No, seeing is seeing and believing is believing. I can see the tree outside the window, I don't need to believe it's there in order to see that it is. Belief is only operative where the possibility of doubt exists. — Janus

Until we are perfect, objective in understanding, until we do 'know'; we have only varying degrees of awareness and of course, belief.

The term intention has very different uses, particularly between laypeople and philosophers. I'm guessing you know this already. Just thought it worth mention. It's relatively new to me. That said... — creativesoul

That idea is not new to me, although much too much is made of this, and without a proper intent (yes, according to me).

That is to say, the goal of a philosopher SHOULD BE to unite the people with their wisdom, thereby aiding in all of us living in a better world, a world where more properly informed choices is more likely. 'Their wisdom' being that served to them by the experts, ha ha, the philosophers, people intending to understand what this truth thing is and how it's pursuit can help us all. That IS NOT aligned with accepting these 'different uses'. We should clear up these differences and put the right way into use as much as we can.

If we're using the layman's notion of intention or the philosopher's, intentionally mimicking for the sake of mimicking requires believing one is mimicking for the sake of mimicking. The object of intention(the philosopher's kind) is the mimicry in both cases, it seems to me. Although, I suppose ridicule could be the object in the deliberate cause of mimicry. The difference between mimicking without knowing one is mimicking and intentionally mimicking is the knowing part. In either case, one knows how to mimic when one mimics. — creativesoul

Since knowing is impossible, when we use a BETTER term, 'to be aware of' this cleans up a lot of conjecture and confusion. For some, it may seem to add confusion, but that is only because they believed that knowledge was somehow actually fundamentally different than belief. The truth is it offers a better understanding to all to aim or intend in that direction.

My own belief with intent makes rather quick work of the so-called divide between metaphysical naturalism and religious or spiritual naturalism. Since nature and all its laws are NOTHING BUT consciousness (to me as fact), they are the same. Done.

Intentionality, like all concepts, all things, is grounded in natural truth which is all consciousness. So, of course, intent is a matter of conscious action, choice.

Choice can only and always only involved JUST the three emotions. Even matter is only the three emotions. Of course that last bit is a HUGE derail, but I am mentioning it for completeness.

Any intent can thus be broken down into fear, anger, and desire components. Further, an intent could be said to contain any number of sub-intents, either wholly subsumed or merely intersecting the base intent. So intent is a rich world of consciousness. And its focal point can be said to colloquially and understandably be any nexus/locus of choice.

So, it would be wrong and or adding to confusion to say 'let's maintain or respect this difference of definition for the same thing.' Clarity is, well, again, perhaps only to a few including me, a goal of actual wisdom. To maintain without a statement of belief one way or the other disparate viewpoints is useful for imagination, but not advisable finally as wisdom or as intent.

Both cases require believing that there is something to be mimicked; believing that another individual behaved in some certain way; believing that someone else did something or another. — creativesoul

Yes, and in all cases, 'knowing' nothing (for sure). It is my assertion that the word or verb and all its ramifications, 'to know' is misused and further that its misuse is a causal agent for confusion, allowing and encouraging confusion to grow, as opposed to wisdom.

Earlier you wrote that one without hands cannot plane a board. Strictly speaking that's not true of everyone without hands, but yes... that's the gist of the existential dependency I'm setting out regarding knowledge and belief. — creativesoul

The decision that one 'knows' is merely in error. In all cases that sort or quality of error is MORE ERROR than just admitting to belief instead of claiming 'knowing'. Knowledge in this case is shown to defy belief. It claims to be transcendent or better than belief. That is a lie. Instead say the supporting argument by which you harden your belief. Or claim the belief as fact with the tacit admission that fact is only a subset of belief. All beliefs, facts included, are partially in error. That does mean I am claiming that belief is not important and wise. But claiming to know is surely unwise. That is my belief.

I understand that this is not really germane to the thread topic, but it involves belief, and I'm a sucker for that topic. — creativesoul

I am a sucker for most topics because all meaning is embedded in every topic. This is both a joke and a truism and humor and seriousness are juxtaposed but non-contradictory.

As far as the OP goes, you and I agree much more than disagree. It's when we unpack our respective notions of knowledge and belief that things begin to get more contentious. It seems that way to me anyway. — creativesoul

He is the OP. So, what do you mean?

It makes more sense to me, to applaud and enjoy with the people who demonstrate that they have knowledge. You can't know that it is inherently less correct, right?
— wonderer1
I think that the self-indulgent position you take here is part of the problem, not the solution. Enjoyment of awareness is STILL NOT knowing.
— Chet Hawkins

And yet here you are hypocritically indulging in discussion with knowledgeable people, and using the internet which only exists as a result of people having the knowledge required to make the internet work. — wonderer1

Since knowledge is delusional belief, knowledgeable people are delusional. And that is ok. But we are trying to become MORE AWARE in this process, or at least that is my aim.

Practical manifestations of effort that 'work' are also fine. It has no bearing on the delusional nature of their 'knowledge'. Society worked quite well when it was all 'Sky Daddy saves!', or mostly so. Use your illusion is 'workable'. But, the work of philosophy, the love of wisdom, is to acquaint the quaint with the esoteric truth. That is to say, truth SHOULD NOT BE esoteric. We should live in resonation with it.

And I am called Hypocrite for championing this cause of denial of delusion, acclimation to truth, on a forum dedicated to the love of wisdom.

It IS true that I indulge myself amid the struggle. But my delusions of being on the right side are still a lesser failure than ... yours. (And by all means let's restrict that assertion to JUST THIS set of posts and case).

No, 'only' and 'mere' are PRECISELY the same (to me) in meaning and they are certainly no worse than 'subset'. So, I confess, I do not get this complaint. It's like saying to 'them' that 'OK, if you concede the main point about your door, we will agree to paint it chartreuse, as you direct.'
— Chet Hawkins
'mere' has negative connotations. — Bylaw

Colloquial or personal nonsense notwithstanding:

adjective being nothing more than specified
“a mere child”
synonyms:
specified
clearly and explicitly stated
adjective apart from anything else; without additions or modifications

That is the first AND second official definition of the word. I'm fine with that. And even so, I am now stating regardless of definition (because some of them are wrong) what I mean. It is the same as definitions 1 & 2 here, and nothing more.

Subset is neutral. British cities are a subset of the category cities. — Bylaw

Subset has the word sub in it. By bizarre personal or colloquial standards of the day I could claim you are trying to dominate British cities by the category cities and you expect sub drop and eyes lowered. Why? Why?

Yes, groups can do this. On the other hand, given their methodologies, I trust the information I get from some groups and some individuals more than others. I'm not exactly sure what you meant in the two parts I quoted here.
— Bylaw
Most 'grouping up' as a fallacious attempt to argue by mass or numbers, is cowardly, if you follow, an approach/need of fear and order. Anger does not care if others agree or not. It will hold the line to the balance of its own belief, regardless. At least that is GOOD anger.
— Chet Hawkins
I mentioned methodologies. This would include my own methodologies also, so really it has nothing to do with number. I am lying in bed and I think it's raining. I thought they maybe said something on the news that it would rain today, but I'm not sure. But I believe it is raining. Or, I get up, look out the window, see drops falling, hitting puddles. I now also believe it is raining, but the methodology I used in the second instance I respect more. So, it is when I evaluate how others reach conclusions: their methodologies - and perhaps past record, my sense of their trustworthiness and other criteria. — Bylaw

I suppose that sounds fine enough. You have SOME means of accrediting supposed authorities. But the only final authority is you, yourself, for your beliefs. Even if you choose to accredit or validate an external authority, your own nexus/locus of choice is still 'to blame' for your beliefs and you have to own those beliefs by way of moral responsibility.

This has nothing to do with fear or anger. — Bylaw

So, I WILL write in terms of my model to answer or post. That means, as in my model, there is nothing in this universe that does not ALWAYS partake of all three emotions, fear, anger, and desire. So, it is not factual at all to say that anything at all has nothing to do with fear, anger or desire. Of course such facts are only potentially facts to me, but they are facts by my definition. I have done as much due diligence as I can to validate these assertions as facts.

While there are bad dentists, I don't go with a toothache to prison guards or stock traders.
— Bylaw
Yes, on some of that we can agree. But we both know that in reality and especially human reality, there are many situations where the fox ends up guarding the henhouse. Why is that? I 'know' (ha ha) why. It's fair to use the fox's tricks against them, maybe (not really) The fox is likely to sell out truth. The fox is likely to call it doubters facetious when they are the serious ones. The fox was appointed by other foxes. It's there to corrupt the serious nature of truth, precisely to let slip things in a certain way. We are all beset by wisdom, by truth. It is too hard to live up to. The 'powers that be' have to make sure that some roads to truth are obscured. This aids in the pragmatic short cutting of truth in daily life. This aids in immorality, the opposite of wisdom.
— Chet Hawkins

Sure, I haven't said: if the experts say X, X must be true. — Bylaw

So, far, you have been ... excellent in your approach, as in: not just dismissive of a let's call it 'fresh' viewpoint and willing to temper what I usually get, a rudeness. The rudeness is fine to me. I don't mind a fight, of any type really, as it is the nature of reality. But the dismissiveness is when the fighter offers no argument at all for their side and just says 'you're wrong'. They lose when they do that, but, it doesn't mean they lose the public vote. This is just one reason why Democracy is a deeply immoral system. You cannot vote truth into existence, nor out of existence.

I agree experts are not always right. But I go further, amid honesty. Experts cultivate their position in order to sell out. It is the NORM, not the exception. The Capitalist system (and others but especially that one) foment a culture of sell outs. Fake it til you make it and then sell out. What a system!

In my olden times, the word 'drip' was not synonymous with personality or demeanor as it seems to be today on the street. Instead it meant a square, someone who was not street smart, a boring and unstylish person.

My ROTC detachment commander was a man I greatly respected. He had been a Pentagon consultant for decades. He understood communication so well, I suspected he was involved in inventing it. He referred to 'experts' in the following way: 'X is an unknown quantity, and a spurt is just some drip under pressure' I have to say, I agree with all my heart.

As an ENTP on the MBTI scale I am prone to upending experts at their chosen professions. They are not sufficiently 'perfect-aiming' in their own disciplines. They are used to the sell out angles. They prefer them. They want to make things easy and defensible. They are children in wisdom and in the pursuit of truth. I do not seek out this situation and it costs me dearly in all walks of life. Yet it has served me and the people I love quite well as a disposition. Do not trust anything at face value, especially authority. I still hold to that ... near truth.

But I recognize differences between beliefs. I use the word knowledge for beliefs that I consider very likely to be correct. It is a subset of beliefs that I have confidence in over other subsets of beliefs. I don't expect perfection, because I and we are fallible. We do our best. — Bylaw

I do not expect perfection either. In fact I dismiss claims of it. That is what this is about. Expose those that say, 'I know', for they do not, and they should not say that they do. Certainty is absurd. We should speak as if that is true.

I coined the (OK its obvious) phrase 'non-conclusion' for my book (upcoming). It means what people believe improperly that the word 'conclusion' means. Look at how hard truth is! I can literally change the phrase to ostensibly its opposite and still be NOT ONLY CORRECT, BUT MORE CORRECT. THAT is critical to understand. To continue to 'conclude' is a damning failure of wisdom. One cannot conclude. That word partakes again of perfection, too much. The assumption would be that 'our work here is done' and that is ALWAYS a lie. What is this need to wallow in the delusion of certainty? Did we not learn from philosophers of the past? Was Voltaire joking?

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you do know, for certain, that just ain't so." - Samuel Clemens

I disagree with Sam (or Mark) on that one. What you don't know is at least equally likely to cause you trouble, but, his point is along the lines of the MUCH BETTER quote by Voltaire.

Messi is a football player. He is one football player in the set of football players. But I would choose him to play on my team over three random players.

The parallel here is not that Messi is a kind of knowledge, though he certainly has that.
It's just I have no reason to say he is only a football player or a mere football player because he is part of that set. — Bylaw

This analogy is incorrect.

Knowledge is wholly subsumed into belief.
Messi is not wholly subsumed into football player.

You are confusing intersection with subset. They are not the same. And in doing so, you make again, my point for me, like so many have in this thread. For my part, it does not matter if others conceded the point that resonates BETTER with truth than those that they defend. Truth and falsehood ... you know (ha ha) the rest; or do you? Is the meaning actually lost?

You can rest assured of public support for the wrong choices, the wrong theories. That is only because they are relatively acceptable to the colloquial audience. Actual truth resonates more only with one side of this argument. That proximal resonation is not based in opinion.

Set's include better and worse members, given the purposes one has. — Bylaw

Incorrect. Reality is objective, so subjective belief does not matter to truth.

Sets include only members and set theory has no designation for 'lesser' and 'greater' until we redefine the set in those terms. You are wrong.

If I am interested in surprising beliefs, then out of the set of beliefs, many beliefs not considered knowledge and many considered knowledge will fit my needs. — Bylaw

Characteristics of elements within a set are a case for intersection, not exclusion. So you are burning a strawman. I do not know (ha ha) what else to say. More properly: I am not aware of how better to express this to you. That is a lie to some degree. I can go on and on. But I admit to not knowing, nor having the capacity to arrive at a conclusion (delusion). Therefore I am eternally engaged as is morally proper. I suggest a similar way. "This is the Way!' - Mando

If I am trying to successfully navigate the world, then those in the subset knowledge tend to work better. — Bylaw

Indeed, one should be able to depend more thoroughly upon one's beliefs that one has vetted well. Bu even the best is not knowledge, really. It is not to the objective standard and should be treated that way. I am NOT suggesting dismissal of moral duty related to judgment of which beliefs are better or worse. In fact, quite the opposite. I am saying that the dread finality of words like 'know' and 'certain', and even 'fact' and 'conclusion' are dangerous as colloquially used. They are used by choosers possessed of LESSER awareness only. They imply a perfection, an objectivity, that is NOT and CANNOT be present. They should be frowned upon as modes/tools of speech and writing.

But I see no reason to use mere or only, especially if the latter is considered a synonym of the former. — Bylaw

I used it because 'mere' IS only or merely a synonym of 'only'. That is a fact. Other beliefs are using tertiary and beyond interpretations of this word. I certainly consider it no less disparaging a word than any word with a prefix of 'sub' in it. I mean really!?

It seems to me that I know my parents. I do not know them perfectly, as God knows them. I do not need to know them perfectly to know them at all. It would be more speculative — more dishonest — for me to claim that I know nothing of my parents than to admit I know something about them. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That is MY point. You are ... aware ... of many aspects of your parents and how they are, who they are. But you DO NOT know them. They do not know themselves. That way of writing and speaking is BETTER than saying knowing.

When we say incorrectly that we know someone or something we imply that we are done. That implies that they are done. So many erroneous conclusions. We can rest if we know. But we do not know. Doubt remains and so the humility should advise us to say we are only fairly aware of this or that or someone.

As St. Thomas says in his commentary on Boethius, all knowledge is received in the manner of the receiver. The human intellect's grasp on the intelligibility of things is necessary finite, imperfect, discursive and processual. We do not grasp things in their entirety, nor is what we grasp present to us all at once. This is simply the nature of human knowledge, that it is not angelic knowledge. But this does not make it such that there is no such thing as human knowledge, only knowledge from the "God's eye view." — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree with his point, but his conclusion is wrong. If he was instead to say we are only aware of things, he would have spoke or written better. There is no cut-off of something or someone pour-soi. Even if they die and are en-soi there is still false awareness of what was.

I am not denying partial knowledge. But even that term is less than best because the term to know is an absolute negating for the most part the word 'partial'. It's just like the goofy people that say 'very unique'. Its redundant and shows the person has no awareness of what the word 'unique' means. Now people IN GENERAL will understand what is meant. But the confusion happens then when the more aware person objects and takes issue with the formulation, just like I am doing here. It's ok. I am used to it.

I admit to knowing nothing, but I claim to be aware of many things. Those are not the same things to me. Indeed, people react less well in general to someone claiming some awareness than they do to someone lying to them and claiming knowing. This is a terrible problem with understanding in most people. It is inherently more correct to applaud and suffer with the person only claiming some awareness. That is the gist of my claim stated fairly plainly. - Chet Hawkins
— Count Timothy von Icarus

I take it that you then might agree with the following claims, that human beings are intrinsically motivated to seek truth, to attain to veracity — Count Timothy von Icarus

Not at all. They are often in fact motivated to seek delusion. The comforting lies desire is all over this thread. Truth is elusive and hard to hold on to. The wise suffer more and exquisitely compared to others. Awareness is a burden and causes suffering and that is ok. All virtues are similar. Wisdom is nothing so much as the union of all virtues.

The hardest things is usually more moral than the thing that is easier.

By veracity I do not mean a virtue; it is something more elementary. It is in us from the beginning. Veracity is the impulse toward truth, and the virtue of truthfulness is its proper cultivation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I disagree that truth seeking is a fundamental choice. If you are saying instead what I would, in other words, it would be this:
Desire exists and its perfection impacts us, despite our choices to ignore it or overwhelm it with immoral intent. As such, the truth of perfection, via evolution, is a great suffering we must experience. We fear to be unequal to it and we thus compete with less aims as practical excused cop-outs. We desire to already be perfect and thus we also wallow in worthlessness instead of assuming or aspiring to the perfect.

But in neither case is truth seeking an assumed thing. It is always and only a matter of choice.

Veracity is the origin of both truthfulness and the various ways of failing to be truthful. Thus, lying, refusing to look at important facts, being careless or hasty in finding things out, and other ways of avoiding truth are perversions of veracity, but they are exercises of it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I disagree entirely. That is a messed up way of looking at it. The choice to delude oneself and in what ways one does so, are not veracity and we should not poison that word as well with foolish interpretations. There is no false veracity. There is only accurate veracity and all else is moral failure. Even if the failure is relatively better than everyone else's, it is still failure, finally. It is just BETTER than others morally /relatively. The wording is critical to understanding properly.

Curiosity is a frivolous employment of it. Veracity means practically the same thing as rationality, but it brings out the aspect of desire that is present in rationality, and it has the advantage of implying that there is something morally good in the fulfillment of this desire. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Truth seeking is wise, but, amid that process we often fail. Especially if we believe that truth or morality is subjective.

I find curiosity to be a part of wisdom mostly, lighthearted truth seeking as defined.

Yes, curiosity shows the desire infusion of awareness, the desire to know ... more. Desire is always the more-needer.

It also suggests that we are good and deserving of some recognition simply because we are rational. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I do not think that is curiosity. I think that is judgement.

Veracity is the desire for truth; — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, veracity is a state. It could be the truth value of a thing, its expected state. But curiosity itself or just truth seeking would be fine for stating a desire for truth. I don't agree that veracity means that.

it specifies us as human beings. It is not a passion or an emotion, but the inclination to be truthful. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Inclination is desire is passion. All desire is passion. One could also say that inclination is pattern is order is fear, as in a trait. But I do like the idea that inclination includes some desire.

The passions are not the only desires we have, and reason is not just their servant; we also want to achieve the truth. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I disagree. Passion to me is synonymous with desire. There is no need to muddy the waters there for me. Reason is not the servant of anything, but its own thing entirely. And that thing is sourced in fear. It is only a pattern that is something one can be aware of or not or to greater and lesser degrees.

Reason cannot exist without the objective. If there is nothing objective then reasoning is a lie.

If we cultivate our rationality we become truthful, and if we frustrate it we become untruthful or dishonest (or merely pedantic), but it is not the case that truthfulness and dishonesty are two equivalent alternatives for us to pursue. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I disagree. Dishonesty is a lack of truthfulness. Honesty is a part of truth. We are all always partially dishonest. It is the same thing in some ways as saying we cannot know. We cannot be truthful absolutely. We can only intend to be truthful and do the best we can.

It is not the case that we are defined by veracity (rationality) and that we can cultivate it in these two different ways. Being untruthful is not one of the ways of being a successful human being.

Robert Sokolowski - The Phenomenology of the Human Person — Count Timothy von Icarus

I agree that truthfulness is something to aspire to as part of perfection.

However, I think there is a misplaced sense of piety if we begin to claim that we do not know anything of our parents, anything of arithmetic, or anything of ourselves for fear of error. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Agreed, but since I did not claim that your idea is moot. I did not say we have no awareness which is what your strawman argument there implies. You are trying to act as if I am claiming that we are aware of nothing, as in we have no awareness at all. We do not have knowledge because any knowledge is all knowledge really. Only by knowing all can we know any. But we are indeed aware of a lot. And awareness to me is already steeping in the understanding of its limitation, which is far better.

This strikes me as the "fear of error becomes fear of truth," that Hegel discussed in the preface of the Phenomenology of Spirit. For, "as a matter of fact, this fear presupposes something, indeed a great deal, as truth, and supports its scruples and consequences on what should itself be examined beforehand to see whether it is truth." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again, that is MY point. I am unafraid of error enough to admit not knowing, and only claim to some awareness, a far wiser position than to fear error by claiming to know and be thus error free. You make my point for me, as I understand it.

But no one lives as if they actually "know nothing." — Count Timothy von Icarus

Again, this is using the word know wrongly, colloquially. To know is an absolute is my claim. I agree that no one lives as if they have no awareness. But they SHOULD live as if they know nothing. They are just wrong not to. It means they do not understand the subtle difference in the terms.

Phyrro of Elis, the arch skeptic of ancient Greece was himself caught running away from a wild dog, apparently confident that it would indeed harm him if it bit him. As Aristotle remarks on such skeptics, they obviously believe they know some things, as they find their way to the Lyceum to bother him following paths that take them there, whereas if they truly knew nothing they should not prefer one path over any other when they set out to travel to some place. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This conflation you offer again proves my point. The word 'know' is an absolute and should not be used hardly ever. If you change to my term as directed your statements are more correct. Most such are marginally aware of some things, yes, like the way to the Lyceum. But they all know nothing because knowing is unattainable as a skill.

It is the failure to admit this that causes the confusion of certainty in people and then on to 'being done' and not needing to know any more because you already know. Nope! There is more, so, you do not know (anything).

I cut it short because I suspect we are just doomed to stand our ground on opposed sides. And that is fine.

It makes more sense to me, to applaud and enjoy with the people who demonstrate that they have knowledge. You can't know that it is inherently less correct, right? — wonderer1

I think that the self-indulgent position you take here is part of the problem, not the solution. Enjoyment of awareness is STILL NOT knowing.

Agreed that I cannot know its less correct. I believe it though. That is the claim. That claiming to know finally is immoral compared to claiming only some awareness. Then that means its better to speak and write that way.

Even Kevin does not know Kevin. He surprises himself all the time. If you claim to know Kevin you are just clearly wrong. If we mean to say 'know of' or better yet 'are aware of' then that is a better way to speak and believe than is 'knowing'.

It is precisely the dread and mistaken certainty in the word itself and the way it is used that is the problem. That problem will only worsen until it is addressed, properly. We can all continue to wade through hordes of people that believe they know something, or we can begin, in wise discipline to cast aspersions properly on that methodology. We should morally call into question such terminology and the practices surrounding its use in that way. If one enjoys what is wrong, one is wrong to do so.

What is non-dualism ?

Non-dualism represents the absence of a distinction that seperates reality into subject-object, appearance-thing in itself, becoming-being, nothingness-somethingness, necessity-contingency etc. In short, binary distinctions created by our langauges and thoughts dissappear. — Sirius

I agree, and it's actually not hard really to understand that languages and specifically the emotion of fear cause a separation to happen. Fear is the limiting or orderly force in the universe. In being afraid that one is not a part of all, one is instantly and eternally separated from all until that fear is balanced. That is in some ways the purpose of fear, to offer this delusion of separation that must be overcome. Thus, the overcoming of that fear is wisdom, good, the right path.

Who are we from the non-dual perspective ? — Sirius

No more or less than we ever were from any perspective. Perspective is not relevant to truth. Nothing can change truth. Perspective is only error.

Brahman, who is pure consciousness. — Sirius

There is no purpose to offering any label to Truth, ALL, or Love, especially a name. In offering a name to something you are participating in that fear separation game, an immoral mistake. If you belong, then you are Brahman also, so saying 'Brahman' is not precisely helpful.

The delusion of separation is what we should address. That is the sense of identity ego as separate. Instead that ego or separation is to properly be experienced as delusional. This is the right way to approach unification with all, acceptance of truth.

What is the way to knowing Brahman ? — Sirius

That was kind of what I just did my best to explain.

Through negation. The ascetic with the perfect contentment looks past all the veils that hide Brahman from the ignorant and sensuous people who are trapped in their mistaken apprehension. The veils are all the material and subtle (astral) bodies. Negate them to find Brahman, to find your true self. — Sirius

This is incorrect and dangerously so.

The way to perfection is approached by wisdom in belief and then in action, belief being action also. This IS NOT negation. It is mistakenly referred to as negation when in fact it is balancing. The proper tack towards perfection is to understand the three forces (emotions) that are all that there is to work with and balancing them against each other. But that IS NOT negation. There is also another issue related to this that shows the GOOD. That is, ... we do not lessen emotions to be wise. We increase them, we maximize them. The GOOD is maximal fear, anger, and desire; in balance.

Nothing is negated. Everything is affirmed!

How can Brahman be ineffable and still be described as pure consciousness ? — Sirius

That is actually simple to begin to understand. We are not perfect. That realization and admission comes easily. So, in accepting this delusion, we limit ourselves and get comfortable amid those limits.

Pure consciousness would be perfect. But perfection is interesting. It includes imperfection by choice! Why is that? And in doing so, how is perfection not corrupted and no longer perfect? I ask only, 'Is it not obvious that including all imperfection is more perfect?' What is offered by that situation? Free will is offered. That is the point.

Pure consciousness isn't a description. You can't point to it in the world. It's a phenomenal non-dual experience. In a sense, this experience is ineffable. — Sirius

Yet and still we do sense it, non-duality. We sense oneness, perfection. The emotion that arises from that sense is desire itself. Desire is caused in us by the extant (current) existence of perfection. We are deluded in our efforts with desire, just like fear. We want only parts, and not all. That is immoral. It is how we make mistake after mistake. And to want something that is out of balance will unbalance all. Our moral duty to the universe is balance, and maximization; NOT negation.

If you wish to play word games you can posit that once one transcends this set of dimensions of which we are aware, then one can dismiss them, but that would just be an error that would prevent the transcendence in the first place. Don't play those games. Negate negation.

Why can't l change the world if l am Brahman ? — Sirius

You can. Who told you that you cannot?

But you cannot change what is objectively good! That is perfection. As Milton says, 'Let truth and falsehood grapple. Truth is strong!' It is because what is GOOD is objective that this state of affairs is reliable. So be careful that your question is not really this: 'How do I make a circle without it being a circle?'

If l am Brahman, then my will is Brahman's will. But my so called "will" related to what doesn't happen is illusory, like my mind and body. — Sirius

What 'doesn't happen' is nonsensical. What happens is illusory enough! It is not REALLY illusory, but we are incapable of apprehending things objectively. If we are capable, then it is the least likely thing in the universe, to choose even a single moment of perfection. It is almost infinitely hard, giving rise to the very accurate statement that no one is perfect. Yet all, everything together, is perfect.

How does Brahman bring change if he is unchanging ? — Sirius

Perfection is a flux. That is what was mentioned earlier. Perfection ALLOWS FOR imperfection within it. And that greater set of possible 'happenings' is more perfect than just a bland perfection would be. In fact, it's perfect (ha ha).

So, choice, or change (synonymous) is possible. All choices happen. This is the root of the multiverse theory.

Brahman grounds the temporal realm in which both mental and bodily change occurs. The change has no beginning, nor end. — Sirius

Yes, as in circular. Meaning proceeds endlessly from meaning. But there is no need for the term or name Brahman, nor 'grounding the temporal realm'. The provenance of free will is the only thing in existence.

What is the nature of an illusion ? — Sirius

All choices/beliefs are illusory for any scope that is not all. Only all contains the conclusion, the only conclusion, love. Every sub-scope is illusion. Identity, time, separation; all these terms are delusional. We fight very hard to be separate from all against our own happiness.

An illusion is something seeming or appearing as other than what it is. All illusions are caused by mistaken apprehension. — Sirius

No, not just apprehension (fear). Desire and anger can also be delusional. No emotion can escape interaction with the other two. If one wants what is not perfect, that is delusional, an illusion. If one believes that effort can be less than perfect, laziness, and be moral, that is delusional. So, it is not only apprehension that is the source or causal to illusion/delusion.

Does the world exist as an illusion for Brahman ? — Sirius

One is tempted to speak for Brahman and say that perfection contains all illusions and is confused by none of them.

Brahman experiences the content of illusion, without mistaking the illusion to be the reality. Just like a knowledgeable person can see a mirage, without believing in its actual existence. He never loses his identity as pure consciousness. — Sirius

Agreed

What exists other than all that is illusory ? — Sirius

There is only one thing, the thing, perfection. It is somehow the goal of all choice, perhaps. It could be that only experience itself, simply being, suffering the path to perfection, is the only end that justifies all means. But it is fun and interesting to offer that there is a higher dimension still, and that perfecting the one of which we have awareness is required to move on to it.

Consciousness — Sirius

Clearly, it is possible to use consciousness, or love, as perfection. It is then also Brahman or 'God' and Truth as well. All the terms are synonymous.

Further, you can say that there is some demigod like thing, a state, that represents perfection of a certain subset of dimensionality. But that then again would be delusional separation, if you follow. So why bother falling for that trap. There is only all, and the path to all.

How can consciousness ground the mental and physical world and how can an illusion be grounded by what is real ? — Sirius

There is nothing but consciousness. All physical reality is just emotions interacting. And only three emotions, fear, anger, and desire. I can explain much further, but that is a sufficient starting point.

What we call reality is the physical world. But it is well observed and experienced that heart and mind matter to the body. So they are IN the world. We get confused about the difference between these essential emotive essences. We even, some of us that are foolish, deny that desire is even a thing. It is some human construct, for example. Reality actually includes all, so the mind and desire are part of the real reality.

The real can actually ground an illusion. Just as the real moving wings of a fan show an illusory circle. This is an analogy, so it doesn't explain the "how" in the case of Brahman-Maya, nor is it wise to stretch an analogy beyond its limit. — Sirius

Although it is wise to worry about the perfection of any assertion, any useful analogy or aphorism will hold in all cases, or it is not truth at all but only a state. States change, truth does not.

If l am Brahman and Brahman knows how consciousness grounds the illusion, then why don't we know how consciousness grounds the illusion ? — Sirius

We must suffer to earn wisdom. Suffering is the only path to wisdom. Think of it as learning to shoulder the right to be Brahman. You are Brahman but you should be a good one. Get busy. The more moral a choice is, the harder it is.

Brahman (I) knows the way the illusion is grounded without a "how" or "why". In other words, it's a brute fact, requiring no further explanations. But nevertheless, it's a brute fact in the realm of illusions. — Sirius

There is no need to speak of a 'realm of illusions'. That is only us, believing less than perfection, being less than perfection, as allowed, within perfection. But the aim should be, and moral aims are, towards perfection.

It seems that most forms of "we cannot know anything about the world," rely on a certainty that there is indeed a world and a real truth about it out there. I just don't know how advocates of these theories can claim to know this given their position. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The infinite nature of perfection, even as a concept, is shown in every experience, and in every philosophical concept in many ways.

That is effectively like saying, 'Experience shows us there is an objective truth.' We feel it. We sense our remoteness from it. Desire itself represents the effect the remote perfection has upon us. That perfection is, to me, the cause of desire itself. This need not be religious, of course. It is a general part of understanding, of wisdom.

If we pretend that everything is subjective, that our choice or intent can change what is objective, then there should be so much more instability in the universe than there is. To me that notion is laughable. It has no leg or meaning to stand on at all. Everything points to an objective and misunderstood truth.

Math itself and the concept of limits shows the asymptotic relationship of our efforts to perfection. I do not know of even a single concept or choice that defies this relationship as a model in any way.

But language and the nature of fear combine to produce in us the foolish, the unwise, need for certainty; when that is unattainable or at least elusive. We do damage to our earning of wisdom, to our awareness, when we suggest or believe that certainty is possible. There are no exceptions.

This does not mean we cannot acknowledge probability and in so doing admit we are partly wrong in all choices. We take the more likely path knowing the likelihood is not and never can be 100%. The discipline of speaking and writing this way, is required to be more moral. It is shunned by those intending a less moral aim.

It is not clear to me which immoral aim is more compelling in these cases. That is to say there is fear which excites people to order apology and they need the comfort of delusional certainty to proceed. Socially this is quite common and leaders everywhere use this CERTAIN language to calm and to incite their constituency. But in every single case that certainty is delusional, no matter how slight the use or implication.

Doubt does not rely on certainty. Doubt relies only on fear, which is finally a reaction to comparison with that extant and felt perfection. Overcoming this fear, in order to assist in the effort to aim at perfection, is one major goal of life, the universe, and everything.

Clearly, a person like myself, that claims knowledge is only belief, does not believe that I know that there is an objective truth out there. I admit to only believing it. That is more honest than to claim literally anything at all as 'knowledge'. It always will be because it's a law of the universe, to me, by way of belief.

I stand to my fears, my doubts, using anger, and desire, as guides. That is a proper approach (is my belief). I admit to knowing nothing, but I claim to be aware of many things. Those are not the same things to me. Indeed, people react less well in general to someone claiming some awareness than they do to someone lying to them and claiming knowing. This is a terrible problem with understanding in most people. It is inherently more correct to applaud and suffer with the person only claiming some awareness. That is the gist of my claim stated fairly plainly.

There are many people who claim to know they did or did not do something. They are ALWAYS wrong to some degree. It is inherent to reality itself. Their memory of what happened, the sensory data, is delusional and incomplete. That is indeed enough for my claim to have more merit than any claim of knowing can ever bring to bear. If this is not understood, I can only pity us all as we suffer more and more because this relatively simple but distasteful matter is not easy enough or seductive enough to accept. If the would be charlatan disguises their efforts towards truth with minimal assertions like 'I wrote something sometime.' their quality of effort is all the revelation one needs. This IS cowardly Pragmatism writ small, again and again. It is a short cut. It is greatly immoral in its aims.

To be objective, one must be perfect. This means any knowing must know everything, or it is not knowing at all. It is in fact only awareness of SOME PART of all. And that IS NOT knowing. All lesser scopes than all are delusional in separation. Separation or reduction is only a process to aid in understanding and NOT a state that is acceptable morally, finally. That is to say, one MUST ALWAYS resolve back to unity (and truth).

Normally, colloquially, knowledge does not refer to absolute truth. When someone says "I know that the distance to my local grocery store is 10 miles", they do not mean that they are absolutely certain nor that it is absolutely true that <...>; rather, they mean that they are (1) have a belief that , (2) are justified in, (3) and have high enough credence levels to claim that it is true that <...>. — Bob Ross

And all of that is fine. It's all error, not truth in any way. But you can bet on it as highly probable and be correct.

↪Chet Hawkins Meh. You are presenting a pretty stock pop version of pragmatism. You are unwilling to consider where it goes astray.

No helping some folk. — Banno

I agree that there is no helping some folk.

You are again precisely wrong, not just wrong.

Pragmatism is the philosophy that accepts and encourages practical short-cuts, the fear approach to truth. Pragmatism encourages the word 'know' as sufficient given some short cut or cutoff or less than best because its less than perfect approach to awareness. Pragmatism is the fiat-giver, order apology. It allows for wrongness via truth claims when such are not possible and thereby lies to ALL.

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.

My way encourages the more truthful position that doubt may be unpleasant but that certainty is absurd. And I can explain what that really means better than ANY group of order apologists have so far. It is in the nature of Pragmatism, its very definition, to fail at that explanation.

So you are again PRECISELY backwards in your assertion.

Oddly, I am not just an idealist either. I also stand up against their magical thinking in that 'all desires are equal'. Their fungibility error is epic in much the same way (just reverse) as Pragmatisms insistence that we can be certain or 'know' things. Both are unwise. Wisdom is the middle path and there is even more to wisdom than that because the middle way to be wise must also not be lazy, which is the sin of anger. Extreme moderation would be the lazy way.

You are confusing absolute knowledge with knowledge. — Bob Ross

Most people would not know the difference in these terms. That is my point. I contend that in fact those most people are more correct than anyone claiming as you are here.

Knowledge of any kind is just belief. All knowledge is subsumed under the mantle of belief. It cannot be KNOWN. The word know already means absolute. That is how most people take it.

If you mean to say there is some doubt, most people are happier when you say you do not know for sure. That is correct. Most people are wiser than anyone claiming there is a difference between knowing and knowing absolutely.

Saying you know is a deceptive claim that you know absolutely. And that is impossible so the you making that claim would be a liar.

If knowledge is a justified belief that has a high enough probability of being true, then you can know you know X IFF you have a justified belief that has a high enough probability of being true that X. — Bob Ross

All of these other angles on the same thing are just more subterfuge, more deception. Justification can be in error and is only belief as well. What is believed as true is again, also, only a belief. So error creeps in. Blah blah blah.

Knowledge is only belief.

All you have noted, is that you can’t be absolutely certain that it is true; which is not a qualification of knowledge. — Bob Ross

I would say that saying 'to know x' does imply absoluteness. That is the colloquial understanding.

I would say that saying ' I am aware of x' does not imply a closed set of awareness. I would say that colloquially listeners would feel they have more of a right to question the awareness than the knowing. And that is the point. You, the speaker, MUST NOT, morally, say 'know'. You MUST instead, more properly say 'aware of' to show that you acknowledge the lack of perfect awareness and deny absolute knowledge.

That is all.

That is to say, the deadly serious idea of accuracy is not being treated properly at all when we say we 'know' something.
— Chet Hawkins

But we do know things, all sorts of different things, often with good reason. — Banno

This complaint has no quality. You are just repeating the same mistake. You offer no argument.

Science is not the world. Limiting your examples by presuming that science is the only, or even the best, way to determine truth will lead you astray. — Banno

I cannot tell who you are not quoting here. Quote for better responses.

I never said that science was the only anything. So, I will mostly ignore that statement. I tend to agree that science is not the only path to truth. That is something I would say. It is mostly a fear-order path.

You want a moral argument.

As I already pointed out, if all we have is belief, then there is no correcting ourselves. If there is only opinion, then one cannot be mistaken, for to be mistaken is to believe something that is not the case, not true. In the place of learning, there would only be changing one's opinion. If there is no difference between believing and knowing, one cannot cease to believe a lie and so know the truth. — Banno

And your fear here is correct. There is no other way than belief. It is the strength or quality of the belief that is critical. That strength includes elements of the other two paths, desire, and anger.

Desire is included because perfection casts a shadow upon us, upon non-perfection and we sense that very real effect. It causes desire in us and a sense of worthlessness meant to spur us on to greater effort.

Anger causes us to seek all balances. These balances will shove out non resonant beliefs. It will become impossible to stand (to perfection) until we are balanced.

Further, these disruptions of belief caused by desire and anger do show RELATIVE correctness. When an experiment is repeatable reliably it is in balance with truth. It may even break some desire. That is good. Desire is chaos and so many desires run off in immoral directions.

When reason (order) counters a belief or balance (anger) counters a belief they assist us in possibly more awareness. They cannot assist us in knowing. Knowing is too final, too prefect. And we confuse the unaware and the wistful that sense still that our knowing is not the whole answer. And that 'they' is correct. The best that we have right now, is still not perfect. So there is no 'knowing'. To suggest that there is, is to promote confusion.

My statements are intended precisely to call this foolishness into question. A fact or knowledge, both, are only a subset of beliefs.
— Chet Hawkins
I wouldn't use the word only (or mere). It's a subset. — Bylaw

I mean that is just some sort of gloming onto 'their' sentiment. I would maybe see one of 'them' also suggesting that we not use the the derogatory word 'subset' implying inferiority. No, 'only' and 'mere' are PRECISELY the same (to me) in meaning and they are certainly no worse than 'subset'. So, I confess, I do not get this complaint. It's like saying to 'them' that 'OK, if you concede the main point about your door, we will agree to paint it chartreuse, as you direct.'

Even if (perhaps especially if) you assess certain groups (scientists, intellectuals) you will narrow that spread because all of them are closing ranks as a rep of the group DESPITE personal feelings or beliefs or 'known (ha ha) facts' to the contrary, because they would rather do that than let chaos get a toehold further into their protected spaces.
— Chet Hawkins
Yes, groups can do this. On the other hand, given their methodologies, I trust the information I get from some groups and some individuals more than others. I'm not exactly sure what you meant in the two parts I quoted here. — Bylaw

Most 'grouping up' as a fallacious attempt to argue by mass or numbers, is cowardly, if you follow, an approach/need of fear and order. Anger does not care if others agree or not. It will hold the line to the balance of its own belief, regardless. At least that is GOOD anger.

This yields a dynamic where only the most solid and anger standing type of challenger will come against the too set in 'their' ways authorities of any current span in time and location. History is full of such examples where individual challengers were called out as insane or just comically wrong, until that challengers new path was proven by some set of undeniable demonstrations of or overwhelming need for the new change.

All sorts of categories can have as subsets, members that work much better than others. — Bylaw

And this last bit is another appeasement of 'them'. It surreptitiously implies that maybe this application of the word 'subset; even works, but not well.

There are chess players. Magus Carlsen is a chess player. He's not only a chess player or a mere chess player (the word 'only' her taken in a similar sense to 'mere.' But he is an individual subset of the set of chess players. — Bylaw

Knowledge is ENTIRELY belief. Knowledge is ONLY belief because in the sense that I am referring to it is entirely belief. Knowledge is MERELY belief because belief itself is more interesting and useful than 'they' give it credit for.

The fact that there is an intersection for some people into knowledge that means 'beliefs that are believed to have been verified' can be stated, and EXACTLY like that. There is no need to state that statement any other way. There is no need to apologize for the fact that knowledge (colloquially) is only a subset of belief. But as mentioned previously to another user, what 'they' are calling 'knowledge' (colloquial) IS NOT knowledge.

Knowledge, to me must partake of perfection and its parts and its whole cannot be wrong in any way. I would wish to show that there are words that take from or partake in the absolute nature of the term perfection. 'Know' is one of them. 'To Place' would be another one. The implication is perfection inclusive and this should alarm the more accurate observer. It should alarm them because it is not possible so the claim set being made is spurious. We SHOULD doubt it (more) than a claim that humbly includes this doubt up front.

While there are bad dentists, I don't go with a toothache to prison guards or stock traders. — Bylaw

Yes, on some of that we can agree. But we both know that in reality and especially human reality, there are many situations where the fox ends up guarding the henhouse. Why is that? I 'know' (ha ha) why. It's fair to use the fox's tricks against them, maybe (not really) The fox is likely to sell out truth. The fox is likely to call it doubters facetious when they are the serious ones. The fox was appointed by other foxes. It's there to corrupt the serious nature of truth, precisely to let slip things in a certain way. We are all beset by wisdom, by truth. It is too hard to live up to. The 'powers that be' have to make sure that some roads to truth are obscured. This aids in the pragmatic short cutting of truth in daily life. This aids in immorality, the opposite of wisdom.

You claiming this with no explanation at all shows the depth of your intent or lack of it.
— Chet Hawkins
Dude, check out my posts on page three. I think I've set out enough to be getting on with. — Banno

Apologies, yes. As you might have surmised I DID NOT read all the pages that accumulated in my absence. That is no guarantee though that there is the answer there. I doubt that it is there, and for reasons. Some reasons that border upon what I will mention again here in this post.

That has no bearing on what we are discussing, except that knowledge is the same. Ergo knowledge is only belief.
— Chet Hawkins
I'll take that argument to be facetious. — Banno

As I do your responses of this ilk in meaning.

That is to say, the deadly serious idea of accuracy is not being treated properly at all when we say we 'know' something. Colloquial foolishness notwithstanding, WE, lovers of wisdom, should do better. It is MORE accurate in every way to claim some dearth of awareness by forgoing the term 'knowledge' and similar absolutes that partake of perfection by implication. Only a facetious person would do otherwise. And that facetious person is not me in this scenario.

Here's where I think we stand. You said that knowledge is just belief. I've pointed out that in addition to being believed, the things we know also have to be true. — Banno

Your adjective, 'true' is analogous to 'knowing' more so than to a measured awareness. True has that logical 1 or 0 finality to it, an error (in all cases). A floating maybe is more, not less, accurate. And that statement is ... true. Totally not being facetious at all. I can have fun writing something without it's being facetious.

You might come back by asserting that in that case we only have beliefs, and do not know anything; this because we don't know what is true and what isn't. My reply to that is that we do know some things - examples given previously; and that further you are treating your explanation as something of which you are certain, as something you know, giving only lip service to your doubt. — Banno

And now you are equating confidence with certainty. That is JUST yet another error.

Confidence is the anger based choice to STAND to all else and hold the line. When dealing with belief, which I acknowledge here and in every place before is where I am at with this idea, a person who speaks with dread confidence is only expressing their anger hold. That is NOT the foolishness of knowing. It is in fact yet another one of the paths to truth, the anger path, there being only three, fear, anger, and desire. Those are all my beliefs.

So, each of your points is wrong and all wrong based on the same type or quality of error, over-dependence on pragmatic short-cuts to truth. That is limited truth. That is actually delusional non-truth in every case. It is true (ha ha) that this effect does not make things, being, living, EASIER on us. It instead makes things appropriately harder. This is a BETTER way. It is more wise.

That would be much better than the alternate account, asserting in the face of evidence to the contrary that there is no difference between belief and truth. — Banno

No, these are disparate issues. As previously discussed in full. Truth is only able to inform choice. Belief is a form of choice. There is no choice we can make that is not just belief.

We are not perfect. We cannot be objective. We are wrong in some way, infinite ways actually, even on little niggling event statements that we take in as 'true', a dangerous lie. That lie is only used to facilitate the short-cut, to prevent people from pondering on an on because time is short and the climb via evolution to perfection, ... hopefully, ... is hard and long and we need to have some awareness short cuts. But let's call them THAT honestly. That would be wise.

Can you know uncertainties? — wonderer1

Since you cannot know certainties, uncertainties are right out! 'Nod's as good as a wink to a blind man, eh?'

Thanks for trying, but I'm not seeing any actual arguments to recommend your position, so I remain unconvinced. I think we agree that there is no absolute truth at all to be had, so that is some commonality at least. — Janus

I agree and that was a fairly lion's share portion of what my claim was.

The essential issue is that the word 'knowing' is used to invoke delusional certainty, just like 'facts' and even the term 'certainty' itself. To be more correct, we all need to stop using them that way.

I am not holding my breath. Comforting lies are daily fare and happily pursued by many and most. But you know, lovers of wisdom have to try.

But you do know that you just responded to my previous post, and that it's true that you did. What possible reason could you have to doubt that? It seems to me that you are confusing yourself unnecessarily. — Janus

Confusing you maybe. Events are not truth. They may true, as in 'This happened'. The laws of 'Truth' Involved is what we are discussing, not events or truth value.

Further, to demonstrate, we only believe we know what happened. If we describe an event, more and more we realize that what remains to truly understand what happened IS NOT limited. It CANNOT properly be limited. The limiting force of fear is COWARDICE. All he universe must be included. Perfection must be shown in the delivery of free will to the scenario, that happened. So, I am only confusing ... some people ... who believe in delusional limits where there are none.

I am NOT saying I am capable of transcending limits in the general case. But in the specific comparative case to, for example, your arguments, I am transcending that limit.

When it comes to metaphysical matters, I agree that nothing is known or knowable. We cannot know truth in any absolute sense. It is in the metaphysical domain that belief reigns supreme. — Janus

There is nothing but belief because knowing is not possible.

Do you think that you are that good a mind reader? I'm quite certain that you are not. — wonderer1

I'm horribad at it. The clarity of my own world is simply never seen in others.

Sorry I was gone for a bit. The deceivers fooled me. I plugged a PC fan jacket into the wrong jumper because the label was displaced and not directly aside the right one. My rig's motherboard exploded as it was designed to by the Nazgul (servants of the One Ring). It was about to give up the ghost anyway. I have no idea how it held a charge like that. I am in process building a new machine.

Peace wants love, not war!

DM me if anyone knows of hot deals on motherboards/CPU/Chassis/DDR5 TY TY

What leads you to believe there is a "real you" over and above, beyond or apart from the you that you are familiar with? — Janus

Humility and the 'fact' that I cannot know truth in any way, only approach it in many ways.

The driving need for certainty is other people's foolish fear.
— Chet Hawkins

This is certainly true, as I've recently found out in going through one commenter's religious feelings here. Their need for certainty has them forego even Empirical considerations. — AmadeusD

Amen to that! ;)

I think you are correct, because both terms are subject to varying definitions, depending on the context. Philosophically, knowledge is "justified true belief"*1, which is the basis of the scientific method : verification of hypotheses. But William James*2 noted that "many people" seem to assume their beliefs are facts. Physicist David Bohm*3 echoed that insight, along with David Hume's quip about Reason being the slave of the passions. — Gnomon

Justification is not actual proof. It is only 'good enough'. This means different things to different people as you yourself just pointed out. So your own definition or the one you quoted here is clearly wrong.

Knowledge IS NOT justified belief. Knowledge is only belief that the believer believes is justified. And that difference is EPIC.

Using the word justified alone like that sounds like a much more authoritative delivery of ... probable bovine poo. It is much more honest to say it as I did.

Yet, Socrates*4, acclaimed for his wisdom, must have had that human propensity --- for equating Feelings & Beliefs with reliable Knowledge --- in mind when he said, with a touch of irony, "I know that I know nothing". Allowing for such rare exceptions to James' rule, perhaps you could tweak Hawkins' truism that "knowledge is only belief", by adding that Wisdom is tried & true Belief. :smile: — Gnomon

So-crates was wise enough to know human nature. He was accounting for it. His Apology was disingenuous.

To say you are not wise and then that you are the wisest man you can find is hilarious. I agree. But, there are ALWAYS the two perspectives (and only those two).

1. The absolute. That is the realm of perfection and truth and although it informs intent, it is unknowable. The BETTER term for knowledge is awareness. It does not imply completeness in its use as easily.
2. The relative. This is a comparative issue and can then enter into the realm of things like 'truth value' and colloquial truth. That is to say, although many and most will present 'facts' and 'knowledge' they are lying to themselves and others to say this unless they admit that these are only beliefs. Still, indeed, and perhaps this is the reason so many here want to challenge these assertions of mine incorrectly, there is the relative proximity of an assertion to unknowable truth. There are ways of testing to demonstrate that 'we are closer' or 'this path seems more promising'. But NOTHING can be more compelling as decided, as a 'conclusion', than that.

Truth and perfection are synonymous.
— Chet Hawkins
Well, no they are not.
But you thinking this might explain your error. — Banno

You claiming this with no explanation at all shows the depth of your intent or lack of it.

Perfection can only be the sum total of truth. Its effect as an extant thing, in what we call the ideal realm say, like Plato's forms, is intuited by us because we FEEL it out there. Perfection draws us to it. It causes desire.

All of truth is just and only perfection. That is distinct from true statements entirely. We tend to describe little statements that are asymptotic to truth, as truths. That is an error.

There can be accidentally true statements.
— Chet Hawkins
. SIO you are saying it is true that there can be accidentally true statements?

Or is that also an accidental truth? — Banno

I am deontological in belief. If you intend something that is an accident you are still not really right. The summation of your words in the simplest sense may mean something close to truth. But the intent ruins it. That solves the quandary you are trying to break the argument with.

Think a bit further. If you say you believe something, then you say that you believe it to be true. — Banno

That has no bearing on what we are discussing, except that knowledge is the same. Ergo knowledge is only belief.

You cannot get by without truth. — Banno

In that we agree.

Truth supports the possibility of choice for delusion.

↪Chet Hawkins,
But I am self confessed as 'knowledge is only belief', and sadly I DO believe it is ONLY belief.
— Chet Hawkins
Again, the difference between the stuff you know and the stuff you merely believe is that hte stuff you know is true. — Banno

Again, no that is wrong.

True is being misused. What is your level of granularity for truth? For me it is absolute and it SHOULD morally be treated as such. Until that is believed, NOT known, people will continue to erroneously profess knowing and make foolish dogmatic stands when there is room for discussion.

I can believe many things whose truth is unknowable, whether they are actually objectively true or not.

Truth is accessible but NOT knowable. That means we sit in a realm of truth and we are incapable of knowing. We are indeed only capable of believing. Truth INFORMS belief. Knowledge implies certainty and perfection that are not humanly obtainable.

This doggedness is a sign of order-apology, the generic conflation that order and the GOOD are synonymous, a delusion.

we know that knowing requires perfection
— Chet Hawkins
No, it requires truth. — Banno

Truth and perfection are synonymous. You could also say 'God'. But I do not prefer that delusional moniker.

Some folk (@Chet Hawkins?) will say that there are no true statements. But it is true that you are reading this. — Banno

There can be accidentally true statements. But knowing is delusional as a base. This is along the lines of a broken clock is still right twice daily.

And these games are fun, but missing the point in part.

It is not really the real me that is reading this. It is a subjective interpretation of me that I am projecting currently onto the real me. Symbols meet my eyes and the brain seizes on how my agenda can be furthered in response. Is that reading? You tell me!

The former is a subset of the latter. Different people/groups have different reasons for saying this batch of beliefs over here, they've got promise or they sure seem to be working so far or they fit X and Y really well and those over there don't fit it so well and those over there we can't make sense of to even tell. — Bylaw

Exactly. And if we are purveyors of wisdom, or even something as unknown as 'truth', we are obliged to at least try to point that out. In fact some people's believing a thing is more evidence that it is untrue than that it is true. And they are the type to use the words 'know', 'fact', and 'certain' all the time.

My statements are intended precisely to call this foolishness into question. A fact or knowledge, both, are only a subset of beliefs. I have used that exact terminology dozens of times.

And to those that erroneously believe there is so much of a difference, you can easily sample 100 people on a reasonably complex issue and you WILL get 100 different nuances of what they consider the 'facts' to be.

Even if (perhaps especially if) you assess certain groups (scientists, intellectuals) you will narrow that spread because all of them are closing ranks as a rep of the group DESPITE personal feelings or beliefs or 'known (ha ha) facts' to the contrary, because they would rather do that than let chaos get a toehold further into their protected spaces.

People don't communicate -truth itself-, they communicate their beliefs about the things they think are true. — flannel jesus

Yes, precisely. And more to the point, for me, is ... we should all stop LYING to each other about 'knowing'. These false pretenses are doing us great harm. And we claim to be lovers of wisdom.

I have social issues every time I HONESTLY say, I am not 100% certain guys, but I am fairly sure this is true ...' because socially ... idiots ... respond much better to certainty. The driving need for certainty is other people's foolish fear.

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.

You presumably don't know that...
There is no knowledge!
— Chet Hawkins — Banno

Admittedly true. But I am self confessed as 'knowledge is only belief', and sadly I DO believe it is ONLY belief.

That is to say I believe it is impossible to be objectively correct. It is critically important NOT to prevaricate/equivocate by saying 'I am being objective' AS IF you are perfect. Nope!

The correct statement (to me) is 'We cannot know anything so much as we know that knowing requires perfection and what is considered knowledge is therefore only belief'.

"Knowledge" is a very funny word. People try to formalize it in all sorts of weird ways, but I think most people, when they say they "know" something, mean pretty much the same thing as "I believe it, and I'm really really really confident of my belief."

It can't go unnoticed how various people "know" things that contradict what other people "know" as well. Some people know that Jesus is King, other people know Muhammad was the last prophet, other people know Krishna is the eighth avatar of Vishnu.

So if we just look at how the word "know" is used, it's used to refer to extreme confidence (or even extreme faith). It's just a privileged type of belief, privileged specifically by the person with that belief such that they place it above beliefs they have that they don't call "knowledge". — flannel jesus

Exactly! I agree and THAT is my point.

I like your additions to the concepts.

Some methodologies are better than others. — Bylaw

You acknowledged the central point, though. And I am down with your qualifications, as well, not therefore.

It would better be put “there is only belief.” Or “there is no knowledge.” — Fire Ologist

I fairly well agree. When I spoke of knowledge in that sense I erred. That is to say, colloquial knowledge, what most people call knowledge is only a well of beliefs, a set of beliefs.

But you are CORRECT that if I say we can't know, that such a thing is impossible, then indeed (i am saying) there is only belief. There is no knowledge! Acknowledged!

And if I had had the time, I would have bubbled belief around the word fact to show its inclusion in the belief set (properly).

So are you saying that a fact which claims to be nothing more than a belief is better than a fact that claims to be something more than a belief? — Leontiskos

No, not quite.
There are three levels in there.
Knowing
Fact
Belief

At least the 'fact' part is SUPPOSED to have due diligence. But so often it does not, in terms of validation. Further, knowing is elusive, distant, impossible most likely. So fact is closer to 'just' belief than it is to 'knowing'. We just don't even really know how hard knowing is.

That is TRUE and more factual than most facts, because as a part of that fact we ALREADY INCLUDE the flexibility that fact is only belief. — Chet Hawkins

That is the single statement (among others) most able to show that I already did that work.

(And I assume you mean "controvertible" rather than "incontrovertible") — Leontiskos

No I meant what I said. Don't put words in my mouth. My feets is already there.

What makes the softer claim incontrovertible is that it effectively says very little upon which we can certainly depend. It is similar to saying, 'The only thing we can know is that we don't know anything!' THAT we can know which is ... not really so comforting, but, it is in a way.

Juxtaposition IS NOT contradiction. Muddle that one through.

In the sense that it provides no information about how or why some facts are better than others. — Leontiskos

Ah but of course it does. You have to do some of the work!

And the REAL bite here is I DID already do that work.

The flexibility of belief being included in the concept definition of fact SOFTENS the fact to make it incontrovertible. Were facts 'knowing', they would partake of the nature of perfection. But they are not.
So if we properly state that facts are only a subset of beliefs we are on safer ground. Doubt is properly maintained.

An important but vague claim. — Leontiskos

Well you walked into this one:
Someone who 'knows' (ha ha), observes, claims, that this is vague SHOULD be able to say how so.

Well, you kind of backed off on your position I think.

When you dither, I cannot tell what you mean to say or write or believe.

although I also think that much of what is generally considered to be knowledge might be more accurately classed as belief. — Janus

So, perhaps we are more kindred spirits waiting to fight and then we end up drinking a beer together talking about ex girlfriends.

OK, so

All facts are a subset of all beliefs.
Knowledge is not knowing and the word 'to know' is stupid therefore. It implies a failure in understanding.

"Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but certainty is absurd" - Voltaire was right.

Perfection is knowing. Is ANYONE perfect? (Yes I caps YELL in text to show emphasis. It's more natural to me and appealing to my anger nature than is doing ctrl-I for Italics emphasis. )

Most people describe me as offensive, not defensive. They are neither one correct. But everyone is free to use their set of beliefs.

We all operate in life only from a well of beliefs.

What distinguishes a 'fact' from a belief is that THAT PERSON ONLY (<--- yup) has decided that enough evidence exists to make that fact iota something that is fairly far along the match curve towards infinity, e.g. perfection. For them its a fact.

The fact that many people share the same facts has not so much bearing on the factuality of any fact. As a matter of fact, 'facts' are always wrong in some way. That is TRUE and more factual than most facts, because as a part of that fact we ALREADY INCLUDE the flexibility that fact is only belief.

That leads to an interesting quandary whereby you can claim that most facts are only beliefs, but THAT fact is made more factual, if you follow, which might lead one to say that such a fact was incontrovertible.

The latter type of 'fact' is BETTER in some way than other 'facts' are.

So that is the basis of this argument and in brief, obviously.

So I could/should rest on that statement alone as it is incontrovertible.

But the quislings out there will want to retreat behind 'facts' and 'knowledge' delusions. So, it's best I turn my hat around and address the concepts more thoroughly.

But let's take this outside.

This is a thread on Existentialism and there is enough pseudo derail here already, and indeed, I am as much to blame as anyone. So, if you start a new thread, I'll jump in and we can go go go!

↪Chet Hawkins You seem very defensive. Capitalizations and implied insults so quickly delivered! An observation is not a claim, unless there is a reason to question what has been observed. I see you making claims like 'free will is fundamental to the universe' and 'philosophy is generally based on fear', and I see no reason to question the fact that I have observed you making these claims.

Are these merely your beliefs or do you have some knowledge to support them? If they are merely your personal beliefs, they may or may not be interesting, but the fact alone that you believe them does not constitute a reason why anyone else should share your belief as far as I can see. — Janus

Knowledge is only belief.