Read Pyrrho. He allegedly walked into the path of an oncoming wagon because he wasn't sure of the report of his senses and yet...

Richard Feynman Quotes
“I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. ... I don't have to know an answer.”

In fact, we live only in doubt.

I was wondering what are the thoughts of the community about this, let me know:) — Lea

It's hard to know what the question means exactly so I guess I'll answer this as if you are asking: "Can a person hold beliefs which they doubt?"

Yes. Doesn't everyone except fundamentalists and crack pots?

Living with doubt may involve some mental anguish. However, in some ways it may be the most honest and authentic way. To try to force thinking beyond doubt may force prematurely or inadequate answers, which is just about trying to struggle with doubt, as if it an enemy. Why not embrace doubt instead?

Living with doubt may involve some mental anguish — Jack Cummins

Perhaps, but have you noticed that it depends upon what belief you are doubting? No one is traumatised by the notion that they doubt if the platypus is a mammal. Generally anxiety takes place if you are conditioned into thinking that certainty is possible and specifically that it is possible about 'supernatural' beliefs - for instance life after death and god stuff. The other belief that seems to preoccupy certain people is whether we are living in a simulation or not or if what we call reality is a fancy cover for some heavy duty idealism.

Perhaps, but have you noticed that it depends upon what belief you are doubting? No one is traumatised by the notion that they doubt if the platypus is a mammal. Generally anxiety takes place if you are conditioned into thinking that certainty is possible and specifically that it is possible about 'supernatural' beliefs - for instance life after death and god stuff. The other belief that seems to preoccupy certain people is whether we are living in a simulation or not or if what we call reality is a fancy cover for some heavy duty idealism. — Tom Storm

I think people worry about all sorts of doubts, like whether the surgery will work, whether the job will remain, whether the relationship will continue, whether the team will win, etc.

Better a question that can't be answered than an answer that can't be questioned.

(I think that was Feynman.)

Doubt does not preclude action.
Embrace the doubt, then ignore it.

You just have to know when and where to subordinate it to the point where it does not get in the way. Until then, argue with people that are smarter than you.

Peirce speaks about this quite interestingly.

"Doubt is an uneasy and dissatisfied state from which we struggle to free ourselves and pass into the state of belief; while the latter is a calm and satisfactory state which we do not wish to avoid, or to change to a belief in anything else. On the contrary, we cling tenaciously, not merely to believing, but to believing just what we do believe. Thus, both doubt and belief have positive effects upon us, though very different ones. Belief does not make us act at once, but puts us into such a condition that we shall behave in some certain way, when the occasion arises. Doubt has not the least effect of this sort, but stimulates us to action until it is destroyed."

Obviously much more to this. But if all we had were doubts, we couldn't even more at all.

Doesn't everyone except fundamentalists and crack pots? — Tom Storm

:up: True, but only because no one brings doubt into their lives. That can be done, but one has to first quit doubting, and then make them doubt. If they refuse, well, do unto them what they would do unto you.

I was wondering what are the thoughts of the community about this, let me know:) — Lea

I'm an engineer. When we design a structure, we calculate all the loads on it - gravity, wind, seismic, snow. Then we estimate material properties - steel, soil, wood, bolts.... Then we increase the calculated and estimated values by what we call a factor of safety. Then we run calculations to see if the structure will stand up.

The factor of safety is the engineering way of dealing with doubt.

By "live" I assume that you mean on a constant basis, persistently. (Otherwise, it's not a big deal, right?)l

We all live in doubt, about certain things. The question is if these things are just a few, a lot or most of them! The last case can be of course characterized as a severe mental condition. It also matters how important in our life these doubts are.

Doubt means uncertainly and conflict. Conflict can exist "on the surface", i.e. on an intellectual basis, rationally or "deeply" on an emotional basis, pathologically. The first case is normal and sometimes or necessary, e.g. you doubt about a person's intentions, if something that is said is actually true etc. But is shouldn't last forever about the same things, otherwise it might develop to an obsession and possibly to a mental condition. You cannot doubt for too long, that is "live with the doubt" of whether your partner (wife, husband, associate, etc.) cheats on you or not. You should better find out soon and get out of that doubt.

On the other hand, when a conflict takes emotional dimensions and is very important for the individual, i.e. if one's life is worth living, it even lead to suicide.

I think people worry about all sorts of doubts, like whether the surgery will work, whether the job will remain, whether the relationship will continue, whether the team will win, etc. — Hanover

I agree. But I guess I don't put those into the category of doubt so much as undifferentiated anxieties of living. But what you've highlighted is just how fast and sprawling the question is and how it would benefit from some specificity. I took it as being about ontological dread. Perhaps wrongly.

Can we live in doubt?

In doubt of what?


"To live in doubt of X" would mean to be able to stay focused on X for all of one's waking hours. That doesn't seem realistic.

If there are times of day when one doesn't "live in doubt of X", then, clearly, it is possible to live without doubt in X.

Doubt is overrated.

You can only doubt against an indubitable background. You might doubt anything, if you like, but you can't doubt everything.

Doubt is overrated. — Banno

How so? Doubting about existential questions (death, purpose of life, God etc). Doubting about yourself. Who you actually are. What will happen even in your everyday routine (work, marriage, family, friends etc). All these are overrated??

Doubt is inherited in human nature. And for me, goes hand by hand with our natural curiosity. And these are what drives humanity as to find answers and the Absolute Truth. What fuels us.Doubt played a key role in our great humanity achievements.
So no it isn't overrated at all for me. In fact,it's the exact opposite .It's underrated!

Doubting about existential questions (death, purpose of life, God etc). — dimosthenis9

Can you doubt your death or your purpose in life without presuposing your life? Each act of doubt rests on something that is undoubted.

That's part of the logical structure of doubt.

The habit in philosophy has been to focus on doubt, with the result that most philosophical discussion - especially amongst dilettantes - is excessively cynical. The result is malformed notions such as idealism and solipsism.

So take the notion you used: "absolute truth". What that is remains obscure. Like Douglas Adams ultimate question of life the universe and everything, folk don't take the time to work out what it is they are looking for. The result is they jump to absurdity, perhaps god, perhaps nihilism.

SO if you really want to doubt, try doubting that you understand "absolute truth". Do some conceptual analysis, see if you can work out what you mean.

Each act of doubt rests on something that is undoubted. — Banno

So what? That doesn't say anything about the doubt itself. Life is undoubted yes, but that doesn't help at all to find out our purpose of life. Doubt is still there!

The result is malformed notions such as idealism and solipsism — Banno

Solipsism yeah, but idealism? Idealism offered and still offers great services to philosophy!

SO if you really want to doubt, try doubting that you understand "absolute truth". — Banno

Understand it? How could I ever understand something that is still unknown? A total mystery?
What I mean with Absolute Truth is simply the ultimate explanation of how everything works! How universe works and its purpose (if actual there is one). And yes, that Truth must be one and Absolute indeed.
I always distinguish it from Human Truth, which is by nature limited.And nothing to do with it.
It's one of the rare things in fact that I don't doubt about.

So what? That doesn't say anything about the doubt itself. — dimosthenis9

SO you are claiming: that doubt is dependent on certainty says nothin about doubt.

Hmm. That's a bit contrary.

And you set up "absolute truth" by distinguishing it from "human truth", with which it has nothing to do. That'll work.

It's still the ultimate question fo life, the universe and everything. Doubt the sense of that.

42.

I don't see how you are doing anything useful here.

In fact, we live only in doubt. — dimosthenis9

You sure about that?

Can you doubt your death or your purpose in life without presuposing your life? Each act of doubt rests on something that is undoubted.

That's part of the logical structure of doubt.

The habit in philosophy has been to focus on doubt, with the result that most philosophical discussion - especially amongst dilettantes - is excessively cynical. The result is malformed notions such as idealism and solipsism.

So take the notion you used: "absolute truth". What that is remains obscure. Like Douglas Adams ultimate question of life the universe and everything, folk don't take the time to work out what it is they are looking for. The result is they jump to absurdity, perhaps god, perhaps nihilism.

SO if you really want to doubt, try doubting that you understand "absolute truth". Do some conceptual analysis, see if you can work out what you mean. — Banno

Nicely put. Crystal clear.

Nicely put. Crystal clear. — Tom Storm

Cheers. I thought so, too.

Pearls before swine, it seems.

It comes back to the notion that philosophy consists in conceptual analysis. Working out what is meant as opposed to making shit up.

I've come to see that. I've certainly been guilty in my time for holding absolute certainty that there is no absolute certainty and other neophyte conceptual gaffes.

SO you are claiming: that doubt is dependent on certainty says nothin about doubt. — Banno

Only about the nature of the doubt.Its origin. But so what? It doesn't make it vanish or solve it. So for me at least it isn't much helpful.

Hmm. That's a bit contrary. — Banno

How so?

Doubt the sense of that. — Banno

I m not following you. What exactly sense to doubt about? That there must be an explanation of Universe and how it works? That this explanation (truth) must be one and only? That human truth like (good, evil, death etc etc) has nothing to do with universal truth?
If that's what you want me to doubt about,well no thanks. Doubt yourself.

You sure about that? — Banno

Let me correct it a little. We mostly live in doubt. And for that yeah I m sure.

It comes back to the notion that philosophy consists in conceptual analysis. — Banno

Kant wouldn't be very happy reading that.

Wittgenstein again - On Certainty.

.

Only about the nature of the doubt.Its origin. But so what? It doesn't make it vanish or solve it. So for me at least it isn't much helpful. — dimosthenis9

Take the analysis further. Doubt and certainty are propositional attitudes; they are ways of thinking about this or that statement. You doubt that the Earth is flat, or are certain that this is a hand.

SO if it is important to you, you can go ahead and accept whatever you like as certain. Or you can doubt whatever you like. SO if what you are after is just to "make it vanish or solve it" nothing could be easier.

But it might serve you well to consider the consequences of each doubt or certainty.

Hmm. That's a bit contrary.
— Banno

How so? — dimosthenis9

What do you think?

That's all you ever you here these days. :yawn: — Wheatley

Well, there's a whole lot of other philosophical tools one might pull out, but folk keep asking questions for which Wittgenstein's approach is particularly suited.

We could take on Popper instead, and say that doubt is how we sort the good stories from the bad; the ones we can doubt being the better. Woudl that be better?