I'm not concerned with knowing the truth in any absolute sense or with what truth is. I'm saying that being certain is being certain of knowing the truth... — Janus

You're saying that being certain is being certain of something that you're not concerned with.

You claimed that being certain is knowing the truth and then later openly expressed no concern about what truth is. Nothing left for me to say...

...I'm not concerned with knowing the truth in any absolute sense or with what truth is. I'm saying that being certain is being certain of knowing the truth... — Janus

Given that you originally invoked "knowing the truth" as the distinction between feeling certain and being certain, if you are not concerned with what truth is, then you're not concerned with what "knowing the truth" means. If you're not concerned with what "knowing the truth" means, then your not concerned with what you're adamantly arguing over, and thus your thoughts on the matter are not worth much more of my time.

...you speak of some purported "remarkable difference" which you haven't explained as far as I can tell...

...you've said your statements "capture what I meant" which I read as meaning they agree with what I meant...

You did say that I was "echoing" what you had already said after reading my statements, despite the fact that our respective statements were remarkably different in that I added at least one term, for starters...

Contrary to what you've said, I have set out the differences between "we can feel certain even when we are not" and "we can feel certain even when we are not right". As hinted at above, the term "right" was added without subsequent objection. You offered the claim, and I added a term andchecked for your agreement. You readily offered it up. You did not object to that term being added. Rather, you claimed that I was "echoing" what you said.

So...

Given that the sounds produced by a reading is not identical, if my saying "we can feel certain even when we are not right" echoed your saying that "we can feel certain even when we are not", then I can only take that to mean that I captured your meaning, or that our different statements pretty much mean the same thing to you. All this being said...




You've just admitted to not being concerned about what truth is. If one is not concerned with what truth is, then they cannot be concerned with what "knowing the truth" means. If "knowing the truth" is central to someone who claims that they are not concerned with what truth is, well we've reached the end as far as I can help. Any further progress requires you performing a bit of damage control, because you've admitted to not being concerned with what we're discussing here.

Assange also helped to cause quite a bit of unnecessary grief to an already grieving family by perpetuating the false idea that a murder victim was tied to those emails and Wikileaks. When openly asked, he could have and should have stamped out that notion rather than being cagey and perpetuating a conspiracy theory that right wing American media fomented for months and months. Fox News ended up settling with the parents for an untold amount in the seven-figure range.

Physiological sensory perception is part of experience. Divorcing the two leads to misunderstanding both.

...we can feel certain even we are not...
— Janus

We can feel certain even when we are not right. We can feel certain even when we are not justified in being so. We can feel certain even when we're dead wrong.

We cannot feel certain when we are not feeling certain.

So, Janus, help me out here...

Would you agree to all of the above statements? — creativesoul

Why would I not agree when you are simply echoing what I've already said? — Janus

Well, to be blunt, you've said none of those things. I do think you meant them though. What you said was...

we can feel certain even when we are not...

If what I said echoes that then that is an incomplete thought filled out by my echoes. — creativesoul

The above is for a bit of context...

We need to examine the differences between "We can feel certain, even when we are not", and "We can feel certain even when we are not right". If those two statements mean the same thing, then cases of feeling certain even when we are not certain are cases of feeling certain even when we are not right. So, being certain is on par with being right. Since being right requires true belief, then being certain would as well. True belief requires truth. If being certain requires true belief and true belief requires truth, then being certain requires truth as well. Truth is not about the believer. If truth is not about the believer and being certain requires truth, then being certain is not about the believer in the sense that the truth of the belief is not about the believer. Hence, I noted that earlier...

Janus' use of "feeling certain" is about the believer, but his use of "being certain" is about the truth of the belief. — creativesoul

...but you objected...

No, you've got it wrong again. Feeling certain is feeling that you know the truth while being certain is knowing the truth; both are about the person. — Janus

Well no, I've not got it wrong at all, my friend. I've correctly understood what you meant at every turn, and you've confirmed that much on more than one occasion. The contentious matter is directly above. It's your notion of "knowing the truth". You hold that knowing the truth is about the believer, and while I would not reject that claim outright, for knowing the truth is indeed about the believer - in part at least. People do have true belief after-all, but knowing the truth is not just about the believer, and I think that you've neglected to carefully consider the rest of what it's about. So, in a very limited sense, knowing the truth is about people. However, the problem shows up when we consider what true belief(and hence *what else* knowing the truth) requires.

Knowing the truth requires true belief. Belief is true only if and when it corresponds to fact/reality. Hence, knowing the truth requires belief, fact/reality, and correspondence between belief and fact/reality. Correspondence is not about the believer(with exceptions involving claims about oneself, of course). Correspondence is the key element in knowing the truth(even in the exceptions above, one could be wrong about themselves). Thus, knowing the truth is not just about the believer. It's about correspondence as well.

Correspondence, it seems clear to me, is also the key difference between your notions of feeling certain and being certain. Correspondence is exactly what's being verified and/or corroborated after-all.

What’s so special about knowledge? Knowledge can be wrong... — praxis

Nothing special about knowledge if it can be wrong. On my view, it cannot.

So what extra is needed to go from feeling certain that God exists to being certain?
— creativesoul

You can't be certain that God exists, because being certain is knowing and the things we can be said to know are things that are inter-subjectively corroborable. — Janus

Good. That's what I thought you meant. So, according to your line of reasoning here, being certain requires things that are inter-subjectively corroborable, which amounts to saying that we can only be certain of things that can be verified. Whereas feeling certain does not require a verifiable component(thing). Hence, that is consistent with the overlap you spoke of earlier, where one can feel and be certain that 2+2=4, but one can merely feel certain that God exists. Presumably, as a result of "God exists" not being verifiable.

I'm trying to get Janus to explain what the difference is, according to his/her position, between feeling certain and being certain. Seems to me like that difference amounts to feeling certain being on par with belief whereas being certain is on par with knowledge.
— creativesoul

Feeling certain is feeling that you know the truth while being certain is knowing the truth; both are about the person. So, again I can feel certain that God exists, but I cannot be certain that God exists. I can be certain that 2+2=4. Can you spot the difference yet?
— Janus — Janus

Well, to be sure, there's more than one difference in need of careful consideration. One the one hand, there's the difference between the words you're using, and the words I've been using to say the same thing. On the other, there's the difference between how you're using the term certain. The difference you're asking about above is about the latter. The question has been answered to our satisfaction.

I'm aware of the semantic differences you're claiming that there is between your use of "feeling certain" and your use "being certain". That difference is all about what you mean when using those words(what you're doing with them). I've paraphrased several claims on two separate occasions. Your agreements regarding my 'paraphrasing' in both confirms that I've rightly understood what you're claiming.

You're invoking the difference between feeling that one knows the truth and one knowing the truth as a means for grasping the difference(by virtue of comparison) in what you mean when using "feeling certain" and "being certain". Your use of "feeling certain" describes situations of one believing that they know the truth, whereas your use of "being certain" describes situations of one knowing the truth.

Can you see how what you said above is the same, in different words, as what I said above? Also you do seem to be agreeing that there is a difference between being certain and feeling certain. If not then point to the difference you think is there between the two statements above. — Janus

Considering the differences between your statements is not enough to understand the remarkable difference in the meaning between our respective statements. You've now confirmed more than once that my paraphrasing captured what you meant. That tells me that I've correctly understood what you're arguing.

What's needed here, is a mutual understanding, not only of what you've meant, but also of what my paraphrasing meant. The differences there are remarkable enough to shed light on the problems with your particular use.

I'm trying to get Janus to explain what the difference is, according to his/her position, between feeling certain and being certain. Seems to me like that difference amounts to feeling certain being on par with belief whereas being certain is on par with knowledge. That difference is truth to some, warrant to others, and truth plus justification to some. Belief is required for all.

Clarity has not been forthcoming.

We can feel certain even when we are not right. We can feel certain even when we are not justified in being so. We can feel certain even when we're dead wrong.

We cannot feel certain when we are not feeling certain.
— creativesoul

Why would I not agree when you are simply echoing what I've already said? — Janus

Well, to be blunt, you've said none of those things. I do think you meant them though. What you said was...

we can feel certain even when we are not...

If what I said echoes that then that is an incomplete thought filled out by my echoes.

Do you agree that there is a valid distinction between feeling certain and being certain, or not? — Janus

No, but you may convince me otherwise..

I can feel certain that God exists, but I cannot be certain that God exists. — Janus

So what extra is needed to go from feeling certain that God exists to being certain?

Feeling certain is feeling that you know the truth while being certain is knowing the truth... — Janus

I can feel certain that God exists, but I cannot be certain that God exists. — Janus

"Feeling certain" seems to suggest belief, while "being certain" seems more like knowledge.

"I believe that God exists, but I cannot know that God exists".

What does your practice add to our understanding here that the quote above lacks?

No need for people to fret much over this...

Your language use is very odd. You claim that feeling certain that 'X' is true is not equivalent to being certain that 'X' is true.

So what extra is needed aside from S's feeling certain that 'X' is true in order for S to be certain that 'X' is true?

Let 'X' be "God exists"...

May not be worth fretting over. Clearing up confusion for others helps even if we fail to convince those who oppose us.

I think you hit the nail on the head. A conflation of truth and certainty. The former is about the belief, the latter is about the believer. Janus' use of "feeling certain" is about the believer, but his use of "being certain" is about the truth of the belief.

You know, I feel certain but I cannot be certain.

If feeling certain is about one's confidence, being certain is about the truth of the belief, and the truth of the belief is not determined by the certainty of the individual, then it only follows that one's being certain is not determined by the certainty of the individual.

:yikes:

Looks like following the logic leads us to conclude that that is a bit of nonsensical language use.

What else could possibly be the determining factor regarding whether or not someone is certain that X is the case, or being absolutely certain that 'X' is true, if not the high level of confidence(the complete lack of doubt) that the believer has that X is the case, or that 'X' is true?

The certainty that S has about X is one thing, and X's being certain is another.

When S feels certain then they are. What does it mean for S to be certain if not that they are?.

How else is there to parse this?

:yikes:

...we can feel certain even we are not... — Janus

We can feel certain even when we are not right. We can feel certain even when we are not justified in being so. We can feel certain even when we're dead wrong.

We cannot feel certain when we are not feeling certain.

So, Janus, help me out here...

Would you agree to all of the above statements?

What I did say, very clearly and repeatedly, is that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners.

I also said that (1) this must be applied on the merits of each particular case, (2) no one says it must be applied by force of arms, and (3) nor can force or threat of force (or violence) be ruled out.

In other words, the principle should be applied if, when, and to the extent that, it is feasible. — Apollodorus

What a load of bullshit.

Suddenly it occurs to me now how much belief is a story or personal narrative for ourselves, our ego, strengthening individual as well as group identity.
— praxis

Exactly. — Isaac

MAGA world is prima facie evidence of the power of belief, as well as how easily others can directly influence our worldviews and behaviors. Intentionally creating all the necessary preconditions from which mass delusion emerges; a carefully planned coordinated effort to defraud The United States of America, is exactly what Trump and his close circle of co-conspirators successfully achieved.

So many bought into the big lie that we're suffering from a country with untold(perhaps hundreds of???) millions of people suffering from mass delusion or cognitive dissonance as a direct result of it. All the while Trump's personal versions of "Go Fund Me" were raking in hundreds of millions from those who trusted that Trump was telling the truth. His lies were layered. The supporters donated for the specified cause of helping fund a 'legal' fight that was unfounded to begin with and everyone already knew that. Untold numbers of judges threw the cases out as a result. It's no secret. Those allegations were being publicly presented to Trump supporters in such a way as to convince them that there was something to fight against. This was also being waged by so-called 'attorneys' who knew they had no evidence to support those very serious charges that Trump and others were making then, and continue to do so now.

There are some similarities between Trump supporters' unshakable conviction(unquestioned trust in the truthfulness of Trump's speech) and the religious faith being discussed here...

Yeah, we could swap some terms and likely make some sort of sense. Perhaps introducing how truth works in belief statements may be on the menu here.

"Certainty" is a term mostly used to indicate the level of confidence than an individual has that something or another is true and/or is the case. Let that something be X. When and where the confidence is highest, the individual has no doubt about X, and thus such individuals are certain that X is the case or that 'X' is true.







Being certain and feeling certain are the very same thing. Being true and being certain are not.

We begin to temper our confidence(and thus rethink our own certainty that X is the case or that 'X' is true) only after having become aware of our fallibility and mastering language that is replete with the ability to talk about our own mistakes. Skepticism based upon percentages and probabilities seems unhelpful here as far as I can tell. That applies to only the cases after we've become aware of our own fallibility. Certainty and belief precedes that.

We're certain that X is the case and/or that 'X' is true long before we become equipped with the language capacity to be able to apply probabilistic terminology to our beliefs, or to 'measure' our certainty in such terms.

All I'm advocating is that we call what is certain (in the sense that we can't imagine what its being false could look like) knowledge, and that we call what we feel certain about belief. — Janus

One can be certain and wrong. Thus, certainty does not equate to, nor does it always indicate knowledge.

If 'X' is certain, do we not also feel certain about 'X'? In other words, I do not think you've drawn a distinction here. According to what you've said above, 'X' is both knowledge and belief.

Nice attempt at correction.

I am reminded of Russell here who, like Kenny and yourself, also drew a distinction between faith and belief. Christianity has a well-established history of holding unshakable absolute certainty in some of their beliefs - as you've noted - even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Hence... Christian apologetics is faith-based, and makes concerted attempts at placing the evidence against the God of Abraham into question. Christians will even go so far as to be proud of themselves for maintaining absolute certainty in these beliefs. It is cultivated, praised, sought after, and rewarded amongst Christian communities.

"Walk by faith not by sight" is a common phrase supporting the idea to consciously and willfully ignore all the evidence against the God of Abraham that is plain to see...

No resemblance whatsoever — Apollodorus

The resemblance of Russia's current actions to others' throughout history is that Russia - like others - are forcing themselves onto another people, and stealing their shit(including their autonomy) against the will of those people.

Your claims of historical Russian boundaries is being used to justify current actions. Arbitrary points in time. Go back farther, use the same logic, and we'd be forced to give the land back to the first settlers.

Your position can be summed up here nicely.

Throughout history all sorts of nations have wrongfully imposed themselves upon others and stole their shit(including their autonomy), therefore it's okay if Russia does the same to Ukraine or everyone's a hypocrit.

Oh yeah, and I am most certainly not a Christian. I'm agnostic on matters like the origin of the universe.

The West has been doing the same thing to so many peoples and countries. Whether it was the native Americans, the Aboriginals, or the Russians: the Westerners unilaterally declared them to be their enemies. Regardless if the others initially felt any hostility against the Westerners or not. The perspective of the Westerners was all that matters. — baker

Not everyone living in the "west" fits into your preconceived notion of "Westerners".

The sheer number of nations, communities, and individuals around the world that are currently and/or historically guilty of totally unacceptable behaviors exactly as you've described above is far too numerous to cherry pick "Westerners". Humans in general have had to fight for their very lives with other humans throughout human history. Humans were often our own mortal enemies.

We're no longer living in those archaic times. We are interdependent social creatures, and we've no choice in the matter. We know this.

Here's the underlying problem in a nutshell:The obsession of obtaining wealth and an abundance of resources by whatever means necessary is not just a "western problem".

Although, at the heart of it all, I would tend to agree that American culture in general permits, perpetuates, and continues to cultivate treating others with unnecessarily harmful open baseless(tribalesque) contempt, personal inconsideration, and public ridicule, and that is likely an ethical/moral vestige stemming from what you've outlined...

Australia belonged to its indigenous Aboriginal inhabitants for 60,000 years. Then the Brits invaded in the 1700’s, massacred most of the natives and stole their land. — Apollodorus

And thus...

It's just fine if Putin does the same...

:zip:

Already when I was little, the Christians around me considered me their enemy. Because I was not one of them. They unilaterally declared me their enemy. I felt no hostility toward them, I didn't consider them my enemies, but they didn't care about that. I also know they took a measure of pride in "peacefully coexisting with their enemy, ie. me". To this day, I don't consider myself their enemy, but they still insist that I am. They don't care about what I think. In their eyes, I am whatever they say that I am. Beyond that I don't exist for them.

The West has been doing the same thing to so many peoples and countries. Whether it was the native Americans, the Aboriginals, or the Russians: the Westerners unilaterally declared them to be their enemies. Regardless if the others initially felt any hostility against the Westerners or not. The perspective of the Westerners was all that matters.

People who can in fact "peacefully coexist" are not enemies to begin with. — baker

Gratuitous assertions won't cut it.

The last statement does not follow from anything preceding it. That's a problem in a philosophy forum such as this one, because we philosopher-types tend to place the utmost importance upon logical well-founded conclusions. That's not one of them.

You've met some immoral people who called themselves "Christian". Not all Christians are like that.

So, assuming sincerity in speech, others used the phrase "peacefully co-existing with their enemies" to talk about you in the ways you clearly described above. Thanks for that, by the way. It helped me to personally be able to make sense out of the responses you've given. But...

Not everyone who uses those words has the same moral/ethical standards(means the same thing when putting the phrase into practice). I cannot blame you for having bad feelings about the phrase or towards those Christians as a result of that. However, if you go back and look, I explained clearly what I meant by "peacefully co-existing with one's enemies".

What I meant is nothing like what those self-proclaimed "Christians" meant.

Because I'm a generally honest person who's led the life I have, you may be interested to know that I can personally relate to you and others who've been subject to inconsiderate treatment by others. It seems you are one of us and I, one of you. Many of those situations and sets of circumstances helped to shape the clay into the man that I am today. To this day, I can still remember many of those events, although the crispness has blurred considerably over the decades. No one ought have to go through anything like what you've described above.

We're working from incommensurate understandings or notions of human belief. May not be much point in continuing this if we cannot agree on what the key terms mean. Hope your move worked out well for you!

So, what you're saying is that it's OK for America to pursue a policy of assassination of political opponents, but not for Russia! — Apollodorus

This could be a textbook case of projecting one's beliefs onto others. Given that you have not condemned the behaviours in question when talking about Putin's, it may be highly likely.

Do you trust that Putin is an honest goodwilled actor in all this?

Does the assassination of Putin's political opponents(who were Russian citizens) influence your view?

Not what I'm saying, nor was that a rhetorical question.

Scientists don't have to believe anything in order to practice science... — Janus

:yikes:

Janus, you know better than to say something like that...

No need in taking it to be true that one's instruments have been calibrated. No need in taking it to be true that I'll get paid for my work performed. No need in taking it to be true that the lab will be there tomorrow when I return....

Do you trust that Putin is an honest goodwilled actor in all this? Does the assassination of his political enemies influence your view?
— creativesoul

That's just rhetorical nonsense, isn't it? Presumably, by "goodwilled actor" you mean someone that sucks up to Washington and Wall Street?! — Apollodorus

No, that's not just "rhetorical nonsense", and that is not what I mean by "goodwilled actor".

That's a very disappointing response. I would expect someone so consistently condemning ulterior motives for action as you've been doing when it comes to the US to be someone who also ought be touting the benefits of honest communication about what's happened and/or is happening.

It's narcissistic to unilaterally declare someone one's enemy. It's an act of bad faith. Someone isn't your enemy just because you call them that.

"Peacefully coexisting with your enemies" is narcissistic, patronizing, Western Christian nonsense. — baker

You seem to think making shit up and acting as if someone else has said it counts as an appropriate reply, and that name calling counts.

You're arguing with your own imaginary opponent. I've got better things to do. Have fun.

It's a ruse to call a society governed by mass manipulation a democracy.

Mass (need I say, nigh-invisible) manipulation: from public relations to motivation research to advertising to political strategy to perception management (military) to ubiquitous mis- and disinformation.

There is nothing democratic about a society informed by ubiquitous "conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses" (Bernays, 1928). — ZzzoneiroCosm

Indeed. Free and fair elections require a well informed electorate.

You and I clearly have very very different standards for how to treat others, enemies notwithstanding. As I said earlier, your position is based upon an emaciated set of morals. Specifically, how to treat others.
— creativesoul

Because believing that one should not approach others in bad faith is ... just egregious!!!!!! Emaciated!!!! — baker

No. I agree with that.

It's emaciated to believe that one cannot peacefully coexist with their enemies.

...the West must acknowledge its share of responsibility for the conflict and work toward ending the conflict as soon as possible and in a way that takes Russia’s interests and concerns into consideration. In fact, IMO, it has a moral obligation to do so. — Apollodorus

I'm curious...

What would you suggest be necessarily included for a long lasting treaty between Ukraine and Russia?