, by the way. It helped me to personally be able to make sense out of the responses you've given. But...

Not everyone who uses those words has the same moral/ethical standards(means the same thing when putting the phrase into practice). I cannot blame you for having bad feelings about the phrase or towards those Christians as a result of that. However, if you go back and look, I explained clearly what I meant by "peacefully co-existing with one's enemies".

What I meant is nothing like what those self-proclaimed "Christians" meant.

Because I'm a generally honest person who's led the life I have, you may be interested to know that I can personally relate to you and others who've been subject to inconsiderate treatment by others. It seems you are one of us and I, one of you. Many of those situations and sets of circumstances helped to shape the clay into the man that I am today. To this day, I can still remember many of those events, although the crispness has blurred considerably over the decades. No one ought have to go through anything like what you've described above.

We're working from incommensurate understandings or notions of human belief. May not be much point in continuing this if we cannot agree on what the key terms mean. Hope your move worked out well for you!

So, what you're saying is that it's OK for America to pursue a policy of assassination of political opponents, but not for Russia! — Apollodorus

This could be a textbook case of projecting one's beliefs onto others. Given that you have not condemned the behaviours in question when talking about Putin's, it may be highly likely.

Do you trust that Putin is an honest goodwilled actor in all this?

Does the assassination of Putin's political opponents(who were Russian citizens) influence your view?

Not what I'm saying, nor was that a rhetorical question.

Scientists don't have to believe anything in order to practice science... — Janus

:yikes:

Janus, you know better than to say something like that...

No need in taking it to be true that one's instruments have been calibrated. No need in taking it to be true that I'll get paid for my work performed. No need in taking it to be true that the lab will be there tomorrow when I return....

Do you trust that Putin is an honest goodwilled actor in all this? Does the assassination of his political enemies influence your view?
— creativesoul

That's just rhetorical nonsense, isn't it? Presumably, by "goodwilled actor" you mean someone that sucks up to Washington and Wall Street?! — Apollodorus

No, that's not just "rhetorical nonsense", and that is not what I mean by "goodwilled actor".

That's a very disappointing response. I would expect someone so consistently condemning ulterior motives for action as you've been doing when it comes to the US to be someone who also ought be touting the benefits of honest communication about what's happened and/or is happening.

It's narcissistic to unilaterally declare someone one's enemy. It's an act of bad faith. Someone isn't your enemy just because you call them that.

"Peacefully coexisting with your enemies" is narcissistic, patronizing, Western Christian nonsense. — baker

You seem to think making shit up and acting as if someone else has said it counts as an appropriate reply, and that name calling counts.

You're arguing with your own imaginary opponent. I've got better things to do. Have fun.

It's a ruse to call a society governed by mass manipulation a democracy.

Mass (need I say, nigh-invisible) manipulation: from public relations to motivation research to advertising to political strategy to perception management (military) to ubiquitous mis- and disinformation.

There is nothing democratic about a society informed by ubiquitous "conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses" (Bernays, 1928). — ZzzoneiroCosm

Indeed. Free and fair elections require a well informed electorate.

You and I clearly have very very different standards for how to treat others, enemies notwithstanding. As I said earlier, your position is based upon an emaciated set of morals. Specifically, how to treat others.
— creativesoul

Because believing that one should not approach others in bad faith is ... just egregious!!!!!! Emaciated!!!! — baker

No. I agree with that.

It's emaciated to believe that one cannot peacefully coexist with their enemies.

...the West must acknowledge its share of responsibility for the conflict and work toward ending the conflict as soon as possible and in a way that takes Russia’s interests and concerns into consideration. In fact, IMO, it has a moral obligation to do so. — Apollodorus

I'm curious...

What would you suggest be necessarily included for a long lasting treaty between Ukraine and Russia?

...it can easily become largely self-sufficient (which is actually a good thing for its economy)... — Apollodorus

Self-sufficiency is a good thing for any and all sovereign nations. Of course, very few have the natural resources necessary to be so, and this has been highlighted and increased by the global economy. The issue of lacking natural resources supports nations working together to their mutual benefit. Unfortunately, this international codependency was fostered and implemented mainly by greed for profit as opposed to mutual benefit of the countries' citizens, and is a large part of the reasons why and how the wealth gap has increased over the last forty years.

Yes. I'm aware of the agreement Bush Sr.(???) made after the fall of the Berlin wall to not expand NATO "one inch farther" to the east. Then, during the Clinton administration(I think???) that promise/agreement was broken.
— creativesoul

Correct. — Apollodorus

This seems to be the basis of Putin's talk about the west, particularly regarding whether or not the west could be trusted to keep their word. I'm saddened to say that I find the claim that US foreign policies are suspect to be a generally well founded one. However, that fact(and claims about the fact) could also be used as a means to attempt to justify unacceptable aggression for less than honorable aims, and that is what I believe is currently happening.

Do you trust that Putin is an honest goodwilled actor in all this? Does the assassination of his political enemies influence your view?

You and I clearly have very very different standards for how to treat others, enemies notwithstanding. As I said earlier, your position is based upon an emaciated set of morals. Specifically, how to treat others.

Anything that is not known but seems reasonable can be accepted and entertained provisionally for pragmatic reasons; no believing needed. — Janus

Indeed, but only after already having a belief system intact. Suspending one's judgment is a metacognitive endeavor. Metacognition is existentially dependent upon pre-existing belief.

I do not quite understand the sentiment hereabouts that seems to suggest that either one is with the US or against it. As if acknowledging the role the US has played in the escalations in Ukraine is somehow pro-Putin or Pro-Russian, and in being so is anti-American by default.

:brow:

Yep. Empire and domination is "rhetorical drivel" when talking about America but "gospel truth" when talking about Russia. Well done, you can congratulate yourself on your impeccable objectivity! — Apollodorus

You say this as though it is either an accurate or an appropriate thing to say to me. It's neither. For whatever that's worth around here.

Meantime, the facts on the ground show that it's NATO that is constantly expanding (from 12 countries in 1949 to currently 30!), not Russia .... — Apollodorus

Yes. I'm aware of the agreement Bush Sr.(???) made after the fall of the Berlin wall to not expand NATO "one inch farther" to the east. Then, during the Clinton administration(I think???) that promise/agreement was broken. I understand that Russia feels insecure and vulnerable with so many US allies and installments surrounding it. I do understand that that could feel like a threat.

Worth noting, that, contrary to the story-tale that Ukraine 'chose' to deal with the West, the West couped Ukraine exactly at the time at which it choose to stop dealing with the West, as outlined in the article. — Streetlight

Indeed. If that article is true regarding the coup to overturn a free and fair election, it is well worth noting. If the free and fair election was not a free and fair election(if it was rigged), then perhaps there's more to the story. Given the known history of recent Russian elections, and given that Russia backed the ousted leader, and given that Russia is known to interfere in the elections of others...

...I remain unconvinced, although I'm currently less confident about the goodwill for goodwill's sake.

Thanks.

So, we just give them the benefit of the doubt, every time? What is it about their behaviour that makes you think they deserve the benefit of the doubt? — Isaac

Ukraine chose to build financial and diplomatic relations with the west, against the wishes of Russia and it's leaders.

Sure, there are agendas held by the west. There are benefits for the west. There were benefits for Ukraine as well. Call US diplomatic relations and NATO a protection racket if you like, though I think that's a bit too strong a language choice given that the US was the one paying the most for it.

All I am saying is that not all mutual benefit and agendas are nefarious.

There are thousands of pros out there who spend millions of hours a day and millions of dollars a day trying to concoct clever, attention grabbing, truthful sounding lies or half lies that you and I and even Banno can be tricked into beleiving and then they get money out of us or power over us or maybe just enjoy fucking us over. They are good at it, they are pros. — Ken Edwards

Indeed.

There is no way I could have the time or the ability to examen the thousands of such dangerous falshoods that are aimed my way.

Agreed. It highlights the importance of having a stringent, prudent, personal standard for what counts as sufficient reason to believe something or other(warrant).

If I accept or trust or think or estimate or conclude or predict that you're telling the truth does that mean that I believe (hold to be true) you're telling the truth? — praxis

If by "telling the truth" we're talking about saying what one believes to be true, then yes. If by "telling the truth" we're talking about making true statements, then we're talking about the quality of the person's claim(belief) and not the sincerity of the person.

The US just did everything in its power to ensure this would be the case. — Streetlight

Spell this out in a bit more detail...

Well, I'm not even going to attempt to defend most of our foreign policy decisions during my lifetime. Ukraine begged for help. Russia clearly seems the aggressor. Yes, the US does not have a stellar history of supporting duly elected leaders unless those leaders are the ones who are 'friendly' to the US and it's financial interests. So...

The claim of 'standing up for democracy' rings hollow.

At the person... fail!

I am a Noam Chomsky 'fan'. For whatever that's worth around here.