Fake certainty

[EDIT]II added more information at the end. [/EDIT]

Questioning/thinking shows us how uncertain things are, if we do it well.
However, many of us are not ready to live with the uncertainty and we may try to put it away as much as possible.

I think some of human activities are directly related to this effort of avoiding/hiding the uncertainty.
Religion is one of the most popular form of substitute and FAKE certainty many of us use and get addicted.

Another form of fake certainty is morality. It is to hoist personal preference/desire/hope into the realm of certainty and something at least common, normal, or better objective and everyone SHOULD respect and follow.
I think it’s a very hopeful attitude that what we like (and we are conditioned into believing) must be good/right/absolute/respected/followed/etc.
It’s not for someone who can think and who doesn’t want to settle with fake substitutes.

Anyone who tries to see something solid/permanent/reliable/certain is making up fake certainty, in a way, as we do not know of absolute certainty in affirmative manner. And that person is a metaphysicist.

And the list of fake certainty continues with the ideologies and ideals and schools of thought.
Even the materialists are holding on the fake certainty of the physical reality, making them metaphysicists they hate so much (well, at least some of them).

I can guarantee that people who depend on any fake certainty would not be totally happy and at ease with the life because it’s a kind of lie and they need to cover it up. Whenever someone comes close to their fake certainty, they would become defensive, get excited and furious, and even becomes fanatic.
Dependency on the easy fake has the price like this to pay.
I think it’s too expensive for these cheap obvious fakes, but many of us seem to love them.
I guess, it’s a matter of preference, as usual.

[EDIT]
About the “certainty”:
The “certainty” I’m talking about is a feeling, the sense that something is sure, reliable, and so on.
It may come in different degree and probably from different source.
For example, self-awareness seems to be a sense of certainty that the awareness identifying and pattern matching the state of awareness (in a feed back loop of multiple layers.).
I think tactile sensation and other sensory information often come with the sense of certainty about the object that it’s there and causing the sensation.
So,. the sense of reality can be seen as the sense of certainty, as well.

In addition to these, our emotion may cause the sense of certainty that something is good/bad when we like/dislike it, for example.

Also, our rational/logical thought may produce the sense of certainty that the conclusion of our thought is correct/true/etc.

And these certainties may conflict each other, creating ambivalent and/or confusing situation, too.

What is this OP about?"
Some people mistook that it is about insisting that there is no absolute certainty, somehow, although I didn’t present it as the conclusion.
Rather, it’s the starting point of the OP. And it’s presented at the beginning.
As the title suggests, it’s about “fake certainty”, where can we find it, the consequence of the fake certainty, etc.

Am I saying that fake certainty is a bad thing as you should not rely on it?
I said it’s a matter of preference.
I do think it has side effects some people don’t like and consider as bad.
But exactly the same thing can be said for not relying on it, too, from different perspectives.
So, I’m not talking about “should”, here.

I may add more, later.
[/EDIT]

I take it that you are truly certain of that. You must be a metaphysicist (who else would know with such certainty?).

Nah - that one chooses the best guess they have and runs with it does not mean that they are certain. There are benefits to taking a position, despite the lack of metaphysical certitude one may suffer in doing so.

Agreed (this must stop happening). But I think a bit of honesty is called for: admit when you’re taking a position only because it’s practically wise to do so.

Here, I’d say it’s you taking it and making it up (as if it were certain).

As for the level/type of certainty I felt with what I was saying in the OP, it was logical (and thus arbitrary and conditional) certainty. I had it while I was thinking/writing.

Agreed. Nah paints with too broad a brush, here. There are materialists, for example, who are legitimately subject to his criticisms, of course.

I think “they” tend to hoist the “guess” up into the “certainty” status.

I was talking about pretending of “metaphysical certitude” when there is none.
It’s something shared by most of religious people, moral oriented people. and many others including materialists and many used car sales men.

Practical (pragmatic) evaluation is fine with me. Guesstimate is fine, too.
I don’t have problem with any evaluation of any quality, so to say, as long as we are aware about the quality of the evaluation and we don’t overrate/overboost/absolutify, too much.

I blame the structure of our awareness and our thought, and some other factors like stupid monotheistic culture for this tendency of taking an evaluation of uncertain quality as if it were sure/certain/absolute/standard/normal/reliable/fact/etc.

“Too broad”? How did you make that evaluation and how sure are you?
Making such declaration without reasoning can be a sign of overrating own evaluation and/or laziness, among other possibilities.

What the hell is “fake” certainty?

Certainty is a state of mind… There’s nothing “fake” about it.

I will admit in conversation that I can’t be “certain” that the sun will rise tomarrow… but really… I am as certain as I’ve ever been about anything, and I never spend a moments time doubting it!

That dosn’t mean my certainty is “fake”… it means my certainty (state of mind) is a consequence of never having been given compelling reason to doubt.
Pointing out that MAYBE I’m wrong, is not perticularly compelling to me… I’ll admit that it is a LOGICAL possibility, but unless given actual cause to doubt, it won’t alter my level of conviction.
The repeated verification of all the days where the sun did rise (which was every single one of them) leaves me no alternative that seems “real”… until that changes, neither will my certainty.

I think people in the US tend to eat too much. That doesn’t mean that everyone is fat.

And geese and ducks. Point taken.

Assuming that i don’t have reasons is worse.

Nah - you seem to believe that just because i don’t give you my entire reasoning process at every turn that i don’t have one.

My “reasoning” is that there are plenty of counterexamples to be had. Maybe you should write less and read more. It’s not my job to educate you on the entire field of philosophy.

It may mean that your thought is more or less superficial and you are not yet questioning/thinking a lot.
So, you don’t need the fake certainty as you don’t have the doubt/uncertainty and uneasiness associated with it (when the questioning/thinking is more serious, or emotionally important for oneself).

When one becomes very aware that s/he may die any time, for example, it’s pretty easy to understand that the sun may not rise (at least for her/him, personally), tomorrow.

I’d say “fake” certainty is certainty that depends on a variety of supporting factors - take away one or more of these factors and the certainty vanishes. For instance I used to be certain that 2+2=4, but it turns out that that’s a bit presumptious of me. Lack of certainty on the other hand is still based on the ideal of certainty. So certainty and lack of certainty are really two sides of the same coin, like hope and fear. I do think there is another kind of certainty possible, which is, in a sense, “unconditional”. The quotes on the word unconditional are necessary of course, partly because “certainty” isn’t really the best word to use here (we’re not talking certainty about something), and partly because this kind of “certainty” must depend on being alive, among other things.

I think this is more a psychology discussion than a philosophy discussion, but I think Nah is right to assume that psychology cannot be kept separate from philosophy. In my opinion, philosophy is really a subset of psychology, though some misguided philosophers might take that as an accusation.

What is that for? I didn’t talk about “everyone”.

Do you have a bit of honesty to admit that you didn’t give ANY reasoning for that particular line?

I usually think that you are too lazy for elaborating and explaining.
I guess it’s because you know it can be tedious and sometime you know that you don’t have the solid case.
Also, I don’t think you understand well that the things that may seem too simple and easy/clear for you can be the element that cause differences of opinions.

Show one, for example.

Why are you so sure that I want to be educated about the entire field of philosophy, especially from you?

I might have said “everyone who eats”.

You are, for example, saying that every materialist subscribes to a fake certainty.

“The” materialists. That means all of them.

It’s not laziness. It’s that you haven’t given an argument yourself. You’re just making general statements.

I think it’s quite clear that you have no real interest in philosophy.

Nah - Don’t take this personally - but what you’re doing here is basically fourth-rate rationalism. I’ve seen it a gazillion times, even among professionals. It’s a philosophical cheap shot. The easiest thing in the world is to claim that we cannot be certain of anything. But Mad Man P is correct. Certainty is a state of mind and not an epistemic condition. Your thesis is basically an ad hom. It’s a perfectly acceptable ad hom, in my view. But that’s all it is. As such, it is not strictly speaking a philosophical position, and doesn’t require a philosophical argument against it. It’s an empirical or experiential observation. My only objection is that you have generalized despite countless counter-examples - examples of philosophers who are clearly adopting a provisional position as method. Your thesis would be a lot more interesting if you would give a specific example. To say that some people are more certain than they should be is entirely trivial. Everyone knows this already.

Descartes adopted existential doubt as method, despite that he never wavered in his certainty the he, and God, existed. Hume conceded that we must believe in causation, despite that we cannot justify it. Nietzsche was a thoroughgoing materialist despite that he never argued for it, and an avowed atheist, despite that he never argued against the existence of God. Certainty is not generally an important feature of a philosophical view. It’s an attitude we may have about such a view. To attack entire schools of thought on these grounds wholly misses the point.

I mention this because we are posting on a philosophy board.

Anything’s “possible”, Nah… For example, if one wanted to waste another person’s time, it’d be possible to take the meaning of “the sun will rise tomarrow” and turn it into “I will witness the sun rise tomarrow” :-"

Why dub it “fake”?
Why the negative connotation?

It’s just “certainty”… it’s a state of mind, and there’s nothing inherently negative, nor “fake” about it.
Why not just call it “certainty” ?
and call that “other kind of certainty” something else?
Why imbue a name with a judgement?

Nah does this sort of thing all the time and it’s a pretty worthless exercise…
I have lots of certainties that all belong to what he dubs “fake certainty” catagory… I just happen to think the “fake” thing is a poor indication.

It’s like defining “coward” as anyone who ever felt fear… and then saying “most of you are cowards”… it’d be true, but clearly “coward” given it’s normal meaning, is a poor choice in designation for that catagory.

I don’t think there’s only one way of doing philosophy. Philosophising is something people do, and people have different goals when they do it. So I can understand why you ask why the negative connotation, but I also know that Nah has something worthwhile to say. He’s shown himself to be consistently interested in certain themes, and I think they are worthwhile themes - I think they are worthy of serious consideration.

Being skeptical about certainty is like being sad about being happy.

If you’re certain about something completely misguided, it’s good to be skeptical of your certainty. At the same time if you’re happy for really poor reasons, it’s good to be sad about that. This is how we grow up, for one thing.

This sounds like one of the sophmoric “everything is relative” threads. Yeah, so what? Everyone needs their six square inches of dirt to stand on. Certainty is a construct. Again, so what? Without some certainty, you might fall off the earth. Sure some people take certainty to an extreme, they KNOW they’re bound for heaven. But exteme skepticism and declaring everything as metaphysical posturing is just as bogus.

That we create our conditional certainties is a given. There is nothing negative about it. Everybody has to be SOME place.

anon - we can sensibly be skeptical about a position, but we can’t be skeptical about certainty itself. If we claim that certainty doesn’t exist, then we have, as skeptics, nothing to talk about. This is why Nietzsche, as an a analogy, never argued against God. What would be the point? it would be like saying “I am going down, because there is no up”.