You can probably get more of my view on this topic by looking at my first post on the first page.

A justified, true, belief is the current definition of knowledge. — TheMadFool

Not for me.

If you can't expand and elaborate your position nobody can and will take you seriously, right? — TheMadFool

Maybe not nobody, but very few. Because.

Try Camus. Absurdism is probably the best path out of nihilism :)

But you leave out the specifics, the details and the devil, they say, is in the details. Last I checked, negotiations involved justifications/argumentations and when that failed, punches/kicks/bullets/bombs...you get the idea ("aggressive" negotiations). I hope you don't mean that by "negoitiations" — TheMadFool

I was insisting that JTB must leave out the specifics to work flawlessly (see below) because it is only fully effective in an abstract realm.

I did mean all of the above in terms of 'negotiations'. In the real world claim of what is believed to be 'the truth' or 'justified' is often why violence can ensue. This is because each party thinks they own 'knowledge' rather than viewing knowledge as a tool used to lever individual beliefs that suit them. We're not robots.

The more important (the greater the value attached to the disagreement) the 'negotiation' the more likely the belief will bypass reasonable argumentation by sheer will.

So, the JTB is an abstract rule? I fail to see how that diminishes its value when it comes to knowledge and, possibly, other matters. — TheMadFool

Because with set abstract rules and limits we can differentiate between 'true' and 'false'. Outside of such set rules and limits (ie. real world situations where 'rules' and 'limits' are unknown) we cannot differentiate between 'true' and 'false' as we're not able to know anything for certain unlike in abstracted realms. Nature has a habit of showing us that what we took as a 'truth' here and there and in another place makes another 'truth' a mistake - too many variables/perspectives.

More simply put applying mathematical formula to the stock market will not guarantee profits only act as a tool to aid profits - that is diminished value. How diminished? Another layer of the problem cake.

Yep. JTB is JTB, as defined but it does have, like all things, limitations; I don't deny that. These limitations need to be known of course but there are situations in which the JTB is perfectly applicable/acceptable. — TheMadFool

Sure. But I have a feeling we might disagree what and where these limitations are due to our different beliefs.

Flesh that out for me, will ya? — TheMadFool

Nothing to flesh out. You will belief some things irrespective of any facts thrown your way, as we all will, because we're not robots.

There are little smudges in this area as Wittgenstein threw out. With the example of a game of chess two people playing what they believe to be the correct game of chess with the correct rules may not actually be playing the correct rules. Believing they are playing the game correctly is all that matters for them irrespective of whether they are or not. If they ever found out they had made a mistake they would still have been 'playing chess' but just not in absolutely the correct manner.

To relate more to what I said this needn't happen after the event. There could be one person arguing about a rule (and be correct) yet everyone else disagrees. People will follow their belief and they will still be 'playing chess' because they believe they are playing chess.

People can believe anything up to the point where they cannot deny it. I may believe that it isn't going to rain within the next 5 mins due to spotless blue skies yet if it did start to rain (by some freak occurrence) I would not question my initial belief but I would be intrigued as to why I was wrong and what freak occurrence caused the rain. This instance is completely different to chess though as we do not know the 'rules' or 'limits' of weather with absolute precision in the manner that I can know the rules and limits of chess.

That's new. Sounds interesting but I'll stick with JTB if it's all the same to you. — TheMadFool

Stick to the old ways then. It is an abstract theory set in an abstract realm that has some parallels to human life. the problem is if you apply it to language as if it is a mathematical model you're working within an unlimited world where the rules are unknown. So it doesn't hold up in real life as anything other than a simple belief like any other belief. It cannot justify itself in a true or believed way in the real world because we're oblivious to the limits and rules of the world.

I don't have to justify my beliefs to you and you would be perfectly ok with that, right? — TheMadFool

Yes. If they interfere with mine/others though we may have to negotiate. That is basically how the world works so no biggie.

If people hold rigidly to an abstract rule as a way of living in the world and it works for them so be it. Generally I'm more inclined to disbelief when it comes to bringing the abstract into the realm of lived lives.

JTB isn't a JTB if the limits and rules are unknown. Within known bounds (necessarily abstract) I'm ok with the theory of JTB.

TO repeat. 'Truth' is an attitude more than anything else ... that is my belief.

That said, I'm open to new ideas but they have to make sense at some level I suppose. Just sayin! — TheMadFool

Doesn't really matter. At the end of the day a 'belief' will overrule anything claimed by others to be 'known'. Nature will do as nature does regardless of what we call knowledge or belief. On top of that we're always going to lean towards justifying what we belief the most regardless of knowledge or we'd stagnate.

1. a−b=ca−b=c
2. a=c+ba=c+b
3. a+(−b)=c+b+(−b)a+(−b)=c+b+(−b)
4. a+(−b)=c+0a+(−b)=c+0
5. a+(−b)=ca+(−b)=c
6. a−b=a+(−b)a−b=a+(−b)
QED — TheMadFool

The above has nothing to do with JTB Mathematics is an abstraction and within an abstracted set limit knowledge is discernible.

In justified true belief the 'truth' is just an attitude/emotion and this is clear in the need to justify it. It is just a belief and the more 'truth' people have towards it the more they'll justify it even if it costs them to do so.

True things can be known ONLY within a set limit with set rules (abstracted not real).

Belief in the context of the theory is more easily described as 'strong conviction'.

Justified is just to say not by luck.

The obvious argument against this theory is that it could all be a combination of luck and belief. The knowledge only comes through abstraction, but again this means we can be hoodwinked by belief into thinking we've got the method just because we have the desired outcome. Abstractions thankfully can be checked to a decent degree though due to set rules and limits.

Abstractions are not reality though so in day-to-day life we don't operate by way of knowledge we operate by way of beliefs and often bolster our beliefs by any justification that suits our beliefs. Rationality and reason are more or less a soft balm to sooth a first degree burn ... doesn't do a lot for us at the base human experience.

I don't much care for the JTB view.

Epistemic responsibility has to do with attempting to gain knowledge i.e. it's, at the end of the day, a way of sorting one's beliefs into knowledge and non-knowledge. — TheMadFool

I'd rather not pretend my beliefs are anything but beliefs. Knowledge is for set discernable limits only (ie. abstract).

Beliefs don't require justifications because we've no idea what justification for any given myriad of beliefs there is.

Justification is really just a psychological analysis of what has happened and the degree to which one wishes to claim authorship over the actions that led to the result.

If a belief is fully justified in our minds then is it really a 'belief'? If it is then how does it differ from beliefs that possess little to no rational foundation?

If you don't know from reading I cannot help. Sorry.

We can take a person's actions and assess them in terms of gain and loss and judge those actions but people don't usually act as a result of such calculations. — Judaka

I think you missed something. He was saying that Stupid people are unpredictable whereas everyone else you can figure out roughly what their motivations are.

It is not, as many here seem to take it, some rule of life to live by that explains everything there is to know about every facet of human behavior. It is an interesting take on what people call Stupid and Intelligent.

The harrowing point behind what he is saying is that there is no cure for this kind of Stupidity as some people are simply born this way. Whether it is true or not doesn't make it uninteresting. If it is true then avoiding Stupid people seems to make the most sense. I then added that reducing the influence/status/power of Stupid people at the high end of the influence/status/power spectrum would make sense, but they'd also be hard to move as they're Stupid and so unpredictable.

we ask vague questions about things we kinda already understand because some of what we understand or could understand is hidden, and that's part of what we investigate too. — Srap Tasmaner

That is Husserl. Good summation here:

Intentional content can be thought of along the lines of a description or set of information that the subject takes to characterize or be applicable to the intentional objects of her thought. Thus, in thinking that there is a red apple in the kitchen the subject entertains a certain presentation of her kitchen and of the apple that she takes to be in it and it is in virtue of this that she succeeds in directing her thought towards these things rather than something else or nothing at all. It is important to note, however, that for Husserl intentional content is not essentially linguistic. While intentional content always involves presenting an object in one way rather than another, Husserl maintained that the most basic kinds of intentionality, including perceptual intentionality, are not essentially linguistic. Indeed, for Husserl, meaningful use of language is itself to be analyzed in terms of more fundamental underlying intentional states (this can be seen, for example, throughout LI, I). For this reason characterizations of intentional content in terms of “descriptive content” have their limits in the context of Husserl’s thought.

https://iep.utm.edu/huss-int/#H1

I assume you're buddhist too and don't like it when people say things that are true? Seems strange though.

You can wiki it if you want. Buddhism is theistic but it is not theistic in the same way that most judeo christian practices are (for the majority of buddhist practices).

Wayfarer is just sticking to one narrow definition of theism and seemingly refusing to accept that there are broader meanings beyond belief in 'a creator' or 'deity'.

When it comes to ideas you wouldn't be thinking about "slapping sense into them" if you respected them. — Janus

I just said I don't 'respect' them though.

I get that you don't respect Heidegger — Janus

Respect? If I had to use that word I would say actively don't respect ANY philosopher!

Ideas are not for respecting though. They are for slapping sense into if possible.

Memories are plastic so I wouldn't worry about 'losing' them if they cannot be retained.

Do you see the relation to the Private Language argument? — Banno

Wittgenstein defined a language as that which cannot be Private. It is really an argument more of a definition of 'language' put in place and made clear in meaning as NOT being private.

If we can think without words and language can come into being without words existing in the first place then language need not be worded/signed but worded/signed language is revealing something about language as a whole.

And linguists are quite happy to view language as apparent in species other than humans. We are certainly able to express in more broad terms it seems and the instances of deaf people with NO language (as we general frame language) show that knowledge of language in the sense of words/signs is not at all important for living in a human society that uses language daily.

IN split brain patients the hemispheres communicate in the world not through words/symbols. They act out and interact according to cognitive aims. They actually fight against each other and collaborate and interfere with each other constantly.

You are 'others' too. There is you now and you tomorrow. They are not identical and you, as we all do, have to negotiate with ourselves as a future/past projection.

I have been thinking lately that what we want for ourselves is often projected onto others and that this is due the above. We wish our ideas acted out by others so we can observe the difference from our projection to the reality of what will happen. I think this is why we're always trying to control the world to some degree or another.

When it comes to ethics I think too many just assume there is an easy way to bridge meaning with action so they tend to side with reason over emotion, yet when the item of 'meaning' is regarded as some purity they find nothing and in breaking from that ghost nihilism takes hold. In this light ethics is more or less an amalgam of societal inputs and this gives some the impression of emptiness as they've removed from reason any space upon which guidance was written. They don't see the guiding principles as mere reflections/shadows of other forms and so feel disillusioned and hollow.

No action taken is genuine to oneself as oneself is not one self. The horde of who you are does come into view more or less at certain points. From there action has more force, from points where the individual is thin on the ground error rules.

Clarity is not always the aim; sometimes we can expand our more or less fuzzy 'feels' or intuitions, which themselves can constitute kinds of understanding; understandings which may be expressed more aptly in metaphor than in proposition. — Janus

But when the entire work of Heidegger hinges on the term then it is a problem. That was my point and has remained my point about Being and Time.

No one can really point out where Heidegger articulates what he means with any real precision. the fact that he goes to such ends to explain some more obvious points tells me he merely covered up his ignorance with the pretense of some deeper understanding. He is a hack, but not a useless hack ;)

It's this very move that is contended: treating existence as a state. As if there were things that do not exist, waiting to change their condition into one of existence. That is, treating existence as a first order predicate. — Banno

This is where I find Kant to be very useful in how he frames Noumenon. When we speak of Noumenon we are necessarily talking about phenomenon, yet the idea of Noumenon - which is not anything - is 'existing' only as a negation NOT as an item of experience or potential experience. Phenomenon, and any other term, creates a mental space into which humans tend to shoehorn some antithesis.

Yet who’s noticing that— and how? What is it that recognizes thought as thought? — Xtrix

I assume your answer is 'being'. This is just a trick of language (that is Heidegger's concern not Husserl's).

Even so, if this is your view then what exactly do you mean by 'being'? Many people state 'being' as if they know what it is because it is a common colloquial term of reference. In hermeneutical sense there is an investigation, but in terms of consciousness it is an overlay.

When, in whatever language used, the term 'being' is uttered they is an automatic assumption that meaning is possessed in the term, and that the term is directed towards something (Intentionality). The 'being' is not Intentional, the 'being' is an example of Intentionality.

I'm with Banno in regards to words. If Heidegger cannot make clear what 'dasein' means then the reader should have serious concerns about everything that follows.

Note: I'm fairly charitable when it comes to using terms loosely and for multiple purposes, but when such a term is used so often and ubiquitously the author should take better care. It is also clear that Heidegger wasn't exactly shy of stating he obvious with verbosity yet he shied away from doing the same for 'dasein'. Alarm bells should ring there for anyone looking critically at his work.

But the question of being is the first in rank — as the broadest, deepest, and most originary. Here I agree with Heidegger. That’s not to say it is the only question, or that it’s the first one we ask in philosophy or in life. — Xtrix

I am assuming you are thinking with 'language' here? Can you think without 'language'? As in this worded stuff I'm using here? If your answer is no you probably won't be able to understand that the answer isn't no for everyone.

How does having a higher IQ alter or modify one's behavior? — Shawn

It depends. For most people probably not at all as most people don't vary that much in terms of IQ and a bigger influence on how it would modify someone's behavior would likely be due to their knowledge of having an IQ at whatever mark. If you value IQ and found out what your IQ was it would mean more to how you act in the future than to someone who simply didn't give a toss about what others said or didn't say their IQ was.

Attention to anything modifies your behavior towards it to some degree. Modifying our behavior is necessary. Why you ask in relation to IQ specifically rather than something else is for you to reveal to us if you wish to.

If he does something for you he does something for you. I'm certainly not the only one who doesn't find any value in his writing beyond a few instances of expressing Intentionality in a more manageable way than Husserl. Other than that he's a damn good punching bag ;)

The problem I see is that he deep dives into language whilst losing sight of the phenomenological act - hence Hermeneutical Phenomenology.

I still recommend Heidegger to people who seem to be more attuned to his lingo.

Then dasein is defined by dasein. That is okay because he already made ‘clear’ :D how what he says isn’t ‘circular’ though right.

So Division Two should read ‘Da-sein and Da-sein’ rather than ‘Da-sein and Temporality’?

Other garbled language like this:

Being "here" (da-sein) is being the present moment, but only if we don't define the present exclusively as a present-at-hand now-point (that is, thought abstractly) -- but instead as the experience from which all time tenses arise. — Xtrix

Why not just say Time isn’t something we can readily atomise? The ‘Now’ is merely a way of framing time appreciation just like a second is a measure of physical time a ‘moment’ is merely a human reference to unregulated and vague demarcation of felt time.

Ok bye :)

Anyway, what about better education? Wouldn't that be the best way to stop people from being stupid? — DingoJones

It appears you haven't bothered to read the OP either. The premise is you CANNOT change how many people are Stupid.

I was actually trying to sneak in that what he is really talking about (underneath) is more or less about plain bad luck framed as Stupidity.

Either way I find the overarching idea to be a nice leveller as usually the pompous fools of the world act like they are ‘superior’ due to positioning (IQ/status/religion) and this kind of view would hit them the hardest of all as they’d have to question their own ‘Stupidity’/‘Intelligence’.

There is no test to take. You just have to look at what you’ve done and the effects they’ve had on you and those around you. I think that is a healthy thought to have overall (whether or not you like what you see!) :)

It is not what I laid out. It is a satirical piece yet I found it interesting.

As a hypothetical problem it is still a problem. Cornering it as an extreme idea by viewing it in its extremities only is certainly one way of ignoring the problem.

I am talking about this at the highest degrees of status/power/influence rather than across the entire social strata simply because those that are stupid and in possession of greater status/power/influence can cause untold damage to themselves and many others whilst remaining oblivious to the fact. — I like sushi

I don’t see any mention of concentration camps so fuck off.

You’ve tried to define dasein before and failed. Not surprising as Heidegger failed too. That is my point.

Yeah, that's what we need. Some concentration camps. — T Clark

If that’s what you get from what I wrote go away and bother someone else please.

Yeah, in a strange way as they 'better' the 'worseness' :D

Oops!

AMended: those that MAKE their own situation worse and others better were … I forget … I think they were called Helpless.

The Buddha simply pointed out that attachment to things which are impermanent will lead to suffering once they are gone. If one may simply enjoy the moment as it comes, without attachment, there will be a willingness to let things go, once they are gone. — Present awareness

And okay with suffering. Life without suffering is a contradiction.

I mean, the horror of the realization that nobody will ever love or value me nearly as much as they do themselves. That in the end, myself, my life, and my hopes don't mean a shit to anybody else...that to them, I am just an object to be used in the achievement of their ends, and am otherwise utterly expendable. — Michael Zwingli

Hold onto that thought. Nihilism could well be a necessary 'passage of rites' kinda thing. Sadly buddhists often tend to wallow in it like they've discovered something special when they've really just notice the door and forgot to walk through it ... which is also necessary if your doctrine at its heart is about doing away with 'suffering'. Ironic me thinks.

It usually helps if you address the definitions used in the OP and recognise analogies when used ;)

Google it

I think everyone is stupid - that's an underestimate? — unenlightened

If everyone was Stupid we'd all be dead. So yeah. Huge underestimate I'd say. If everything everyone was doing was a detriment to themselves and everyone else then I wouldn't be able to communicate via the internet with you as they'd be no power and I'd be scrounging around ruins for food starving, so that I could use it as bait to kill people rather than eat in

A hungry man-eating tiger is not stupid. — unenlightened

Funny joke.

Who knows? — unenlightened

Precisely the problem. So if, as proposed, such Stupidity is prevalent in human society we're all screwed. Can our intelligence (not merely Intelligence) figure it out if it is the case. I cannot but I'm not much more than average. Which leads to another idea in the article ...

We all underestimate the number of Stupid people there are in the world and the most Stupid people tend to think they are Intelligent.

Take care of stupid therefore, and educate stupid, and understand stupid and be compassionate towards stupid. That is intelligence in action. — unenlightened

Given the specific definition to entangle with Stupid is to become Stupid. Compassion towards a hungry man-eating tiger won't stop it from eating you. Compassion towards someone who is Stupid (in the context of the OP) would just result in greater harm to yourself.

Think of it like this. If someone is walking around with high explosives attached to them - which they believe are expensive jewelry - that have various flashing lights and switches that could sent the explosives off if toyed with. What would happen if you got close enough to tell them they should remove said explosives? Do you put yourself in danger or not? Can they be reasoned with if they have either no concern or comprehension of what situation they are currently in.

We cannot 'teach' people not to be Stupid in this sense. If we can then how? Given the definition of Stupid is to act in a manner that is harmful/detrimental to both themselves and others. Can Stupid be changed? What makes someone Stupid to the point that they un/wittingly cause detriments to everyone in their vicinity including themselves?

Is this just an impossible problem to deal with? Maybe it is. I just found the concept interesting.