The degree to which we agree will necessarily be limited by the fact that our approaches are completely different. You seem to be concerned with what we are justified in saying based on inferences to the best or "most plausible" explanation. Your approach is more in the positivist, objectivist, analytic mode, which concerns itself with being correct or right, where that means what we say is both justified and true. You would call that knowledge, I think. It is firmly based on the notion of correspondnece. — Janus
I, on the other hand, think correspondence is fine when it comes to empirical, inter-subjectively check-able knowledge, but that's as far as it goes. For me knowledge in the important sense is not something that needs to be checked and justified. It is more like the Biblical sense of knowing; the knowing of familiarity. — Janus
What you would call knowledge I would call belief. — Janus
So in that sense I can say I know the tree, but I do not know the public availability of the tree, or the ultimate explanation for it. — Janus
My approach is more in line with the critical, phenomenological mode of inquiry. I am not concerned with being right in some intersubjectively established or establish-able sense, but with gaining enriching insight into experience. — Janus
Knowledge, in the sense of the positivistic, objectivistic conception is great for science, technology and everyday practical matters, but that externalized mode will never tell us about the truly important things such as what love, goodness, beauty or truth is. — Janus
I have no doubt the thing before me is a tree — Janus
we can never penetrate in an objectivist way the ultimate mystery of experience and intelligibility. — Janus
Then came Janus, who is certain there is a tree, but not what the tree is. Eve though the tree is made of branches and leaves and carbon and protons and neutrons and is part of a garden and present in sculpture and art,
we can never penetrate in an objectivist way the ultimate mystery of experience and intelligibility. — Janus — Banno
However, the term "failing" indicates to me that you think that I am unaware of that fact; as if I'm not drawing the distinction between thoughts and thinking inadvertently. It's actually intentional.
I'm impressed with the fact you noted that. Kudos! — creativesoul
I gladly welcome you to join my thread - which is about that - here. I suspect it may be fun. Certainly more funner than lately... — creativesoul
My attention is arrested by the phrase "in the important sense"...
Surely it's important to form and/or hold true belief about ourselves and the everyday events that we find ourselves within, right?
I mean can we be knowingly familiar with 'X' if it is the case that we hold false belief about 'X'? — creativesoul
It is worth pointing out that enriching insight into experience is not incompatible with well grounded true belief, critical thinking, and/or analytical approaches. To quite the contrary, I suspect that the latter is crucial to actually obtaining the former as contrasted with/to mistakenly believing that one has acquired enriching insight into experience when one actually has not. — creativesoul
The objective understanding of the process of perception tells us nothing about how it could give rise to the most real thing we know: subjective experience. — Janus
A bunch of folk in the USA said we could only approach it asymptotically. — Banno
I am taking more about the raw feeling of subjective experience, of being in a living world, and yet of being something more than merely that, too. — Janus
How this is given is the "intractable mystery", and to be honest, nothing you said in response to me solves, or dissolves, that mystery in the least; — Janus
I really can't see how any explanation "from the outside" could ever solve that mystery, or dissolve that profound sense of mystery. — Janus
why would I want to dissolve the greatest richness of life, and reduce it all to banal explanations, even if that were possible? — Janus
But epistemology has to be founded on some logical abstraction if it is going to "see" what is going on "objectively". — apokrisis
Well the objective explanation is that your belief in your qualia is a socially-constructed point of view. — apokrisis
Sure, the way I conceive of my self (in other words the mode of "my belief in my qualia" is produced in socially constructed terms, but the raw feel of subjective experience (obviously prior to being conceived of as such) is not... — Janus
...all that you say is to me just another abstract story. compared to lived experience. — Janus
What I meant by "important sense" is that it is the more important sense for me. I tend to think of philosophy in the older way of its consisting in "love of wisdom". For me wisdom consists, not in accumulating knowledge, but in learning to live well, and I see this as an entirely personal matter, between me and God, or between me and life if you like a more secular take on it (for me they are the same). It's great to share ideas with others, but my observations tell me that people generally believe what they want believe; find convincing what they want to find convincing, myself included of course.
So, it is navigating through those self-deceptive tendencies that we all have, while never failing to recognize that we can never be certain of anything, that is what wisdom consists in, for me. Sure it's necessary to listen to others and all, but personal experience must be the ultimate guide in this. And different people's personal experiences differ as much as their viewpoints do. That's why I'm not much concerned at all about inter-subjective corroboration when it comes to philosophy. I actually think it is fatal to descend into that pit of vipers.
So, in answer to your question about "the importance of holding true belief...", I think it is important to find the views that help us to live the best way, This may well equate to not deceiving ourselves, and I think it is important to try to recognize where we might be deceiving ourselves, but ultimately it is quality of life that matters above all else; and being fallible creatures, how could we ever be sure about exactly where our self-deceptions lie, in any case? — Janus
...the way I conceive of my self... ...is produced in socially constructed terms, but the raw feel of... ...experience (obviously prior to being conceived of as such) is not; it is the inexplicable foundation from which everything is perceived, and upon which everything else is constructed. — Janus
It is worth pointing out that enriching insight into experience is not incompatible with well grounded true belief, critical thinking, and/or analytical approaches. To quite the contrary, I suspect that the latter is crucial to actually obtaining the former as contrasted with/to mistakenly believing that one has acquired enriching insight into experience when one actually has not.
— creativesoul
I disagree with this, because according to my experience the most enriching insights: those afforded by the arts and religion, have really nothing to do with "well grounded true belief, critical thinking, and/or analytical approaches". The latter is not "crucial" to the former at all. And it is impossible to "mistakenly believe" that one has acquired enriching insight into experience if one experiences enrichment; it isn't a matter of justified belief at all. Again you are vainly (I would say) trying to look at from the outside what must be lived from the inside. Different people gain enrichment in different ways; so inter-subjective corroboration will again be no use here. — Janus
...according to my experience the most enriching insights: those afforded by the arts and religion, have really nothing to do with "well grounded true belief, critical thinking, and/or analytical approaches". The latter is not "crucial" to the former at all. And it is impossible to "mistakenly believe" that one has acquired enriching insight into experience if one experiences enrichment; it isn't a matter of justified belief at all. Again you are vainly (I would say) trying to look at from the outside what must be lived from the inside. Different people gain enrichment in different ways; so inter-subjective corroboration will again be no use here. — Janus
But you say both that your experience (of the world? of qualia? of appearances?) is direct AND that that fact is an intractable mystery. — apokrisis
Well, for starters we need to realize that the very notion of 'self-deception' is self-contradictory. It doesn't really make any sense when placed under careful scrutiny. I mean think about it differently for a minute. What sense does it make to say that we deliberately set out in order to trick ourselves into believing something that we don't? — creativesoul
If one sets out with the deliberate intention of figuring out what they're mistaken about, they must consult others. — creativesoul
So, to answer the question about how to figure out where our self-deception lies, aside from experiencing a sudden reality-check, consulting an other is exactly what you need to do in order to become aware of what you're mistaken about. Describing that experience in terms of descending into a pit of vipers almost guarantees that you'll not be in a mindset conducive to changing bits of your worldview that are mistaken. That bit about vipers... I would be willing to bet my life that it was entirely adopted. — creativesoul
This may well equate to not deceiving ourselves, and I think it is important to try to recognize where we might be deceiving ourselves, but ultimately it is quality of life that matters above all else; and being fallible creatures, how could we ever be sure about exactly where our self-deceptions lie, in any case? — Janus
Sure we do. What are delusions if not intended beliefs that are meant to cover up the truth that is so depressing?Deception requires intent. We cannot intend to deceive ourselves. There is no such thing as self-deception.
You're chasing a chimera... — creativesoul
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.