I don't think that it is always a mistake to claim that one might be or have been wrong. That is not to say that truth is unknowable, but that one's own position has changed. I think that it would indeed be wrong to think that since one has committed to a perspective that it can never be changed. I am not suggesting some kind of watery fickleness, but an ongoing honesty.

In certain instances, it could be bravery to admit to being mistaken and not a sign of weakness. It is not as if the philosopher, or any other thinker, is meant to be infallible. I would say that what is most important is an ongoing commitment to the quest for truth and this might change according to new facts which emerge, or due to a shift in the thinker's perception.To merely hold onto a conviction just for the sake of not admitting to being wrong would be a hollow sham, revealing the ridiculousness of trying to assert that one is right.

To me, it would be unimaginably profound to encounter some physical evidence that would logically suggest that truth is knowable to the human creature. Likewise, it would be equally profound if some of the physical evidence for the impossibility of knowledge could be debunked. I have found neither over some many of these past years.

I'm stuck with a brain that is nearly completely isolated from the outside world [like a man in solitary confinement], only "hearing" about that world via biochemical neural impulses from sensory nerves and organs. So, what can this little man in solitary "know" about the outside world, being so completely blind to it? That is the fundamental notion behind my opinion that I KNOW NOTHING. That's where this story begins for me, as it finally jelled in the mountains of northern California in July, 2004.

And everybody else's mileage seems to vary which is more than okay, I guess, because it is the only way when all we have are opinions and no irrefutable truths, it seems. My lament is that it is so terribly difficult to grow a story, to mature a story when nobody can get right in and logically challenge the basic assumptions and perceived/conceived evidence.

As yet another stopover in my quest, I was hoping for more. I won't give up yet.

I think that you are new to the forum, so I will try to explain where I am coming from in creating this thread question. My intention was not to suggest that we cannot know anything. Some of the big philosophy questions such as is there a God, life after death are speculation, but that doesn't stop people forming answers which are satisfactory to them. Sometimes people wish to defend their positions at all costs, and probably that is what I was thinking about.

Of course, most individuals do believe that they are right because they have spent time and energy coming to answers, so it is important to defend these. Certainly, I don't think it would be helpful to say that we cannot know at all about the questions of philosophy. Perhaps, a better starting point is to consider what do I know?

Nobody in government lost their jobs. They all got paid on-time, every week. — synthesis

Exactly the same in Canada. The people that are deciding to close businesses, and gyms, and stop children's sports, mandating everyone to stay in their homes unless "necessary" to leave are not adversely affected by those decisions. Our chief medical officer is still working, the cheque keeps rolling in, she isn't losing her house anytime soon, she can afford to go skiing on the weekend, and can deem it "necessary for mental health stress release". She likely has a gym at home, and wasn't likely going to the local public venue anyway. Very easy to say "lock it down" when there is minimal down side. Sure she gets criticized sometimes in the news, but all politicians do, and how bad can it be when to silence those voices one need only turn off the T.V?

Ask those who are looking at losing their homes, their businesses, or who have lost a loved one to suicide from the lockdown if it has been worth the cost. Methinks the answer will be very different.

Perhaps the question which I would pose for anyone reading this, is how far their experience has led them to question their systems of belief? — Jack Cummins

I question not so much my system of belief, as acknowledge that there is a great deal that I do not know, and, taking that into account, recognize that simply because something is new to me, or sounds off, does not, in and of itself make it wrong or inaccurate. Foundationally we were raised to create our own guidelines, under the broad guidance of "don't be an asshole". Definitions were left for us to determine on our own. I have read a number of religious books, all have some inherent value, none a definitive path. At least, none that I could see. Those readings have broadened my view and allowed me to have a more tempered response to new concepts and perspectives. "Ever forward" is one of the house mantras.

I think that in some cases people are so determined to 'know', in order to avoid stepping into the existentialist void of not knowing. Obviously, we seek to build pictures of how reality works, but this may involve deconstruction and time in the wildernes. How many are prepared to travel into this wilderness? I remember once saying to a woman I knew, that I had spent time questioning my way through the Catholic beliefs I has been taught. She replied, 'But that would be too much work.'

Ask those who are looking at losing their homes, their businesses, or who have lost a loved one to suicide from the lockdown if it has been worth the cost. Methinks the answer will be very different. — Book273

This sort of thinking is precisely how the pandemic has become so protracted. A refusal to do it once and do it right because business comes first has killed off many more businesses and people than just accepting the necessary measures to handle the pandemic properly.

Also, asking whether those worst affected by measures of they are in favour of them is rather dishonest. Such measures are statistical, taken for the sake of the whole population in order to minimise, not simply eradicate, harm. Those unfortunate enough to be the worst affected have no right to insist that every person saved by those measures should instead be dead for their sake.

I remember once saying to a woman I knew, that I had spent time questioning my way through the Catholic beliefs I has been taught. She replied, 'But that would be too much work.' — Jack Cummins

I have noticed that religious people can be strangely disassociated from their religious beliefs. I've known Catholics who, for all practical intents and purposes, believe that the Catholic doctrine is none of their business. That they are just a lowly person in the pew and that the doctrine is not something over which they have any say.

This sort of thinking is precisely how the pandemic has become so protracted. A refusal to do it once and do it right because business comes first has killed off many more businesses and people than just accepting the necessary measures to handle the pandemic properly. — Kenosha Kid

If you want to apportion blame (and emphasize personal responsibility), then the blame lies with the employees who chose to go to work instead of losing their jobs. In the beginning of the pandemic, this is what was happening: if people chose to respect the quarantene, not just a few employers would count that as their vacation time or sick leave, and when those ran out, it was "Go to work or lose your job."

Also, asking whether those worst affected by measures of they are in favour of them is rather dishonest. Such measures are statistical, taken for the sake of the whole population in order to minimise, not simply eradicate, harm. Those unfortunate enough to be the worst affected have no right to insist that every person saved by those measures should instead be dead for their sake.

So how does a person come to terms with this?
In fact, I'll start a thread.

If you want to apportion blame (and emphasize personal responsibility), then the blame lies with the employees who chose to go to work instead of losing their jobs. In the beginning of the pandemic, this is what was happening: if people chose to respect the quarantene, not just a few employers would count that as their vacation time or sick leave, and when those ran out, it was "Go to work or lose your job." — baker

Not using policy to condemn the many to die for the sake of the few us not emphasising "personal responsibility": quite the opposite! It is the responsibility of the state to minimise death, suffering and collateral damage. Individual responsibility is much more context-dependent.

For instance, we do not want doctors, nurses, grocers, police officers, government officials and other key workers quitting their jobs to self-isolate full stop, let alone at the risk of their own starvation. Instead, we need to ensure that a) they are trained and aided to work as safely as possible, and b) the duration of the pandemic is as short as possible, since they are risking their lives for our benefit.

Beyond key workers, forcing people to choose between Covid and destitution is cruel and backward imho. That does not mean that everyone should move freely around, killing more people, but that the state should ensure that everyone who can work from home does so (by legislating against unsafe employers and investing in remote learning capabilities), ensure that travel is restricted (esp. international), ensure that vital services in normal times are protected, including their employees (e.g. furlough schemes), and that everyone else can safely isolate (which involves all sorts of things, from benefit payouts where necessary to provision of shelters for domestic abuse survivors).

Then and only then you appeal to personal responsibility. There are certainly the blameworthy. I live in Greater Manchester which is the scumbag capital of the UK. We've been in pretty much permanent lockdown since it started because scumbags won't wear masks, socially distance, or limit travel. It's kind of the UK equivalent of the American Midwest, I guess. Yes, those people bear responsibility for the deaths of others because they were given an effective choice.

I would agree that some people don't think see the consequences of their religious beliefs in most senses.They don't seem to make connections between church doctrines and dogmas. Generally, I think these are more the people who view church more as a social convention. They are usually not the ones who are going to agonise or have any sleepless nights over the philosophy questions. But, at some point, something might happen in their lives which really makes them stop and question life and death.

But, equally many people who are not religious don't stop and question beliefs that deeply. I think a lot of people I know think that I am a bit of a nerd for reading philosophy books. There are people who have fixed beliefs, those who don't seem to care much at all, and a whole spectrum in between.

Even though it is slightly off topic from my thread discussion I was interested to know that you are in Manchester. I imagined you in America and, generally, that not many people on the site are in England, so perhaps I am wrong there (ha ha!) I would imagine that you have it a lot worse time of almost indefinite lockdown.

Generally, I agree with what you say about people's attitudes and behaviour. But one thing which I am also thinking is that after all this time of just staying indoors, many people are almost going to need rehabilitation to go back to living the life that they have lived. I go out to the shops but I know many who have almost stopped, especially as so much can be delivered. I wear a mask, of course, but I have knocked items over and tripped over a step because I can't see properly as my glasses steam up so much.

I sometimes think that life in Britain will never go back to the way it was, and I really hope that I am wrong.

I wear a mask, of course, but I have knocked items over and tripped over a step because I can't see properly as my glasses steam up so much. — Jack Cummins

Me too. Shopping blind is mad skillz!

I sometimes think that life in Britain will never go back to the way it was, and I really hope that I am wrong. — Jack Cummins

I actually hope there are some permanent changes. Remote working for those who can do it is a fantastic opportunity to help tackle climate change, for instance.

I am not sure that the majority of people are going to be able to work from home. I only know a few individuals who are really able to do this, because it is mainly for people whose work is on computers. If only there was such a solution for climate change. As it is many lives have been more or less been put on complete hold, but we will have to wait and see what happens. I try to avoid doom and gloom thinking. I am also hoping that most people will have the vaccine because I am aware of many who plan to refuse it.

I try to keep an open mind about the future because the whole topic of Covid_19 and restrictions is one in which it is easy to get locked into positions of thinking. Sometimes, I go out and feel so negative. I have to kickstart my whole emotional mindset, and keep focused and try to think and approach all the challenges we are up against in the most creative way possible.

I am not sure that the majority of people are going to be able to work from home. — Jack Cummins

True, but I think it's a big enough minority to make a big difference. Around 50% of workers right now are working from home who weren't doing so before. Obviously there's a lot if people unemployed who will go back to jobs they can't do from home, but even so: big improvement.

Yes, but if life carried on as it is now I would question whether there would be any quality of life at all, because just about every outlet available is closed down. I don't know about you but I haven't met any friends for just about a year. I haven't worked since May and can't really look for work.

I do remember at some point replying to you when pubs were open, and I was saying that I was reading a book. So, it might appear that London is better but in order to enter premises I was having to fill in forms of personal details. In some places, i couldn't even buy a cup of coffee because I hadn't got the right app on my phone to scan in. I think that is the kind of social world we are going to be in for a very long time. I am sorry if this sounds negative but this is because the whole lockdown life is making me unable to sleep. It is all just going on and on, but I do hope that we start to see some way out by spring.

Yes, but if life carried on as it is now I would question whether there would be any quality of life at all, because just about every outlet available is closed down. — Jack Cummins

Oh sure, I'm not hoping to keep every element of lockdown for posterity. That said, a happy medium between the minimalist drudgery of the now and the extravagant gratification of the last few decades would also be beneficial. I think we're going to have to get used to a more restricted way of life anyway, may as well make a start while we're in the habit.

Yes, I am trying to use it constructively. I have moments when I am too great about it but I do believe that, by the end, we will have learned a lot, especially about ourselves. We are not used to spending so much time by ourselves. It feels like it has lasted for much longer than a year. I definitely feel that I am very different from the way I was before it all started and I am hoping that I am a much better and wiser person. I have certainly reflected enough on philosophy in that time, and I am sure you have, as you post a lot. I am hoping that this is all worthwhile in the long term scheme of everything.

I have moments when I am too great — Jack Cummins

Me too. Well, we are British. ;)

Anyway, in answer to the OP, I think defending your position within reason is productive, so long as you move on from that position when it is untenable, and I will stand by that no matter what.

Being wrong should be embarrassing only when we ought to have known better. "Fact-checking" is an overly common word now because, for some reason, facts are trading low. When it is sufficient for a man you don't know on the internet to say that Hilary Clinton traffics children for sex and drinks the blood of babies for you to not only build a position around that but to become elected to high office, something has gone horribly wrong.

There seems to be a strange attitude now in which the position is completely arbitrary and yet somehow the only thing that matters. There's another, older trend in which, if the facts are counter to your interests, they are illegitimate (a la climate change denial, or holocaust denial, or election result denial). I think this makes productive conversation impossible. There is no synthesis with extremist positions. One side or the other will just get mad (depending on what the extreme position is).

I think having an emotional connection to your beliefs is usually fine, but when that emotional connection is the only reason for defending them, you've glitched.

Yes, you make some good points. Also, some people are so patriotic in defending the British, getting heated as those in many philosophical arguments. I am half Irish but I prefer to see people as people rather than in terms of nationalities.

Of course, it is only natural to get emotional in arguing certain views. I am sure that I have done so on many occasions. I am really opposed to nuclear weapons and against capital punishment and I can remember getting really heated about these topics, especially at school. I used to get into very emotive debates about religion with my father as a teenager.

Also, I have to admit that sometimes even when I read this site I get quite worked up by some posts I read. To some extent, emotion and anger do have a motivating effect in enabling us to fight for certain causes.

Probably, I have just got to the point where I like to listen to viewpoints and avoid arrogance about the views and ideas which I feel passionate about.

Also, I have to admit that sometimes even when I read this site I get quite worked up by some posts I read. To some extent, emotion and anger do have a motivating effect in enabling us to fight for certain causes. — Jack Cummins

I think that's right. Great moments of progress in history (suffrage, civil rights) are not executed by chilled out people. It is perfectly natural to feel anger at injustices and antisocial beliefs and people. I agree with you on nuclear weapons and capital punishment, and totally get how contrary opinion seems upsetting because it is about killing people, which is the height of antisocial behaviour.

On nuclear weapons, I imagine the conflict is usually between their intrinsic horrific nature and the pragmatism of negotiating a world in which other, perhaps less trustworthy, nations have them. Capital punishment appeals most in the west to those seeking retribution for other, perhaps greater injustices (since, as Camus pointed out, the only witnesses usually allowed are family of the victims), which is easy enough to empathise with (who wouldn't feel like they wanted to kill the man who killed their parents?) but seems a very wrong thing to build a principle upon.

What's puzzling is the anger of people who aren't defending such a point. That's what I can't get my head around: the Magamaniacs and Qanoners and Brexiteers who seem to be looking for reasons to justify an emotion rather than being emotionally invested in a reasonable position. I'm happy to dispassionately discuss immigration policy and the susceptibility of voting systems to fraud, but when Hugo Chavez is conspiring with Jeff Bezos from beyond the grave... I just don't know what's going on there. It's all emotion and no reason.

How is anybody sure of anything? — synthesis

Does this mean you’re not sure?

Facts are relative to a specific set of circumstances that can only occur one time, so is it really a fact? — synthesis

The Earth has revolved around the sun many times, not just once.

Is it always painful when you get kicked? What does the ball do if you drop it out in deep space? — synthesis

Due to our knowledge of all the relevant facts, we can predict these outcomes. We can account for why a person may not feel pain if they’re kicked, provided we’re aware of their medical history, pain tolerance, force of the impact, etc. We can do the same for deep space gravity.

A long time ago people thought all kinds of crazy things and made it work. The things we believe today will be just as crazy to the folks in the future. — synthesis

I’m pretty sure this is a logical fallacy, but I’m horrible with remembering or knowing they’re formal names. The inaccuracy of previous people’s theories have no bearing on the theories of today.

It's always been my impression that what we can know happens before our intellect kicks-in. We just know like a bird or wolf or termite just knows. It is our intellect that mostly distorts this knowing into all kinds of gibberish. — synthesis

I’m not understanding what you mean here.

I would bet that we are well down on the list of animals in terms of weather predicting skills, don't you think? — synthesis

No.

We thought Newton's theories could predict outcomes reliably for the longest time. Turns out they couldn’t and we were making a mistake. — khaled

Newton’s laws of physics are still useful for predicting most outcomes. We were just mistaken about it’s scope. It cannot predict accurately at the quantum level, but that’s where quantum theories come in to play.

You are right to say that being 'chilled out' doesn't make for fighting for civil liberties. I have to admit that I have been on matches for certain causes I have believed in. Perhaps all this social distancing is making me get too chilled out. I also think work has made me learn to blunt my emotions a bit.In an earlier post, I said that I often have to avoid expressing too much personal opinion to 0patients, but I think that it was also a case of feeling that I had to be careful what I said to colleagues.

I think that different situations allow for different levels of voicing of opinions. In some cases, anger does seem to arise from the people not expressing an opinion. Also, some people are less able to articulate their views more than others. Personally, I am probably more in the habit of writing than arguing with people. Even at work, if I was angry about something I was usually emailing about something rather than talking about it. I also used to get so stressed by some emails at work. But, life leads to so much emotion, especially anger, and the whole channel for this is an underlying issue.

Well, they say that generals, CEOs, and politicians are natural jobs for psychopaths. Even if that's not true, it feeeeeeeels true. Sometimes to cope, you have to become emotionally detached and, in a way, I think that describes most people to one extent or another.

Take a defense lawyer, for instance. The chances are that any given client is a criminal, and the lawyer's job is to, where possible, protect that client's liberty and, where not, minimise the consequences. The bigger picture is that, if every accused person has the best possible defense, the number of innocent people convicted of crimes can be minimalised. In this case, being emotionally detached creates a greater good.

The idea of being of emotion detachment being a requirement to certain professions is worth reflecting on. My own slant on it is one in which in some ways I was required to do and in other ways, it was had limitations. That is because I was working in the care profession. In some ways, I had to be involved in the implementation of some decisions which people didn't like, such as being expected to administer medication to Sectioned patients against their choice, which meant a certain amount of detachment was needed. However, if one became too detached in this kind of work, the whole notion of compassionate care would get lost altogether.

I think professionalism is also important. In particular, I feel that the way people express views is bound up with this. Personally, I probably adhere more to the guidelines I have been taught than if I had not had that training. I am not saying it is necessarily better, but a whole way of being taught to express ideas. Even when I am writing on this site, it probably comes into play, in how I express my views and in what I include or exclude. However, I would say that some people keep their work and private self entirely separate. I know someone who told me how when at work he put on a professional persona. I am not sure that I could divide myself up so much. Of course, when I am not at work I relax and can be more free in expression, but I am the same person in most situations.

For instance, we do not want doctors, nurses, grocers, police officers, government officials and other key workers quitting their jobs to self-isolate full stop — Kenosha Kid

So lock it down! Except for the people that don't eh. That's ok because it would be icky if they lockdown, because that would be an actual lockdown and no one wants to pay the price on that eh.

That is why the lockdown failed and will always fail: Exceptions are made because society is too weak to do it right. therefore, since it will not be done right, there is no purpose doing it at all. Unless the plan is to draw it out unreasonably, then we are on the right path for sure.

I am sure that ideas about lockdowns have been fueled by people who have thought this was right. However, no easy solution has been found to contain the virus, so everyone is still floundering. Even the effectiveness of the various vaccines is not certain at all, so it is a case of working no clear answers and struggling with the unknown.

I get that there are no clear answers as we don't really know anything about this new bug. I work healthcare, 15 years now. My issue with the response to Covid is that the response has been very not-science based and very public opinion motivated, so fear driven. I assure you, were I to practice half as poorly thought out as the pandemic response, and as evidence-based as the response has been I would lose my license to practice within a month, never to have it back. I find it disturbing that the chief medical officers of the provinces and country I live in are not being held to the same standards that I have been held to since I was a first year healthcare student. Couple that with the flouting of traditional vaccine trials (and yep, they have been fast-tracked) in an effort to "get it into arms faster" and I find myself with even less respect for the healthcare profession than I had a year ago (which is saying something, I am rather burnt out.). Informed consent is non-existent with the vaccine because the person the patient normally asks questions of doesn't know anything about the vaccine or responses to it, no long term effects, etc. and we are told by our licensing bodies "registrants are expected to promote the public health stance." Never before have I been told that. Previously it was "provide the best care to the patient and families" not push the political agenda of the day.

I am not signing up to administer the vaccine, nor will I take it. I know nothing about it. Certainly not enough to feel comfortable advising anyone on it.

Generally, I agree with you and I was in health care until last May. Obviously measures were needed to curb the pandemic but I think that so much that has taken place has been moral panic of public opinion. I don't think that the scientists or government really know what they are doing and it does seem more guesswork about the vaccines. The whole problem is the new strains, but this is likely to go on and on with potentially hundreds of strains surfacing. My own thoughts on how long this is likely to last, is for many years to come. Would we remain in lockdown conditions? Who knows?

I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I do wonder if there is a lot we are not being told behind the news headlines and coverage.