Jesus Christ.
And you spewed about about intellectual honesty a few posts ago.
FFS
Ok where was I trying to deceive you here? How was I here? I don’t know why you would think that I am not being “intellectually honest” here. Why is this request for this information from you, dishonest?
Perhaps I didn’t understand well enough what you were referring to, to begin with, on what you’re calling bullshit on. What is it phyllo? You are being fairly vague in your response I don’t have much to work with here. Throw me a bone, will ya? 
That ‘having a good idea’ in the absence of certainty and yet sufficient to warrant acting upon is a belief. Having a good idea that something is true in the absence of certainty and yet sufficient to warrant acting upon is not agnosticism. Again, all of this according to how these words are typically used in conversations like these. You can and do make up your own definitions of words as it suits your immediate needs.
And phyllo is right, it is exceptionally intellectually dishonest of you to twist around what we’re saying in that fashion.
No,having a good idea its the essence of uncertainty. Thinking its true, knowing, is the essence of certainty. I don’t have a good idea that “something is true” when communicating. I have a good idea to utilize the words to have a communication. Again, people constantly have issues communicating, they don’t use words properly. They don’t understand what I mean by the words I say. An Idea is not something that is “true” when I have a good idea, it is merely an idea and that is very vague, non specific as to what kind of thought this “idea” is. It is good enough to act on, not good enough to believe for me. For you, it’s probably good enough for you, but not me. That’s your frame of reference, not mine.
“That” fashion? What’s “That” fashion?
Horseshit. If I say to you “ipgum mas buleoar mi dango”, then what you experience is the essence of uncertainty as to what I mean.
If I say to you “There is pie in the fridge if you want some”, that what you experience is having a good idea as to what I mean.
They are not the same. In the latter case you form a belief sufficient to act upon, in the former case you don’t.
Certainty and uncertainty exist on a continuum. Neither absolute is required for belief formation.
Sure there are levels of uncertainty. I am not required to believe I know what you mean when discussing things, nor do I, nor should I.
The question is “believe” not “believe you know”. At every turn you are adding certainty to belief so you can keep on pretending you don’t have beliefs. You have been told innumerable times that certainty is not a component of belief. This is another of those things that leads to people calling you intellectually dishonest.
Sure - so it’s actually I don’t believe that I "have grasped the truth of your meaning through the words or expression others use " due to the complexities of language as I already explained elsewhere. I know that I don’t know. I am always agnostic about it. It is ingrained in my thought process. I am not shocked by believing I understood what you meant when you correct me on your meaning, or anyone else, because I don’t have that belief that I think my understanding of your meaning is true, or necessarily true. There is doubt, not belief.
So you walk around all day doubting all the communication you hear and read. You never simply believe Jimmy wanted you to check the figures on that file, you spend time doubting what you heard was what you heard and further what Jimmy meant.
You never believe that you have evaluated something well and trust your evaluation, but doubt your evaluations of your interpretations of what people say.
You doubt your own epistemology.
You doubt your own evaluation of your doubting. You considered, after reading Uccisore’s last post, if you really did always doubt, then decided that you did doubt, rather than believe, and then evaluated this evaluation, since you doubted that one also. After infinite time (or is it like the hare, simply infinite fractions of time that add up to one) you wrote your response to Uccisore and caught up with the tortoise.
If your wife asks for the salt, you actually ratiocinate before reaching for it, since she might have said ‘too much salt’ or ‘is that all?’
I cannot imagine what reading a newpaper would be like for you, always having to build from the bottom up again, since past evaluations of what Congress is and does, for example, that you made back then, may be incorrect. You cannot simply believe in your memory and past conclusions you made, you have to doubt these, each time a topic comes up, because those past evaluations you made may not have been as correct as they seemed, back then, or your memory has distorted them.
How do you find time for anything other then the mind bogglingly complex, endless process of reading even the first article?
Or is it that if once in your life you analyzed something, you know you did it write, and you can believe in your past analysis?
And just to be clear. There is what you know, which is correct, period, and everything else you doubt. Two immaculate categories, separare Boolean spheres, no overlap and no other categories.
I can see, given that, why it would be so hard to reevaluate what you have stated in the face of criticism.
I don’t necessarily spend a lot of time doubting what I heard - its just a natural frame of mind in which I do not take things for granted as truths, believe. I act on things knowing I may be wrong about my perception, or other intentions, etc.
I would say I know when I have evaluated something “well” (well to my standard of what well is I suppose) - and I know my evaluation. Until knowledge occurs I do have inherent doubt about my interpretations of people say.
I doubt everything I can, even knowledge. But knowledge I can’t get anywhere with doubting aside from say, other aspects of the thing I know. So, by doubting 1+1=2, I usually go into the absolute conditions of 1+1=2 and how that would be 1+1 =11 in binary, or so. But that’s not really what I mean in my mind by 1+1=2. I’ve come to bring up hypotheticals that 1+1=2 may not mean 1+1=2 in alternate realities with alternate rules of physics, and fathomed the implications.
Well, yes.
I never claimed I really did “always doubt”. I was a man of belief in my past. A man of religion. Now days, I am a man of doubt.
It’s not as intensive as that. Like I said it is ingrained in so much as it is second nature. She might say, for example “Can you pass the salt”. Well of course, yes I can pass the salt, anything else that you want to know what I can do? So of course there is a quick processing of things like metaphors, jokes, perhaps she’s asking for a salty tear from me. Conversation at our dinner table can be… interesting perhaps. Language can be very ambiguous.
http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190052
Well I don’t think its that bad. Take everything with a grain of salt
I know of my memory or have doubts of my memory. I don’t have to doubt it every time. Can memories not be knowledge?
It’s not that I have to verify everything. It’s just that I remain agnostic about it. I fathom the possibilities of if its true. Usually I end up researching things when I read articles afterwords.
I think that’s a very complex issue - so past methods that have been “proven”, such as math and logical conclusions aren’t necessarily doubted, because its knowledge. But the conclusions can be, regardless of the means. You’ll have to be specific I would say in your hypothetical.
There’s opinion, there’s unknown truths, there’s known truths, the rest is agnostic. Opinions are true to ones values, or they aren’t really an opinion.
Why should there be overlap, I’m still asking what the reason is for there to be belief as a necessary component of a human mind?
I find allusions to argument from incredulity in the criticism here, but no reasons why it must be the case that I have a belief.
“Doubt the conventional wisdom unless you can verify it with reason and experiment.” Steve Albini
“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” Bertrand Russell
If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." Rene Descartes
This reminds me of the following:
What has always been a good method too is what the famous pied piper of Hameln stands for. So a ratcatcher just needs rats (they are currently almost everywhere and becoming more and more) and kids (they are currently becoming more and more in the so-called “Third World”). In this ILP example the “rats” stand for certain “arguments” and the “kids” for the “innocents” or “simpletons”. And what does the ratcatcher do? Or: What did the pied piper of Hameln do?
But there is certainly no ILP ratcatcher. No, no … Or? What do you think?
“Think for yourself, question authority.” Alright - but: said by whom?
Said by the one who does not think for himself and not question authority.
Most of what you are saying is politically correct, so it is mostly what the political authority wants you to think and to say, just to not question the current authority.
Are you one of the the new ratcatchers? Are you the modern pied piper of Hameln?
So you admit that you contradict yourself.
Thanks.
You mean: There is angriness, not fun.
Yes. Of course. Always having an epistemology and always being agnostic about it. Such an “epistemology” is no epistemology.
Maybe he is Sisyphus.
I suppose if you are the rat, then yes.
It’s a game. You sing the virtues of ‘thinking for yourself’ so that you’ve go a handy way to badger a group you don’t like that you can paint as stereotypically doing so. There isn’t any philosophy to be found on the threads that ANGRY created, not really. It’s just a series of tactical word placements to gain social advantage on an opposed group. I mean seriously - can you honestly say any thread he’s created (and I mean those few that we’ve debated on for so long, plus the new one) have contained any non-biographical information? They’re just complex ways of saying “I hate this” or “I’m great because this”.
If only you say the same thing ONE MORE TIME, in a slightly different configuration, his eyes will be opened, or he’ll be forced to admit the game he’s playing, and you’ll get that tantalizing return on your investment in this thread that always seems just out of reach.
It’s tempting, isn’t it?
We have to disavow ourselves of the notion that people disagree with us because they don’t understand, or that they want to understand.
Such people like certain ILP members can be successful, and the main reason why they can be successful is (a) that they merely have to repeat their texts again and again, (b) that they get attention (!).
Probably you remember the follwing conversation:
During my study at the university I have met many types of students who were back then exactly like the said certain ILP members are now. It is their ideological conceitedness that makes them so cocksure and ignorant, so that they do not only appear like stupid people but really are stupid people. You do not really have to care whether their incapacity is based on genetic defects or on ideological defects, because the effect is the same old stupidity as ever.
So we have two options of reacting to them legally:
- Applying their methods too, especially by repeating our texts again and again.
- Divesting them our attention by ignoring them (consequently, of course!).
There’s an option 3, which I think is actually the most common option:
3.) Find a reason to interact with them that doesn’t turn on convincing them of anything, or their admitting that somebody else made a good point. I think this is where a lot of trolling on the internet comes from- it is decided that it is pointless to treat a person, or a class of people, or perhaps all people on the internet as rational agents, and so the troll speaks to them for their own amusement instead.