The preconditions of skepticism are that there has to be an objective or 'true' world to be skeptical of? — Tom Storm

Skepticism is skepticism towards knowledge. This is actually what we throw doubt at whenever we are skeptical about a claim.

So there is an infinite number of points between any two points? — baker

It depends if you're talking about a line segment or a line that has both ends expanding. And I don't know why you asked this question.

Which is one more reason why run of the mill people should not get involved with philosophy. — baker

So far, the only criticisms I've encountered when it comes to postmodernism is that --they're hard to understand! lol. Then spend more time with it until one understands what the fuck they're talking about.

The nuance of postmodernism, most especially the deconstruction theory, gets lost in the narrative when explained by a professor. Often, it is explained through the lens of humanities, not philosophy, and I don't think the one doing the teaching doesn't know the difference.

When they relegate the questioning of hard-held assumptions by society, they turn to sociology, history, and political science, which is frustrating because the actual harm that results from such haphazard handling of philosophical theories gets lost in the mix.

Just because a postmodern philosopher questioned the status quo, it doesn't mean that philosopher had made his case. The learners just willy-nilly accepted such theory because it is explained as facts, instead of an analysis. For once, let's go against the prominent philosophers and make our case.

I don't need anyone to explain it to me because I know it very well. I just find it interesting that many who like to talk about deconstruction can't substantiate much of what they say. Very often it seems to me they simply make things up. Pretty cynical if you ask me. Skeptical, even. — Streetlight

Can you explain in your own words what deconstruction theory is?

“Unremittingly, skepticism insists on the validity of the factually experienced world, that of actual experience,
and finds in it nothing of reason or its ideas. — Joshs

In that sense Derrida is not a skeptic because I don't think he believes in the validity of the factually experienced world -- Or, at least, that it's not a Humean construct of the mind where one can separate the experienced world from the concepts. If Derrida's philosophy is to apply to all text, and everything is text, then it follows that the experienced world is not so easily separable from concept -- hence, not a skeptic in this sense. — Moliere

I find your conclusion startling. :yikes:

To put it in formatted form:

Joshs: skepticism insists on the validity of the factually experienced world, and finds in it nothing of reason or its ideas.

You: In that sense Derrida is not a skeptic because I don't think he believes in the validity of the factually experienced world

There's always thanksgiving.

April fool's had passed.

To all, this is your chance to come up with a solid argument argument against critical theory and deconstruction theory by using skepticism as a criticism.

Can anyone quote a passage or some passages of Derrida that substantiate the charge of skepticism? — Streetlight

His deconstruction theory alone is a poster child for this. So don't ask for a passage -- ask someone to explain the deconstruction theory and you get your answers. Skepticism should be the conclusion. I don't think Derrida himself would claim himself as a skeptic (if anyone knows, post it here). But you or Moliere or Joshs should certainly arrive at that conclusion. Or declare it is not skepticism.

See this post talking about logocentrism. Ask yourself if deconstruction theory's findings are warranted.

Just a general thought on deconstruction theory -- it is designed to question the truth we attached to what we say (in text) as being externally substantiated. So it is a tool to put doubt in our assumptions.

Critical theory is itself a form of skepticism.

Philosophy is an ultra-retrograde and sub ordinate reactive-process.

Ultra-retrograde: where a subject is thought about from multiple different depths using the active-brain.

Sub-ordinate: where a subject is filtered through self-psychoanalysis (psychology is a rank higher than philosophy.

I use philosophical thought based on not understanding, understanding data partially or misunderstanding- otherwise it becomes a psychology discussion.

Data becoming knowledge is a mental switch from philosophy to psychology.). — Varde

This should have been in the introduction post.

You can ease your readers into these new terminologies by prefacing with a statement and definitions. Despite the seemingly undisciplined format that philosophical discussions use, there are always the existing pioneering thoughts/ideas that we use as foundation or starting ideas. Philosophy is a language, after all, that's shared by a community of philosophers and interpreters.

I think this is fair to say.

Say a circumstance were to come bestowing upon you the final choice, the decision that ends us all, the choice to let humankind as a whole perish (painlessly and instantaneously), should you choose to let it happen? — TheSoundConspirator

No. I don't subscribe to a dictatorship.

8] The universe is continuous. Between any two points there is at least one other point. — Clarky

For the benefit of the members here, this is the euclidean geometry.

Oh yeah, I am interested already. So, I guess your future thread then? hehe.

Has philosophy helped or changed you in any way? How? — Tom Storm

Yes. In my dealings with people and (ethics and epistemology). For example, I now know that people would cling to their belief in the face of evidence and proof to the contrary. Also, the way I view life in general. If we stop caring about material things, we could relax and be more accepting.

Interesting. In relation to pessimism, I'm not sure we can 'choose' such an outlook. Can we become pessimists by reading books? I did read some Dan Brown a few years ago and it did almost have that effect, it was so astoundingly awful. — Tom Storm

Yes, I believe we could be. I sought philosophers for their take on almost anything -- how to live your life, reality, the world, cosmic, etc.

So, I was attracted first to the cynics -- because they're the zero-fucks-given philosophers. I mean this. I thought, wow, okay, those were the ancients who didn't give a fuck! lol. How cool is that?

Then there's Schopenhauer and the hell-is-other-people Sartre. I said no to those. I couldn't subscribe to that kind of thinking when I myself was trying to want to love life.

There is almost a thread in what you have said - under what situation would we abandon philosophy? — Tom Storm

Where is thread? What's the title?

As I understand it, it's Michel de Montaigne: "To philosophize is to learn how to die."

I've always been struck by the quote although I am not sure I what it means. It sounds romantic. — Tom Storm

Is that right? I've read Michel de Montaigne a long time ago. But couldn't remember that line. But Jackson said Socrates/Plato.

Yes, I am too. Brief and to the point, but brings a lot of punch. And oh yeah, when I read that line the first time, I literally thought of abandoning philosophy because I didn't want a pessimist view of the world.

Socrates/Plato. — Jackson

Thank you!

Did you guys know that to philosophize is to start dying? This was credited to some philosopher. And it's not pessimism like Schopenhauer. I don't know who to credit this to. And I don't think "death" here is literal.

I think what that means is this is the last journey humans do and will perpetually be in the state of non-human related daily activities. You go to another realm where grocery lists and electric bills aren't relevant or existent. I don't know.

I voted yes on both. I have a book that anthologized new ideas on metaphysics. Nah. They're not new ideas, just different emphases on how to look at reality.

Hi Tzeentch, I've maxed my limit on disgreeing post, unfortunately. (As a self-imposed rule on my posting habits, when I disagree with a post, I limit my posts to two and that's it.)

Edit1: This is due to the fact that I've been accused twice of picking a fight when my posts had gotten more aggressive. And I already agree that at that point, my post did sound aggressive, though not intentionally. So, here we are now.

why is it when an animal is cruel we excuse it as practice or instinct, but when a human does it we label it as malignant aggression? — Tzeentch

It's not cruelty when animals hunt. Humans hunt for entertainment. Farm animals supply the food.

Shame the rest of the internet doesn't have a filter. We would be in a much better place. — Bird-Up

Thanks. But don't give me too much credit. I'm in the process of changing my approach to responding to posts I disagree with. :halo:

Ooh... :naughty: — Baden

Not anymore. I lost the 666.

Why is it that when an animal exhibits such behavior we excuse it, but when a human does it we label it as malignant, though? — Tzeentch

So humans need to practice to hunt to survive? What happened to farm animals, manufacturers, distributors, and supermarket stores?
No, I don't see that what the wolves are doing applies to humans.

Wolves are notorious where I live for killing cattle without eating it. Killing for the sake of killing, it seems. — Tzeentch

No they have a reason-- training for hunting. If cattle is made available, that's where they're going to practice.

This distinction divorces human aggression from animal aggression, in opposition to the widely accepted myth that 'malignant' human aggression has its roots in an animal past. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I agree. No maliciousness in animals, except what's programmed into them such as being head of the pack, scarcity of food, training the youngs to hunt, etc.

But let's not pretend this is about writing a one sentence PM. The PM will almost certainly be responded to and very often instigate a debate. — Baden

As a solution, you might want to create a noreply PM:

Please do not reply to this PM. Replies to this PM are routed to a robot moderator with no pulse. Its alphabet consists only of CAPTCHA acronym which stands for Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart.

I deleted my last post to @Down The Rabbit Hole because upon reading it myself, it sounded so rude. I then realized that when posting in response to a post I disagree with, I should be très poli lest I'd be labeled picking a fight, which is not my intention. Sometimes, posts that disagree could come across as impolis.

.

the quality or state of being probable; the extent to which something is likely to happen or be the case. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That's not what you said in your previous post.

Probability is the extent to which something is likely to be true or false etc. We can do a rough calculation of this. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Incorrect. Please try again.

My overall impression is that postmodernist philosophers want to shake off that role of teacher that is otherwise so often taken for granted when it comes to philosophers (and people of cultural importance). It seems that they're trying to make philosophy be about thinking, an exercise in thinking, in different modes, as opposed to being yet another form or source of ideology. — baker

Good observation. Postmodernists' critical theory world view is the extreme form of skepticism of all things humans. I don't subscribe to it. It puts doubt on your own thinking of what's really driving cruelty, suffering, ignorance, absurdity, goodness, benevolence. They complicate issues, leaving you with confused state of mind and existence. It can be a bad prescription for hopelessness.

Sometimes I think of them as securing their lucrative posts in the academia and beyond by publishing books that won't ever give definitive answers to human issues.

Sorry if this sounds like a rant.

I am interested in how people assign probabilities. — Down The Rabbit Hole

First try to understand what a probability is.

Money that grow on trees.

I don't think that Murdoch is saying that metaphysics should be eliminated necessarily. She is merely describing what she saw happening in the gradual developments of philosophy in previous centuries and in the twentieth century. — Jack Cummins

So the statement below I mistook to mean that you've come across this idea from her writing, which is an argument for the elimination. If that isn't the case, and I haven't heard of Murdock until now, what idea of elimination do you find in her writing? Or is this your take? Is this your question?

The idea of the elimination of metaphysics is one which I came across in the writing of Iris Murdoch — Jack Cummins

In the twentieth first century, I am wondering how much further is philosophy going in the elimination of metaphysics. — Jack Cummins

The idea of the elimination of metaphysics is one which I came across in the writing of Iris Murdoch. In her essay, 'A House of Theory' in the volume, ' Existentialism and Mystics: Writings on Philosophy and Literarure.she explores the nature of such possible elimination. She says, 'In the past philosophers had invented concepts expressive of moral belief and presented them as if they were facts concerning the nature of the mind and the world.' She points to the way in the which criticism of metaphysics proceeded on the basis of the ideas of Hume, Kant and Hegel. — Jack Cummins

Oh the irony!

And what does she think she's explaining this under? Metaphysics? You bet. She's not using science here, nor psychology. She's using metaphysics to argue for the elimination of....metaphysics!

Any skeptical arguments, any meta-criticism of metaphysics, any polemics on the nature of reality must necessarily use the very same tool that metaphysicians use.

f anything is an appearance it is known conditionally
We know that we act directly/unconditionally (our actions are know to us in an unconditional way)
Therefore action as such cannot be a appearance.

Schop commentator John Atwell states that this argument is not valid.
The reason is that the second premise should state " We know that we can act directly/unconditionally". that is, Schopenhauer, Atwell thinks, does not show that when we act we cannot know that we act in some other way also.

What is the name of logical error committed in the second premise? — jancanc

If Schopenhauer had made an error in his argument, I'd say let's look at the fallacy of amphiboly. But he did not.

At first shot, John Atwell sounds like he's talking about the fallacy of omission against Schopenhauer's argument. I don't think this is the case. Atwell is simply disagreeing with Schopenhauer's assertion that when we act, we have a direct knowledge of this very personal mode of expression, the action. Atwell, then, counters that not all actions are known to us directly. So, no fallacy, just disagreement with assertion.

unless killing animals is acceptable, then it's just a matter of farm life quality and killing method. — Varde

Raising animals for consumption on a large scale -- and there's no other scale because population -- will always entail treating them like inventories and goods, the process of raising them, storing them while alive, and eventually taking them to slaughterhouse will always involve cruelty because the point is profit. The most cost-effective method is used. So, it's really up to the consumers to stop animal cruelty.

Just a thought about watching live performance. I watch a lot of live plays on video.

This is a pop dance jazz number from a band I don't know. (They're playing a cover). But, notice how the girl sings with her heart and really feels the riff of the guitar player. The drummer is using electronic drum kit as this is not an auditorium performance, so makes sense. But I would like to see him play the acoustic one. The bass is awesome, too. Notice that he's playing it with the melody all through-out the song. All in all, everybody is enjoying playing it. The girl is attractive AF. The voices are harmonized well.

You also believe in clay, that it can be moulded, baked, sold, — Banno

But not sold as bread, though.

Q2) Does logic and mathematics undoubtedly indicate us that likelihood of Event 1 is higher than likelihood of Event 2? — Geerts

No it doesn't. And it's illogical to use event 1 to assess the likelihood of event 2, and vice versa. Sampling and population, for one thing? You should create event 2 comparable to event 1 by changing the variables, not the nature of the measurement or the intent.

Q3) Is it logical to assess likelihood of Event 1 lower than likelihood of Event 2? Can P(Event 1) < P(Event 2) — Geerts

Yes, it is illogical. See above.

I think you might be tempted to do this because the pop media that likes to compare apples and oranges for the likelihood of their occurrence is very reader-friendly, hence popular. But your concern is logic.

For me, it's daily meditation - the profound payoff of which took five or six years to even taste. Now it's always with me. Less so when in motion - at work or running errands, and so on - but still always with me. That took 20 years of tireless daily practice. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's the kind of "mystical" I was trying to convey when I said earlier that we could create a mystical place that adapts a positive aura. I deleted most of my post as I didn't make a connection between mystical experience and psychosis in your OP. But I read your other post, and this is what you mean.