So are your belief based on facts or emotions? — Andrew4Handel

There is a sense in which we can view ourselves from the third person. We observe ourselves by looking into the mind-mirror and, sometimes, we can sufficiently detach ourselves to be unbothered by what we believe or what we do. Is this a good thing?

Can a belief about an unknown be based on facts? — Andrew4Handel

Despite what philosophy tells me I think some people like the little white lie now and then.

For instance can we really no whether or not life is meaningless/gods exist etc? — Andrew4Handel

The best thing about humans is we can create. Create meaning if you find none outside.

Innovation, invention, and other creative acts begins with a hunch, which can generate desire. In development work, you may have a goal or idea; often from a hunch. You sort of know the answer before the practical solution. You need to build a bridge to see if it is possible to reach the other side. For example, you may desire to sequester 100% of the carbon from a process. This is on the other side and you need to build a bridge.

When others read the final report paper on the development process, it reads logically for the audience. However, the paper is not the day by day path used by the creator during the creative process. His personal log would seem far more disjointed than the final paper. The log is about hunches, pitfalls, learning from mistakes and eureka moments. The paper is about eureka moments arranged as though they were logical.

Sexual desire, which is the foundation of all desire, works the same way. For example, male sexual desire seeks a happy ending. The male can see the other side; goal. However, going from here to there, does not always have a clear cut logical path. He will strike out many times. The needed path may not be in the literature, if the circumstances are unique.

For example, if you were on a first date, then the bridge building from here to the goal, has constraints that may be set by the other person; unique to her. It is like the EPA not wanting the water disturbed when you build the bridge; have to appear positive even if not. One may need to develop a strategy to deal with these imposed reality circumstances, before bridge building can start. After you write the final report; tell your friends, then it appears logical for them.

They are based on both. We can't really negate facts in the face of hard evidence (althought some do), but in the end we know to little facts to base an entire worldview on. The blanks often get filled in so that it fits coherently with rest of our beliefs, which are coloured by our core values (which are based on emotions ultimately).

Here's an example, a succesfull entrepreneur will maybe say something like, "succes in life depends on your character, persistence, work-ethics,..." This may well correspond to some of the facts he encountered in life, but in the end philosophically he's not really justified to make such sweeping claims based on the facts alone, because the whole truth will invariably be more nuanced and depending on circumstances. The real reason for this kind of claim is his motivations. He needs that kind of belief to keep going.

Metaphysics is the extreme example of that same proces. That is, by definition, not based on facts, and so entirely based on our motivations.

We can sufficiently detach ourselves to be unbothered by what we believe or what we do. Is this a good thing? — TheMadFool

Is the point of logic to be detached? I would agree that it it is not easy to separate ourselves from our beliefs. But is our self rational? Logic appears to offer a route to a basic kind of rationality and consistency.

We could explore our self to see that we do not dominate our beliefs with our psychological persuasions/issues/biases/disturbances.

I am a general agnostic mostly, because I do feel there is a limitation on my ability to know.

The real reason for this kind of claim is his motivations — ChatteringMonkey

I think that motivations can be valid and invalid. I think society maybe mainly created around invalid motivations.

Take advertising for example. If you do not need a product the company still has to convince you that you need it. The amount of advertising is astonishing and it is aggressive.

Thinking of dating services. They make millions from claiming to help you find a partner which you could do on your own. It is not in their interest to expose the downside of relationships. But the romance industry can promote an excessive desire for an unreal lifestyle.

It is not surprising people succumb to depression with so much propaganda hurled at them.

What is wrong with life as we find it not constructed for some tiring psychological utopia attainment...

it is not easy to separate ourselves from our beliefs. But is our self rational? Logic appears to offer a route to a basic kind of rationality and consistency. — Andrew4Handel

The power of logic lies in its detachment. It is supposed to be a fair and wise judge of affairs. Not to say that it can't be used with a touch of feeling.

I am a general agnostic mostly, because I do feel there is a limitation on my ability to know. — Andrew4Handel

I know. There seems to be a limit to our understanding. I wonder if there ever will be one that understands everything.

I know. There seems to be a limit to our understanding. I wonder if there ever will be one that understands everything. — TheMadFool

Is it possible to live as a general agnostic? I think we seem to have to founded things on some false beliefs and emotions.

I don't know where complete understanding would takes us. There is always the is-ought problem of going from how reality is to how you would prefer it to be.

I think there is a hint of anarchy behind all this where lack of certainty could lead to a free for all of self expression or self indulgence. I think agnosticism leads to caution where you are unwilling to go too far in your claims, assertions and action.

I think false certainty leads to nihilism though the nihilism of abandoning the truth for illusion.

How do you differentiate between what you desire to be the case and what is true? — Andrew4Handel

What should be the difference between both? You could not even say what truth should be without running into a tautology. Given: Tautologies are necessarily true, but this wouldn't give "truth" any content.

Is it possible to live as a general agnostic? — Andrew4Handel

Yes. It's a healthy approach to life. Caution always pays off. Reckless driving is dangerous.