Absolute truth would refer, in your terminology, to anything that is considered true with absolute certainty; and 'absolute certainty' would refer to a level of certainty which cannot be doubted legitimately (e.g., a tautology) as opposed to what one doesn't have good reasons to doubt. — Bob Ross
That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles.
Which Intuitionist logic denies; or this:Φ∨¬Φ
which paraconsistent logic denies?Φ,¬Φ⊢Ψ
And its this that makes his ideas distasteful. We've had enough of dogmatism masquerading as liberalism. His confusion is gross. — Banno
I tend to agree with this. I think using 'know' and 'knowledge' is fine. I don't take assertions put in those categories as impossible revise. Yes, it can happen and has happened. But I don't need to walk around doubting everything all the time. I think I remember that I boil the water first before I put in the egg, but then perhaps my memory is false and I don't know that that works. And then working is working getting my egg boiled the way I like it. What if my liking it that way is actually not liking it? What if I am someone else? and so on. Having a category we call knowledge works well. Yes, you might run into problems if you consider all things considered knowledge unrevisable. But the opposed danger of thinking every belief is a mere belief and it's wrong to divvy that set up into subgroups seems to instantly create a mass of problems. Like today, now, in the next few minutes dozens of problems will arise and any moment of decision becomes an infinite regress.You have your way of thinking about it, and I have mine, and the twain shall never meet, it seems. I think we know many things, as I've said, but I admit there is no perfect, absolute, context-independent knowledge, and since such a thing is impossible, I find it to be an absurd inapt principle by which to attempt to assess and understand our concepts. — Janus
Do you know where that post is in the thread? — Bylaw
Fear as an emotion is rooted in the need for comfort and certainty. And certainty is absurd. Sp, by pandering to that fear, we cause more problems than we really solve. Fear is always, when served in this fashion, a cowardly short-cut to wisdom, to truth, that is a lie, a delusion, an immoral mistake. — Chet Hawkins
This IS cowardly Pragmatism writ small, again and again. It is a short cut. It is greatly immoral in its aims. — Chet Hawkins
And wouldn't this better way include a collection of assertions that you think are better than pragmatist assertions? Aren't you dividing the set of beliefs into those that are better and those that are worse?Granted that Pragmatism can enjoy this position and that most people will not have the courage to argue against its workable everyday ways. In other words most people are both 1) Willing to accept that when you say you know that knowing is possible. AND 2) That its ok to say you know if you have done some UNKNOWN amount of justifications, especially if some reasonably thought-of-as-known(not really known) authority (group of bozos wearing the same orderly clothing and using the same orderly practices) says so. THAT is Pragmatism.
I adhere to a better way. — Chet Hawkins
In general, you are discussing what I call the path of anger, of being, which is what empowers real confidence. Of course, if you understand my model, which admittedly is not yet fully revealed here, you realize that it is over expressions of an emotion that cause or ARE immoral choices. Balanced emotions are better than imbalanced ones and more is better than less.Yes, but people can manage to assert things in ways where they seem certain, without using know or knowledge. And they do all the time. In fact, I'd say this is more common. People asserting things without qualification. Rather than saying I know this subject, they act like they know the subject. I don't hear that formulation much 'I know this subject'. Instead one gets a lot of blunt statements. — Bylaw
I get it. I understand the (your) position, Thank you for starting this thread as, to me, it has been fun and good work and clearly something people are willing to engage on. That's what such a forum is about!You have your way of thinking about it, and I have mine, and the twain shall never meet, it seems. I think we know many things, as I've said, but I admit there is no perfect, absolute, context-independent knowledge, and since such a thing is impossible, I find it to be an absurd inapt principle by which to attempt to assess and understand our concepts. — Janus
What is absurd standard? Perfection? Well, I like worthy goals.↪Janus Yes, to an extent. Chet Hawkins sets up an absurd standard only to complain that it cannot be met. He is forced by this ideology to ignore the very many examples of things we do know - he doesn't address the examples, but instead merely repeats the assertion that we cannot know anything, and that therefore the examples are supposedly in error. That's the approach of a dogmatist. As is the contention that those who do not accept his ideology are evil - that those who think they know things are angry and cowardly.
And its this that makes his ideas distasteful. We've had enough of dogmatism masquerading as liberalism. His confusion is gross. — Banno
Anger's sin is laziness. In the righteous rejection of immoral desire and the challenge for a fight towards immoral fear {see here now}, anger is doing its part. But often enough, anger or the lazy exemplar avoids conflict and moral choice suffers.Do you know where that post is in the thread?
— Bylaw
Fear as an emotion is rooted in the need for comfort and certainty. And certainty is absurd. Sp, by pandering to that fear, we cause more problems than we really solve. Fear is always, when served in this fashion, a cowardly short-cut to wisdom, to truth, that is a lie, a delusion, an immoral mistake.
— Chet Hawkins
This IS cowardly Pragmatism writ small, again and again. It is a short cut. It is greatly immoral in its aims.
— Chet Hawkins
As for anger, well, take a look at this search. I've not been able to follow what is going on. There is something a bit unbalanced here. — Banno
That, if a straight line falling on two straight lines makes the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than the two right angles
What of this:
Φ∨¬Φ
Which Intuitionist logic denies; or this:
Φ,¬Φ⊢Ψ
which paraconsistent logic denies?
That is not quite the point I would make, though. That relates to your thread on unanalysable concepts. Both "absolute" knowledge and "absolute" simples depend on context. They depend on what one is doing. Some things are held constant in order for us to be able to move other things. Some things are held indubitable in order for us to doubt other things. Some things are held to be simple in order for us to be able to analyse other things.
And we sometimes change what we hold constant in order to change something else.
Overwhelmingly, we agree about more than we disagree. — Banno
List them please.All the reasons I have for doubting that I exist are highly implausible thought experiments (e.g., the evil demon, simulation theory, etc.) — Bob Ross
Glad you put this in there. What is it about 'immediacy' that is so compelling?and
given the immediate experience I am having, — Bob Ross
This belief is not correct. You might have immoral (not good) reasons to doubt your existence. But then you have not listed them really. I need more than some title. Show the work. Explain each one you care to, please.I have no good reasons to doubt my existence; — Bob Ross
These calculations are wrong then, and not possibilities is my gut pre-action. Being is already sufficient counter to a denial of existence. Negation, as mentioned in the Brahman thread, is foolishness.although I cannot be absolutely certain I am, because those highly implausible possibilities are actual and logical possibilities. — Bob Ross
'a=a' is a juxtaposition. If I were to say 'b=b' as a second clause and then say therefore 'c=c', logicians would go berserk. They are wrong to do so. Such is the trap of fear.I cannot doubt legitimately that 'a = a' because any reason to doubt it I could conjure springs from a misunderstanding of what it is. 'a = a' is a tautology and logically necessitous: there is no possibility of it being false. Any doubt I have will thusly be illegitimate. — Bob Ross
I have made nothing but assertions. If you are just ignoring my many statements because they are not formally numbered, that would laughable.Granted that Pragmatism can enjoy this position and that most people will not have the courage to argue against its workable everyday ways. In other words most people are both 1) Willing to accept that when you say you know that knowing is possible. AND 2) That its ok to say you know if you have done some UNKNOWN amount of justifications, especially if some reasonably thought-of-as-known(not really known) authority (group of bozos wearing the same orderly clothing and using the same orderly practices) says so. THAT is Pragmatism.
I adhere to a better way.
— Chet Hawkins
And wouldn't this better way include a collection of assertions that you think are better than pragmatist assertions? Aren't you dividing the set of beliefs into those that are better and those that are worse? — Bylaw
Yes, I don't understand your model and I didn't really understand this post of yours.In general, you are discussing what I call the path of anger, of being, which is what empowers real confidence. Of course, if you understand my model, which admittedly is not yet fully revealed here, — Chet Hawkins
And wouldn't this better way include a collection of assertions that you think are better than pragmatist assertions? Aren't you dividing the set of beliefs into those that are better and those that are worse? — Bylaw
Yes. I didn't say anything about you not making assertions.I have made nothing but assertions. — Chet Hawkins
I was responding to your statements not ignoring them. And I said nothing about their being numbered or not.If you are just ignoring my many statements because they are not formally numbered, that would laughable. — Chet Hawkins
I do still number some of them as above quoted to assist in fear types understanding. ;)
Assertions themselves are a prison, a logical or fear based path artifact. Take in all streams that are delivered via experience. It is precisely the ones you are not skilled at that will inform you more. — Chet Hawkins
Would you categorize this as knowledge?Anger's sin is laziness. In the righteous rejection of immoral desire and the challenge for a fight towards immoral fear {see here now}, anger is doing its part. But often enough, anger or the lazy exemplar avoids conflict and moral choice suffers.
Peace is delusional. It is not what anyone that advocates for it thinks it is. Any and every task is hard by a rough parallel to its worthiness. There is no long term respite. Indeed anger suggests that to be finally moral, one must learn to never need rest. Of course medical practitioners aplenty will disagree and chastise the righteous for their sense of moral duty. And they are like most fear path types, more right than not, as in, probability is on their side that the anger type will fail, not being perfect. But this ignores the real truth, the hidden mystery, of perfection. Perfection transcends all cases, and we must practice for it. That means that finally, rest cannot be needed. It is a tautology if one understands or comes close to grasping without knowing the nature of perfection itself.
Every act one or we take, must be maintained by constant vigil. This is the nature of 'no rest'. But there is maybe a way to properly rest amid the approach such that fallibility is taken into account in the best way possible. Each unit (us) must take turns manning the wall. Surround evil on all sides and chant! Maintain a pure discipline. Re-commit each day, each hour, sometimes each minute, to the pusuit of truth and the GOOD.
You had best martial your anger, indeed! — Chet Hawkins
So, understanding that every choice contains delusion is wise. Then you have to make progress based on relative wisdom, rather than 'being right'. Something like 'knowing' can really get in your way amid such a process.Aren't you dividing beliefs into those that are better and those that are worse? If so, would naming those that are better, better beliefs be delusional? — Bylaw
It's not to understand (or not too hard to understand) so I ask you plainly to re-read it.I do still number some of them as above quoted to assist in fear types understanding. ;)
Assertions themselves are a prison, a logical or fear based path artifact. Take in all streams that are delivered via experience. It is precisely the ones you are not skilled at that will inform you more.
— Chet Hawkins
I didn't understand this section. — Bylaw
What was laid out there was knowledge of a sort, but admittedly to me only belief therefore, because knowledge is merely belief.Would you categorize this as knowledge? — Bylaw
That is to say, despite the fact that no one else I can find is wiser... — Chet Hawkins
I guess I am lucky, in that all I have to do is to look around, to see all sorts of people who are wiser than I in a wide variety of ways.
For example, those who know better than I, than to waste time on narcissitic guru wannabees. — wonderer1
You refuse to categorize things? Are you not categorizing with your fear, anger, desire schema? For example.No. Existence is being in essence, mass, anger. A fear based approach would prefer to categorize things. My inclination is just to refuse, as anger simply stands for itself using mass to make its argument. — Chet Hawkins
I didn't suggest 'knowing', I suggested referring to that set as better beliefs. You referred to some things as wisdom. That is also a category distinguishing some beliefs from others.Something like 'knowing' can really get in your way amid such a process. — Chet Hawkins
If anything I would say fear is more ready to change stance. In any case we often use anger to bolster our stances rather than feel the fear that we might be wrong and might well need to change (be open to something else or something new).Readiness to change stance is critical. Anger knows this. — Chet Hawkins
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.