I kindly ask if you REREAD my paragraph, that was replying to the bold response you made to Bylaw. I dont understand how you find it to be irrelevant to YOUR issue?No. I'm not thinking in terms of justification. I just see my hands, feel them, use them, so I know I have hands. Doubt about it is impossible unless I buy into some silly artificial possibility like "brain in a vat" or " evil demon.
.↪Bylaw
I agree with you that eliminating the word 'know' from the lexicon would make no difference. That said, I do think that people often take themselves to know things which they really don't.
My issue is that we do know many things, so eliminating the word 'know' would be impossible in any case, because then we could no longer speak accurately about our experiences. — Janus
You present a whole paragraph of seemingly irrelevant or incoherent questions, and then when I ask what you think the relevance to the issue is in what you wrote, you respond by saying there is no issue, and then asking how that seems like trolling? — Janus
Also, not really an issue but a personal one. One you have with a dying interest in understanding anyways... He claims not that, just that there is NO knowledge. Has nothing to do what he thinks he claims we dont know or how he says it...would that change things FOR YOU if how he said his arguments were tailored to your liking how does that affect your issues? Do the issues transform? Do they stem from an underlying issue, or just not HELP YOU UNDERSTAND your issues through?The issue from the start is that Chet Hawkins claims we do not know anything, and yet provides no argument for that claim, while speaking dogmatically in a way that suggests he think he knows a whole lot. — Janus
Cant you see, life can and does makes sense to JANUS--which appears things "obvious" to them...when they aren't obvious then they are "issues" when the issues change without sharing where we can find, how we can find a common ground to proceed from the blockade that is placed FOR A REASON... then is it POINTLESS because it always was to begin with? I believe that is the case. Unless the point was to show that chet is wrong YOU have yet to say an original thing besides complaining about your issues. You'd think if the issues were major, you would seek answers but the answer you want does not exist because you ask NO QUESTIONS that can help others HELP YOU solve? Why did you go on to create a discussion based on what he said in the Existentialist thread? Did you think you were going to uncover something he has never said before? Do you think he WANTS to explain to you? Maybe he does, I think he tried. You do not try to understand. You try and tell what he is supposed to be doing, how he should be doing it, explaining things to YOU....but refusing to swallow the words because it's lost on you not because his confidence is problematic. I mean, it could be but that is also a non-issue here. No one has to tailor their word to a particular liking, you do not have to believe. You said you dont anyways, so its easy for you to do that...LIFE is HARD!Because the reasoning you're using is based on the idea that life has to make sense, — Echogem222
↪Echogem222I don't need to believe anything when I can simply see what the case is. I don't say all knowledge is not reliant on belief. So-called propositional knowledge is defined as justified true belief, and I have no problem with that because I think, under a certain interpretation, that we can be said to know things we are not certain about. — Janus
↪Kizzy
This continues to be a pointless exchange. — Janus
" I am here because I CARE. Pointless exchanges are only that, for Janus, but not for the right reasons...He calls this an exchange. Do I believe this exchange is pointless? No I do not. For the reasons that ought to be clear, people are continuing to engage...18 pages later. And JANUS gets nothing...It's tedious and boring stuff, totally vacuous, and you haven't helped make it any more interesting...to me at least. — Janus
No. I'm not thinking in terms of justification. I just see my hands, feel them, use them, so I know I have hands. — Janus
Hi Sam26, I am glad you bring this up. It is kind of confusing TO UNDERSTAND, and apparently not just for me to understand that statements like Janus' "So, when I look at my hands I cannot but be certain that I have hands — Janus," that are used NOT to defend "knowledge" but defend "certainty". I wonder the same thing, — Kizzy
When you say, "I just see my hands, feel them, use them, so I know I have hands," you're giving an argument using a sensory justification. It seems to me it's just an enthymeme. I'm not sure why you would think that's not a justification. You're even using the word know epistemologically. — Sam26
Because the reasoning you're using is based on the idea that life has to make sense, which I consider to be a belief. Can you tell me why it's not a belief? — Echogem222
Because tomorrow, for all we know life could suddenly stop making sense, logic that we once thought we understood so well could suddenly change, causing us to not understand how to make reasonable arguments anymore. — Echogem222
And JANUS gets nothing — Kizzy
I know that but you also seemed to say that my contributions to chets boring model and your issues within this self-induced boredom you are experiencing does not help in that same sentence! Fine. Fair enough, I just wanted to know why for my own sake. I have apologized for making you think something I did not mean, not what I actually meant. Of course there is NO NEED for me to apologize...there is no need to do anything, but we all ought to do the right thing. Apologizing to move forward peacefully is the right thing, it is considerate but I prefer to stand corrected especially when it comes to my usage of words to be heard, felt, understood. Acknowledgment is only but a start.When I spoke of it being boring, tedious, vacuous I was referring specifically to Chet's unargued pontifications, not the whole thread — Janus
I know that but you also seemed to say that my contributions to chets boring model and your issues within this self-induced boredom you are experiencing does not help in that same sentence! — Kizzy
Cool, that is great news.I basically agree with your "move forward peacefully" but I also don't mind a bit of conflict and confrontation and challenge in the process of examining one another's ideas. — Janus
Apology accepted.I don't know, perhaps I didn't read you closely enough, but to the extent that it seemed to me that you were indulging what I see as Chet's self-indulgent grandiosity it seemed to me a "wankfest" I don't know if you agreed with him or if you were just being polite to him, but if I misunderstood you, then I in turn apologize. — Janus
Life does make sense to us, provided we don't ask incoherent questions. Of life didn't make sense we could not survive. We speak from present experience, not from barely imaginable possibilities. — Janus
That is merely a vaguely imaginable scenario, not a serious consideration. — Janus
I am taking the word 'undecidable' to mean what it should mean, and does in some ways, even colloquially. That is that which cannot be decided upon. We are able to decide. So you're wrong. This does not mean that decisions cannot be wrong, as you just showed. The matter IS NOT confusing to me.The way you express this is jumbled. I DO NOT state ever that things are 'undecidable'. That is your word and very wrong. Everything is decidable, just always partly wrong. That is the nature of belief.
— Chet Hawkins
This is confused, If something is undecidable then we cannot know the truth about it. — Janus
No, it does not. That certainty is not possible. That is my point.We can know the truth about many things, and these are therefore decidable. It doesn't follow that people cannot decide to believe they know the truth about those things which are undecidable—this happens all the time. — Janus
No, as mentioned many times I do not know anything. I believe I was aware of your incorrect turn of phrase there, yes. But my confidence IS NOT certainty, so you're wrong again.I do not refuse to use the word 'know' as I have shown in many cases in this thread. I bet I wrote it more than anyone else did.
— Chet Hawkins
You know perfectly well that I meant that you do not use the word to apply to yourself. — Janus
If you'd really like to compare thinking between us, a simple review of this thread only will reveal the true quality of Farmir of Gondor (me). You're much more akin to the likes of Boromir who thinks he can know things. It's ok! I have a few decades on you in all probability. There is till time for you to visit the snack bar and come away enriched!Of course, you must use the word in order to refer to the idea so that you can reject it. Your thinking seems quite shallow, but I don't doubt that it is clouded by some dogma or other. — Janus
Yes, they are. And I can agree with you that the Enneagram intelligentsia itself is often not quite ready to stand up properly for their system. They are loathe to put the system in moral terms because they want a new secular faith to take the place of religion and also they want to make money at it. Mixing moral and immoral concerns muddies all waters.I'm familiar with the teachings of both Naranjo and Gurdjieff, I have participated in the Gurdjieff Foundation in Sydney and completed two of Naranjo's 'SAT' workshops. The enneagram typology has some interesting insights, but life and people are not so configured as to fit neatly into such systems. — Janus
So this is ad hominem. I clearly state that I do not know things in many posts, so you're accusation is not only ad hominem, but also just wrong.The issue from the start is that Chet Hawkins claims we do not know anything, and yet provides no argument for that claim, while speaking dogmatically in a way that suggests he think he knows a whole lot. — Janus
If you'd really like to compare thinking between us, a simple review of this thread only will reveal the true quality of Farmir of Gondor (me). — 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.