I said both things. Or you're ignoring some stuff that you think conflict with other stuff because it makes no sense to you. Here is a good explanation of the difference: I get it thank you. Regardless, where either happens is all in the mind. The thing never changed (if it existed in the first place), the mind did. Of course they do. But the moment they become a topic of discussion or an experience to a perspective... in fact, the only means by which we can discuss them is once they've become something to someone. It's inherent and unavoidable. Whatever exists, does... of course. Once we decide "it exists", it's someone to someone and we can only really discuss that aspect of it with certainty. That's not to say we can't agree on many things in its regard. I can see how you'd think that, yes. Hubris eh? Is that like the hubris of saying the "water is water"? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! To speak of the thing itself is the ultimate hubris to me, glorious really - the humanity of it. Water itself has no name like everything else - except entities that name themselves. It is indeed, effectively the same thing. That you can accept someone else's research is effectively, you having investigated it yourself much more efficiently - assuming the information is of utility to you. Agreed. You don't "correct" what someone believes is fundamentally true, especially when it can't be disproven. If they are so motivated, they'll correct it themselves. You can assist in motivation of course. I'm with that. And you are missing what's really right under your nose but perhaps too plain to see: People don't make sincere claims about x without any basis for it. Someone else may think their basis retarded, but that doesn't necessarily negate it in the person making the claim. Cool me too! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"Conflating these two is an error and one which leads to much theological nonsense like "if I believe in god then god is real for me and that means god is real" Not necessarily. Regardless, the argument of "god is real" is pretty much moot. "god is of no utility to me" pretty much trumps it to me.
But then we cannot be talking about cards on the table. To translate: it only trumps it for you. And then since the table itself, let alone the cards on it, that it is necessarily shared and the same for all - like a muskateer - this may be useful for you, so it stuck. Might not be universally useful or applicable.
The only thing we can talk about is that we think there are cards on the table. If we all agree, no problems. It doesn't matter a bit (literally) if they aren't really cards or there is no table if we are all convinced they are real. Ya. That I may think it indicative of more than my belief is a personal matter, only impacting those who allow what I say to matter. Nothing spoken is necessarily universal or applicable.
Well, it could matter, but perhaps not in that moment epistemologically. We all think we see a boat on the horizon swim through a dangerous reef/surf towards it - one that is deadly to swim the other way through - and find there was no boat. I think that might be self-contradictory, but my head hurts before I am completely satisfied with my conclusion.
Or I'm focusing on what I've issue with. I think we've agreed on this a couple times, it isn't what I was taking issue with. The hubris is in saying it was water simply because one thought it was water, talk about ego centric, instead of the more accurate "I mistakenly thought it was water." You mean like you are currently trying to do with me??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Um, are you sure you want to stand by that? My experience is they not only do, they especially do so in regard to religious claims. Um, so?
But if you think swim to the boat, think you find it, get on it and do not die as far as you can tell... whether or not there really was a boat doesn't matter either. I may suffer for having said this: but in the last several years I've come to thinking that great truths hide is self-contradictions.
I agree. But that doesn't seem to be all cases. I used the word 'could'. And also, not believing we have enough evidence there is a boat can also be an error. (or our sense/intuition that there is a boat must be in error can also be an error.) You won't get into trouble with me. It's the logical positivists and the anti-metaphysicians who think their houses are clean and made out of 'real objects out there you can touch' who are going have raised up hackles.
Well sure. My point is that nothing matters except when made to matter from a perspective. The perspective and the "mattering" are basically the same thing, but often it seems that much logic fails to consider that. Calling it real doesn't make it so. Living it however, does. Words. Nothing spoken is necessarily universal or applicable. Maybe. They make think it so ridiculous as not to care. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That would only happen if one found out they were mistaken about it eh? The fact is, if you never found out different - it would still have been water to you, regardless of the potential dissapointment were you to have found out otherwise. That is not hubris, it's ignorance. You really think that's possible? I couldn't do that to you I'm sure. Are you? In your sentence I see the term "basis" as "any reasonable excuse someone comes up for that which they sincerely hold as truth". The way you object, I presume your idea of basis must be somehow testable - which sort of ignores the apparent actuality of how minds work. So you just said everyone religious has no basis for their beliefs. I believe the exact opposite to the extreme. I believe there is a basis for every belief ever held - a reason for it. Probably semantics I suppose as usual, but "a basis" and "a reason" are interchangeable to me in this context.
Wes, one key addition I would make to your response here to the other poster is that no one is free from beliefs that cannot be verified by others. It would be too time consuming to navigate the world if I demanded of myself that I not believe anything unless I could set up some test to covert or sway others to my belief. This includes local, particular beliefs about Joe or that fund I've invested in or how long that handle on my hammar is going to last to beliefs about human psychology, political parties and even the existence of various entities and processes. Imagine if we all 'should' somehow be ready to whip out research or whip out the clearly stained litmus paper for all our beliefs. Beliefs should, at the very least, ALSO be looked at in terms of what they are doing for the person him or herself according to their own claims. Belief is use, to twist Wittgenstein somewhat. This does not mean one takes on the other person's belief if it seems to be working for them, but I think one needs to respect it, especially where one cannot prove they are wrong.
If you are saying the actual object was water because you thought it was and then it wasn't because you changed your mind. That I have a problem with. If you say you thought it was water but on closer examination it turned out to have been lighter fluid the whole time. That I have no problem with. Sure. Actually I'm easy to do that to. All you need is to have well marshalled facts. Being cynical is not a counter argument. It is not impossible to establish what makes for a sound basis concerning the claims. Verifiable facts for example. So how my mind works is not how minds work? :bugeye: Only if they have no sound basis for their beliefs. People believe all kinds of crazy stuff. Do you have a sound basis for your claim? What is it? A sound basis could consist of reasoning based on facts and using logic to produce a coherant and consistant means for making claims and checking the same against reality.
So? It is not a matter of being free from them. It is having means to recognize them for what the are and correcting them to the best of your capacity. So you triage as best you can and remain viligent. So because it is hard and takes time your answer is to give up all together? :bugeye: BTW I have a great deal for you! It works just like religion. Give me complete obedience and all your posessions and after you die you can have heaven. Why? what is believed and what is happening could have absolutely nothing to do with each other, or even be dead wrong.
So if you personally have a belief that you cannot prove to others is correct, you work on letting it go? And that triage, as you put it, will very likely involve active maintenance of certain unverifiable (certainly by others) beliefs because it seems like they are useful, working, pleasant, etc. In many circumstances, of course. If my gut feeling is that some guy, for example, is a con artist, I trust my intuition, in many cases, and do not hire a private detective to investigate. Why the hell would I bother? Do you try to verify that all your beliefs to the degree that you could prove to others they were correct? I am amazed you have so much time to post on the internet so much. Here, good example. Watch me in action Swarm. No thank you. I am quite certain you have little to offer me here. I will not however try to verify this by asking you more about this deal or by trying to find out who you are in real life and if you are trustworthy, etc. I cannot prove to others that you cannot do this for me, but I do not have time or interest in investigating further. I trust my intuition. I don't think you understood the point.
I let go of representing it as truth and I let go of the notion any one else should take it seriously. It seems the only honest approach. I also personally take it down a couple notches even if I decide to continue entertaining it. Being unable to demonstrate a belief's truth is a serious defect. You act like there is some difference between proving something to myself and proving it to others. If I cannot prove something to others it is unlikely I can prove it to myself. Useful and working are a form of proof, even if they don't necessitate equivelant understanding. Pleasant? Is pleasnt ignorance really your goal? You don't really seem the type. It depends on the circumstances. An unverified intuitive grasp of the situation is sufficient for deciding who to hang out with because it is really about you liking them more than it is about you correctly assessing them. But you should consider... real con artists wouldn't last long if they seemed like con artists. Also intuition is by no means 100% accurate. I've known people who seemed rough on the outside that turned out to actually be really good people. when and to the degree that I can, particularly when they concern something important or are for public consumption. Don't you? I work in a field where my hands are free and my inet access is unlimited. Plus I'm a geek. I've as much or more as any one else. Your loss. That's one possibility.
Everything belief must be proven, swarm? What defines proof, for you? I ask, because there are things no one can "prove", yet we choose to believe in them. For example, I choose to believe that a planet called Uranus exists, despite the unfortunate moniker. My evidence? I have been told by people that someone has seen it. None of those people have seen it, and I have witnessed them lie. I have seen pictures of it, yet I have seen movies where a man stands on an asteroid, pictures do not make something true. I have read books which mention it, many of which contain thoughts which I have been told were incorrect or were simply works of fiction. Something in a book is not necessarily truth. I know that most people believe in the existence of this planet, however most people strike me as accepting things which I do not without thinking, the majority does not decide truth. I choose to believe it exists, therefore it is true to me, isn't it? I can explain it in ways you may like more, but in reality anything I say falls into the above categories, and I may be lying to you, of course. Prove God? bah. Prove Uranus to me based on these arguments, and we'll talk. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If you are representing it as true, sure. Reasonable evidence for the claim being made. Whatever. I've no real interest in absurd skepticism.
This would include memories you have also. If you cannot prove it happened you do not mention it to others as if it can? And political beliefs you have. If you cannot prove they are correct - and note this is different from presenting arguments to back it up - you don't share political ideas with others. Of course there's a difference. You have your own experiences. Which you cannot share directly with others. If I have seen a burglar in my house, even if I cannot prove he was there, I will, speak of this as having happened, even long after the police have stopped investigating for lack of evidence. 'Remember that time, honey, there was a burglar, and I was so scared for a couple of days.' If you do take 'working' as a form of proof, then this relates directly to the respect I mentioned earlier. It is very hard to judge, often, how a belief is working for another person - I mean judge in a way that can be backed up by proof - so I think it is often best not to assume we know it is not or that they 'should' have another belief - also somethign very hard to prove - since proof is the criterion we demand of them. If they feel that belief in God is working for them - keeps them moral, connects them to the ground of things, helps them express their essential self or whatever else they might consider working, I think it makes sense, especially with this criterion of 'proof' we are ready to aim at them, to respect them there. If their actions are immoral, well that is always open to criticism. And by 'repect' them their, I do not mean that we must assume they are correct in their interpretation of experience. That is outside our scope. I was speaking in general. Also you jump to the assumption that we can immediately tell whether their belief is true or false. Often we cannot. Pleasance is a form of working. If my neighbor thinks that talking to plants helps the plants grow and talks in her garden to her plants and enjoyes this, I have no reason to leap in and demand research backing up her claim. Correct. It depends on the cirumstances. And in many circumstances I have beliefs that I cannot prove to others, but most skeptics and atheists seem to assume that they live up to this criterion for all their beliefs. It is implicit in their arguments with theists and others. This is dishonest or these people are so different from me they might as well be a different species. They seem to have all sorts of intuitive opinions about people and the world - on which they base actions, for example like voting, that have real, important effects on the lives and deaths of others. They cannot prove that their opinions are correct, and yet they act on them. Of course, impossible to avoid unless one becomes a hermit, which, in the end, is also an act based on intuition (or desire). Oh, but it affects workplaces relationships as well, political stances, etc. Many situations demand that we form intuitive conclusions because of the vastness of potential evidence or the dearth of it or mixtures of the two. Or no scientific way of doing complete research. And yet, here we are, living in the world and so we make decisions. And they are much more important that simply who we hand out with, though this also is true. And what we say to others about someone 'oh, he is an asshole' 'oh, he is manipulative'. Perhaps atheists adhere to the same rigor they expect of theists in their beliefs but I doubt it. And careful: I am talking about belief. I am not talking about proselytizing. If you are trying to convince others that they should take on your belief, that is a specific situation. But it does get hazy. When an atheist or a theist says that Bush was really doing ___________ are they proselytizing, expressing their own opinion but not expecting others to necessarily join them in this belief, something else? Do they really have the 'proof' or simply some arguments. If the latter, do they couch their claims carefully and qualified? Not that I have noticed. Of course. But then we are in situations that demand we use intuition. We cannot sit around waiting for proof of everything. A good chunk of it will never come. And if you examine your life philosophically, you will see that one must, in everyday life, assume that memory is correct in general, and many other fundamental starting points or each day would be an impossible task of proof. 'Something important'is very vague. Public consumption - hm, does that include what you say to those you know personally? And no, it is should be clear that I consider trying to verify everything worse than a sisyphusian task and not something that anyone does. Sure. But if you are really finding proof for all your beliefs, even 24 hours a day is not enough. This was disingenous. You understood my point. But instead of acknowledging that you also use your intuition in such situations, you said this. And this continues being disingenous. Of course you were being wry when you presented your offer. But I used it as an example of how one does use intution, rather than checking out every damn offer to see if it might help or be true. I do not respect this kind of arguing, where one is so concerned about what might look like a concession one uses a quip or does not really respond. I will not read your posts in the future. Including, of course, the quip you'll have in response to this.
I'm saying that what it "actually is" is irrelevant - and technically unknowable (which is also irrelevant really). What you *think* it is steers the course of your actions, regardless of the depth of your investigation. This changes circumstantially of course. Things seem to go much more efficiently when what you think things are turn out to seem real, particularly when other people seem to confirm your findings. There are no facts in philosophy. Contrasting perspectives seems about the sum of it. I'd venture to say there are no facts unless we agree there are facts. If we don't, there's just... stuff. Tell that to the pope. That seems a rather irrational conclusion from the given statement. That you ignore how other minds seem to work is rather typical of how minds work. Which is of course, an asinine statement as what comprises "sound" can be highly variable across cultures and individuals. It says so in the bible, er.. Koran, uhm.. no I meant a Douglas Adams book - no I mean my grandfather was wise and he told me, I trust him and have no reason to trust you.. so there's my basis. Suck it. Lol. IMO, all this is perfectly rational within the context of the individual. Or it could consist of an emotional foundation passed down over many generations, or an epiphany for which you can't find the words to explain, or a dog barking, or any aspect of the human experience that touched someone.
However much you'd like to, you don't get to choose what comprises "sound reasoning" for other people unless they're willing to let you.
