@Manuel
Just a quick comment and I will probably post a fuller reply later.

The reluctance to say in daily life that one is certain is a sure sign of too much philosophy and overthinking.
,

All this is just a way of asking, what more-or-less technical aspect in philosophy shows up in your personal life? — Manuel

Two things I guess:

I'm retired now, but I worked as an engineer for 30 years. In that job, the most important decisions I had to make hinged on what I knew, how I knew it, how certain I was, and what would be the consequences if I were wrong. So, I take epistemology very seriously. It's hard to tell which came first, my interest in knowledge or my decision to become an engineer.

Here's a song I sing over and over again. There are many ways of looking at reality. These different views are metaphysical constructs. Metaphysical beliefs are not true or false, they are more or less useful in specific situations. This way of seeing things makes it much easier for me to understand, if not necessarily to agree with, other people's beliefs and values.

:up:

I say "I'm confident" instead of "I'm certain" since the latter only applies to deductive proofs. I'm either "fairly confident" or "very confident" or "not at all confident" of some proposition. So I share this quirk too.

The other "technical" quirk that comes up concerns doubts, namely, having or not having grounds to doubt some assertion or interpretation of an experience. Usually comes up when people talk about politics doubting the shitshow for what it is (re: Hanlon's Razor) and making ad hoc unwarranted conspiracy claims instead. Also, pervasive 'intentional agency bias' of folks who insist on 'ghosts' deciding or behind every as-of-yet unexplained event in the forms of "there are no accidents" and "everything happens for a reason" – the folk psychologism of misapplying the Principle of Sufficient Reason.

Our brains jones very hard for pattern, I get it, especially where there isn't one, which is probably an (adaptive hold-over) anti-anxiety defense mechanism. Still, there's a lot of 'seeing-faces-in-clouds' and 'woo-of-the-gaps' and 'conspiracies-under-my-bed-or-in-the-dark' going on which jump out at me daily triggering my epistemological and metaphysical reflexes. I used to drink a lot, now (strong) vapes help maintain my chill. :smirk:

Interesting, thanks for sharing. Yeah, being an engineer would make certainty a big priority. I'd probably freeze and nothing'd get done.

As for metaphysics. There are many ways to define the word and its field of enquiry. So I think your view is perfectly fine. The important thing is what you point out, that it be useful.



It is tough to speak about ghosts if one wants to be as receptive as possible. If one seeks to explain why such things are nonsense, then there is a bunch of evidence one can point to. The other person usually won't buy it.

But what about the grounds of doubt quirk? You tend to be dismissive or skeptical automatically?

As for vaping, me too.

I never understood the idea of dying healthy. :cool:

Not that living well to an old age is bad at all, but a drink or a vape or a cigar, sure man.

When someone asks me a question along the lines of "are you sure?" or "are you certain?" I very rarely say "yes". I always reply by saying "I think this is what I saw" or "it's likely", but I cannot for the life of me say "I'm certain" or "I'm sure". — Manuel

As to whether I'm certain the part I just bought for my ac will fix it? No. I think it will. Will everything work out of it doesn't? Yes. I'm certain it will. That has nothing to do with deductive logic.

What appeared to be the very determined nature of the universe and the desire for free-will. As Alan Watts said to some effect, “trees apple just like the universe peoples.”

I didn't have deductive logic in mind. More like general statements and many questions about events and the like. Like a minute ago I saw X walking by or that I just drank some water. I fairly confident but I wouldn't say certain. Things like that. On these matters, I feel oddly wrong saying I'm certain. It's a quirk.

As to questions like "what's the capital of France" or arithmetic, sure.

If I find out Paris is not the capital of France, I'd go crazy.

Will things work out fine? You're certain. I can only hope so. :lol:

But I do say the word "sure" a lot, meaning "indeed", "clearly", etc.

But what about the grounds of doubt quirk? You tend to be dismissive or skeptical automatically? — Manuel

I think you misunderstand what I wrote. I find that people doubt too easily, they are overly suspicious rather than genuinely skeptical. Doubt – skepsis – requires grounds (Witty, Sextus Empiricus) otherwise it's idle (as Peirce says "paper doubt"); without grounds to doubt, tacit belief suffices. I'm only "dismissive" of the unwarranted (Hitchen's Razor).

As for "a drink or a vape, or a cigar", they don't make one unheathly: immoderation and excess in vice destroys health and ages one faster. I do miss my bachannalian youth at times but this more epicurean (late) middle age has suited my health and psyche well enough so far. :cool:

what more-or-less technical aspect in philosophy shows up in your personal life? — Manuel

Reason.

That's quite a good distinction of doubt vs genuine skepticism. The doubt always everything is likely the reason for such things as Q or nobody walked on the moon and so on.

It's like everything is meant to be a conspiracy. As for Hitchens razor, whatever problems he may have had post 2000, that is a fine quote.



I'm unclear on what you mean by this.

You are too reasonable or think of reason too highly or what?

Similar to your example, I get frustrated when people ask for a definitive yes or no answer to something I’m not sufficiently confident about, and won’t just take a statement of the reasons I’m aware of for and against it. I don’t want to have to say to someone else that something definitely is or isn’t the case when I don’t even think to myself that it is.

But aside from that, my general philosophical principle of “it may be hopeless but I’m trying anyway”, of simultaneous possibility and contingency, which underlies all of my technical philosophy, is something I practice every day, and realize especially in contrast to some very shy, anxious people I know who give up so easily because they think they will probably fail: “if you don’t try then you’ll definitely fail so there’s no reason not to try just in case.”

Zizek's comments on disavowal.

without grounds to doubt, tacit belief suffices — 180 Proof

Second this general attitude sticking with me.

Similar to your example, I get frustrated when people ask for a definitive yes or no answer to something I’m not sufficiently confident about, and won’t just take a statement of the reasons I’m aware of for and against it. I don’t want to have to say to someone else that something definitely is or isn’t the case when I don’t even think to myself that it is. — Pfhorrest

:up:

"Don't collapse the tradeoff!"

I'm retired now, but I worked as an engineer for 30 years. In that job, the most important decisions I had to make hinged on what I knew, how I knew it, how certain I was, and what would be the consequences if I were wrong. So, I take epistemology very seriously. It's hard to tell which came first, my interest in knowledge or my decision to become an engineer. — T Clark

:up:

I'd add making sure a quantity or measurement means what you think it means is also something ever present, for me at least. Did you have that concern too?

It's a bit unsettling to think how much people crave certainty, when it is difficult to achieve. I mean we likely know one or two topics more or less well, everything else is more or less based on our interests in what's going on in the world. But it is impossible to reach such high epistemic criteria (near certainty) on many topics, it would take way too much time.

Interesting attitude of "what do you have to lose". I suppose I have the opposite disposition because most of the time I'm satisfied. But yours is a good view to adopt as it's sensible.

Zizek's comments on disavowal. — fdrake

Oh boy :roll:

Those eyes rolling are meant for me, because damn, if we did not adopt the "I know very well but" attitude I don't know how we could survive. I mean the Earth burning, the pandemic, industrial farming, serious tensions in Taiwan and etc. to infinity, makes it very hard to function as person otherwise...

without grounds to doubt, tacit belief suffices. — 180 Proof

Except when there are serious consequences for being wrong.

Seem to me like "serious consequences for being wrong" (i.e. out-of-the-ordinary high stakes) are also grounds for doubting (i.e. reassessing beliefs / assumptions).

Yes. I agree.

Remembering to be polite to people that are doing their job. Not treating them as a means to an end. Acknowledging any service was a job and a favor in some sense.

All this is just a way of asking, what more-or-less technical aspect in philosophy shows up in your personal life? — Manuel

I'm not philosophically sophisticated but I am always interested in the reasons people have for holding certain beliefs. I have taken an interest recently in people who hold to atheism with almost zero knowledge of the arguments or understanding of science and epistemology. They are what I call 'practical atheists' they think anything to do with the supernatural (problematic word, I know) is bullshit and so a godless, materialist universe suits their outlook. But it seems to be more of an aesthetic choice than a rational one. It seems to me that some of them would be ripe for conversion if they ever met a competent apologist.

Certainty and truth are constant companions in my conversations with people.

Since it's Kantian, I'll let is slide even if it ethics, as it counts as "technical philosophy". :joke:

I have taken an interest recently in people who hold to atheism with almost zero knowledge of the arguments or understanding of science and epistemology. They are what I call 'practical atheists' they think anything to do with the supernatural (problematic word, I know) is bullshit and so a godless, materialist universe suits their outlook. — Tom Storm

:up:

Sure. Hardcore atheists can be interesting, if they're not dull philosophically, like Dawkins for me.

I mean yeah they're going to be "materialistic"/scientistic, but outside of the label, I doubt they think a lot about metaphysics, because they figure there's just not much to find out.

like Dawkins for me. — Manuel

Dawkins is the height of sophistication next to some I've met. And I say this as an atheist.

You live in more 'civilized' parts than i do. Religious belief is the aesthetics of custom around these parts (US southeast). No matter how fashionable youtube & Dawkins have made it, "atheism" is still rejected outright, I observe, as an aesthetic reflex rather than for reasoned objections. "Something is up there, I feel it. This life isn't all there is." That's the usual ... and the occasional old timey "If you believe in nothing, then you'll fall for anything." Mindless anti-atheism. I suppose this says more about people than about either 'believing' or 'unbelieving'.

I hear you and I sympathize. Thanks to the internet (presumably) there has been a growth of literalist fundies down under. Our far North is the equivalent of your deep South... Mindless anti-atheism is here too and likely pullulating as we 'speak'.

Well, there must be many, many people much worse than him in terms of how they articulate what they believe, never mind the biology.

But in terms of being a public figure, few stand out more. Not saying he's stupid at all, just that he's atheism isn't impressive.

For that you have to go to Russell. Beyond him Hume and Schopenhauer, of course.

You live in more 'civilized' parts than i do. Religious belief is the aesthetics of custom around these parts (US southeast). No matter how fashionable youtube & Dawkins have made it, "atheism" is still rejected outright, I observe, as an aestheic reflex rather than for reasoned objections. "Something is up there, I feel it. This life isn't all there is." That's the usual ... and the occasional old timey "If you believe in nothing, then you'll fall for anything." Mindless anti-atheism. I suppose this says more about people than about either 'believing' or 'unbelieving'. — 180 Proof

I really disagree with this, but it's a metaphysical argument that will not be satisfying to atheists or believers, so I've avoided jumping in the pot.

Which "this" do you disagree with?

Which "this" do you disagree with? — 180 Proof

The whole thing. Your denial that religious sentiment could be more than aesthetics of custom, Dixie or elsewhere.

I made no such "denial". In the context of the exchange with @Tom Storm, I was sharing my experience as a mirror-image of his. Object to what I actually wrote in the context it's written. It's my experience that the majority of exchanges I've had concerning religious topics here in the Atlanta metro have been shallow to the point of mindless parrotting of social media memes and televangelist nostroms for consumption by the lowest common denominator. Even around the Emory University campus. Yeah, there are exceptions, but by and large not; so there's no categorical "denial" of anything in my anecdotal observation.

How many of you actually live any philosophy? For me, I've followed am existential path, hoping to create meaning in my life. At times I have succeeded. The precise use of language is important as T Clark has indicated.

so there's no categorical "denial" of anything in my anecdotal observation. — 180 Proof

Thanks for the correction to my assumptions.

That's as good a path as many notable traditions in philosophy. I may be wrong with my assumptions here, but it seems to me that a lot of this ties back to this extremely elusive field which we call "metaphysics".

@T Clark may be right that metaphysics can be thought of as what is useful. I only add that if something is useful then an aspect of your belief must have some tenuous connection to the nature of the world, as in existentialism, Daosim and different traditions say something about the world which is not captured by our physics or other sciences. It just can't be proven.

This of course contradicts in part, Clarks point about metaphysics being neither true nor false. But it rings true to me, though it could be me wanting to believe this.