That may be our loss; she was a combative philosopher. — Olivier5

My post was a FYI seeing that you were replying to a non existent poster. It wasn't a character analysis.

No problem, I took your post as such, and thanks for the info. I was just commenting that I liked her pugnacity, personally.

@Olivier5

Not that it matters but curious, how do you know it was a "her"? Is there a disclosure on the profile page?

Skepticism and dialects seem to come from a lack of certainty. A lack of common sense. From fear. From low self esteem. Distrust of one's self. — Mystic

Not always. Philosophical inquiry can perfectly well come from the realization that appearances can be deceptive. A greater power of observation and analytical thought, curiosity, etc., etc.

Skepticism and dialects seem to come from a lack of certainty. A lack of common sense. From fear. From low self esteem. Distrust of one's self.
I think most serious philosophical questions are based on this.
How else to explain doubting the senses,solipsism,descartes demon — Mystic

It's a tightrope walk. On one side is obsequiousness (low self-esteem) and on the other side is hubris (high self-esteem). Both ain't good for you but one is worse than the other. No prizes for guessing which one. Hint: Einstein's other formula: Ego = 1/Knowledge. Ego (self-esteem) and knowledge bear an inverse relationship.

Anyway, this might shed some light on the issue :point: Scylla & Charybdis Choose the lesser of two evils or err on the side of caution.

Wild guess.

Skepticism and dialects seem to come from a lack of certainty. A lack of common sense. From fear. From low self esteem. Distrust of one's self.
I think most serious philosophical questions are based on this.
How else to explain doubting the senses,solipsism,descartes demon etc,etc. — Mystic

This is how psychologically normal people think of philosophy (which they hold in very low regard).

Skepticism and dialects seem to come from a lack of certainty. A lack of common sense. From fear. From low self esteem. Distrust of one's self.
— Mystic

Not always. Philosophical inquiry can perfectly well come from the realization that appearances can be deceptive. A greater power of observation and analytical thought, curiosity, etc., etc. — Apollodorus

Where would you apply that, other than in relation to optical illusions and similar?

Where would you apply that, other than in relation to optical illusions and similar? — baker

In politics, in personal relationships, and many other areas. You may buy something made in China that appears to be great only to later find that this is not the case. You may think that a social movement is a good cause only to find that it is more like a weird cult. You may think that an email is genuine only to find that it is spam, etc., etc....

Where would you apply that, other than in relation to optical illusions and similar?— baker


In politics, in personal relationships, and many other areas. You may buy something made in China that appears to be great only to later find that this is not the case. You may think that a social movement is a good cause only to find that it is more like a weird cult. You may think that an email is genuine only to find that it is spam, etc., etc....

But would you apply reasoning like this to things like other minds,the existence of a self,etc,etc.
Are some things not directly obvious,intuitive and axiomatic? Or is proof and philosophically reasoning needed for everything?
@Apollodorus @baker

In politics, in personal relationships, and many other areas. You may buy something made in China that appears to be great only to later find that this is not the case. You may think that a social movement is a good cause only to find that it is more like a weird cult. You may think that an email is genuine only to find that it is spam, etc., etc.... — Apollodorus

But the question is how a person will interpret and handle such "deceptive appearance".

How would our confident non-philosopher from the OP interpret it?

Are some things not directly obvious,intuitive and axiomatic? — Trinidad

People typically seem to have a list of things they consider obvious, intuitive, and axiomatic. What exactly is on that list can differ greatly from one person to the next. For example, to one person, it is obvious, intuitive, and axiomatic that Jesus is their lord and savior. To another person, it is obvious, intuitive, and axiomatic that Jesus is not their lord and savior.
Because of such differences, it's hard to make sense and utility of notions like "obvious, intuitive, and axiomatic".

But would you apply reasoning like this to things like other minds,the existence of a self,etc,etc.
Are some things not directly obvious,intuitive and axiomatic? Or is proof and philosophically reasoning needed for everything? — Trinidad

Well, even "directly obvious" things may become less obvious on investigation and "intuition" is not always accurate.

Proof and philosophical reasoning is needed according to what you aim to achieve in a particular situation and/or in life in general.

I was simply illustrating cases where experience tends to contradict appearance and may cause someone to start analyzing things philosophically. In other words, the motivating factor doesn't need to be "lack of self-esteem" as the OP suggests.

@Apollodorus Is there anything that you regard as true without reasoning? The fact you exist,does that need reasoning?

But the question is how a person will interpret and handle such "deceptive appearance". — baker

That would depend on the person. My main point was to show that deceptive appearances exist and that their cumulative effect may be to lead someone to critical thought in general and from there to philosophical reasoning.

How would our confident non-philosopher from the OP interpret it? — baker

That would be rather hard to tell and I think we are unable to find out anytime soon. Apparently, he was banned and unless he reincarnates as one of the many new members ....

@baker So,would not consider it obvious that you type on your keyboard or that fire is hot?

Is there anything that you regard as true without reasoning? — Trinidad

That would depend on what you mean by "true". Most things in everyday life we tend to take for granted without worrying too much about the "truth" of them.

The fact you exist,does that need reasoning? — Trinidad

My feeling is that I don't need reasoning to exist as such. Conceivably, I could exist as self-aware intelligence or consciousness without reasoning. However, I don't know what would happen if I stopped reasoning for a long period of time, so it's hard to tell.

I was simply illustrating cases where experience tends to contradict appearance and may cause someone to start analyzing things philosophically. In other words, the motivating factor doesn't need to be "lack of self-esteem" as the OP suggests. — Apollodorus

Trying to embody the confident non-philosopher: once the confident non-philosopher encounters an illusion, a deception, he blames, faults, criticizes, but he does not reflect philosophically.

So,would not consider it obvious that you type on your keyboard or that fire is hot? — Trinidad

Sure, but such things are inconsequential, for the most part.

but he does not reflect philosophically. — baker

And, above all, he does never doubt himself. That would seem to be a reasonable assumption.

@baker And what do you consider consequential?

@Apollodorus You misunderstood my question.
I'm saying you don't need reasoning to know that you exist. It's self evident.

I'm saying you don't need reasoning to know that you exist. It's self evident. — Trinidad

If you put it that way, then you are probably correct. I have no reason to doubt that I exist. So, I don't doubt and don't reason about it.

What about yourself? How do you see it?

@Apollodorus I see many things as self evident. I see many problems in philosophy as being pseudo problems because of a tradition of neglecting intuition and self evident facts. I see discursive reasoning and overdefined concepts creating false narratives and rabbit holes.
And if a person plays sports or meditates they can see working out problems can be done without linguistic thinking.

And if a person plays sports or meditates they can see working out problems can be done without linguistic thinking. — Trinidad

Is that your personal experience? Do you play sports and meditate? And who or what do you think it is that does those things?

@Apollodorus Yes. I box,weight train,yoga and meditate.
I see a lot of philosophers jumping down rabbit holes and coming to no conclusions. Just look at this forum and the history of philosophy.

but he does not reflect philosophically.
— baker

And, above all, he does never doubt himself. That would seem to be a reasonable assumption. — Apollodorus

Exactly. It appears that the OP is right after all.

And what do you consider consequential? — Trinidad

The usual Big Issues -- the meaning of life, right and wrong.

@baker And what of the people who instinctively strive for happy lives,and intuitively try to do good,without hand wringing or philosophy?

And what of the people who instinctively strive for happy lives,and intuitively try to do good,without hand wringing or philosophy? — Trinidad

Sure, there are such people. What's your point?