My question is how does one know when that is the case - ie they're chatting sh*t. And to the contrary, when they really do know what they're talking about. — Benj96
One piece of evidence is that I don't seem to be struggling against "reality" as much as I used to. — BC
Do you think you can take over the universe and improve it?
I do not believe it can be done.
The universe is sacred.
You cannot improve it.
If you try to change it, you will ruin it.
If you try to hold it, you will lose it.
So sometimes things are ahead and sometimes they are behind;
Sometimes breathing is hard, sometimes it comes easily;
Sometimes there is strength and sometimes weakness;
Sometimes one is up and sometimes down.
Therefore the sage avoids extremes, excesses, and complacency. — Tao Te Ching
What one knows is what has been. What another knows one might learn if one pays attention quietly to what they are saying without rehearsing what one knows over, to compare. Your question arises when there is a conflict. One thinks one knows and then discovers that one was wrong, and there is no conflict if one is ready to learn. Only if one tries to hold on to one's knowing does the conflict arise. So one learns that a conflicted mind is the infallible sign. — unenlightened
One piece of evidence is that I don't seem to be struggling against "reality" as much as I used to. Not nearly as much. — BC
My question is how does one know when that is the case - ie they're chatting sh*t. And to the contrary, when they really do know what they're talking about. — Benj96
I've had to resort to memory aids even in areas where I used to be articulate — Vera Mont
You are asking: "what is true?" — Banno
. I know which is which — Vera Mont
Absolute verbatim and exact? Nobody knows that except the omniscient fictitious being. When I'm not sure enough, I check. Most of my life, I have done well enough with a close approximation of what works: have never fallen off a roof or been booed off a stage or poisoned my family with a dinner or caused any grievous harm to patients through misapplication of lab protocol.Well there's the crux of the situation. How do you know that for absolute verbatim truth — Benj96
I've had to resort to memory aids even in areas where I used to be articulate
— Vera Mont — BC
Do you believe most people generally trend towards wisdom/ lack of delusion with age and experience? Or is this you referring to your specific case. — Benj96
I only ask because as far as I've considered: scientific method has its limitations, — Benj96
Whatever the case may be the limits of trust in the experience and knowledge of others, as with the self, only go so far. — Benj96
And that unknown will just have to wait patiently until we either figure it out or don't.The rest is in the realm of the unknown, the uncertain. — Benj96
Both – in sum, context-sensitive, consistent and coherent, contradiction/fallacy-free, fact-based (as much as possible) and parsimonious discursive practices. Indefeasibility, however, is not required (though certainty – lack of evident grounds to either doubt or disbelieve relevant assumptions and statements (Witty) – greatly helps to preserve a discussion from devolving into a circle-jerk of empty rhetoric). YMMV.Is there an universal logic/reason? Or only a circumstantial one? — Benj96
So do you supose that there could be an algorithm, a method, that gives us truth in any given case? — Banno
. Maybe not perfectly, but without some degree of confidence in what we're doing, we would be utterly paralyzed. — Vera Mont
And that unknown will just have to wait patiently until we either figure it out or don't. — Vera Mont
Everyone can be rash, everyone can be stupid, misinformed or otherwise malpracticing adequate reason. My question is how does one know when that is the case - ie they're chatting sh*t. And to the contrary, when they really do know what they're talking about. What is the litmus test in the realm of discourse with others which may be either just as misinformed or very much astute and correct? Is there a universal logic/reason? Or only a circumstantial one? — Benj96
So do you supose that there could be an algorithm, a method, that gives us truth in any given case?
— Banno
That's an interesting question. — Benj96
See the thread on Rings and Books for more on this.“commits us to a particular way of looking at the matter” which leads us to where Descartes ends up, — Antony Nickles
Excellent answer....we want to avoid our disappointment and surprise — Antony Nickles
They, figuratively, castrate themselves among those who have yielded themselves up as an audience.My question is how does one know when that is the case - ie they're chatting sh*t. And to the contrary, when they really do know what they're talking about.
What is the litmus test in the realm of discourse with others which may be either just as misinformed or very much astute and correct?
Is there an universal logic/reason? Or only a circumstantial one? — Benj96
create the fantasy of “first universal principles” to avoid our responsibility to look closer to see how we are ordinarily able to work things out, or work harder to become intelligible to each other, because we always can. — Antony Nickles
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.