I agree that knowledge isn’t belief, but your explanatory-analogies are not concrete-enough examples… but otherwise, yea.
my examples are perfectly clear, none of you dullards understand what i am even saying. the human intellectual activity is a mixture of belief and knowledge always.
_
…it is you who doesn’t always understand what others are saying.
You mix statements with questions with answers -without any ‘interrogative clause’ punctuation- all in one sentence… do you think that that might be why you are not always understandable?
…and your analogies were more paradoxes, so still off.
Yes, your confidence that the tree is still there isn’t particularly high. That’s all you’re saying. So what exactly is your point? How does that relate to what we’ve been discussing so far?
If you believe that God exists, it means that you are more than 50% sure that God exists ( if you’re certainty less than that, then you’re not justified in holding that belief. ) So how did you arrive at that particular level of certainty? That’s what you’re supposed to show – the underlying logic. And you DID arrive at it in some way. You just have to become aware of it and verbalize it.
False.
True but irrelevant.
whatever, then you believe the tree is most likely there…you dont know this…or even simpler…you believe that the chances the tree is there are high…you dont know the chances…
And your point is?
for you to make a decision, you require belief. a part of prediction is knowledge but a part of it is belief, since you are dealing with too many unknowns, you believe its likely the tree will be there based on your prior knowledge(on what you know, not believe) but what if there is 100s of lumberjacks walking with axes who came there the night before???, you predict something based on your knowledge BUT you believe it is true and sound…you must believe because you cannot possibly know that your prediction is sound, you KNOW you made the best prediction but you must believe it is good whilst not knowing it is. making decisions based on predictions is rational but it isn’t based on knowing exclusively and cannot be.
Two senses of knowledge: 1. what you/we think (believe) you/we know is true, and 2. what is actually true.
What you/we “know” (1) is like your/our character. It can change (despite being resistant to change) when it runs up against 2.
You/we (should) want our 1 to be in line with 2.
In order to be skeptical, you have to know (or… believe…) you were right about something (is it a 2?) that made you wrong about something else (1, if the first is a 2).
decline of authentic and deep religious belief is one of the vices of civilization. metropolis are full of humans who believe in nothing and live by no code, other than whatever they construct impulsively and on a whim. it might be a sign of technological progress but it is also a sign of human degeneration. Per Josephs Maisters observations, a man living in a cabin in a woods is superior and far more advanced a human being than his shell, working in a factory in a modern city. A devolution of human species happens as technological evolution progresses.
they fear death and dream to overcome it and that they call courage.
those who feel dirty themselves seek cleanliness from others. we dont run away from inferiority but from what reminds us of our inferiority. we are indifferent to what is inferior to ourselves.
a man has no hated for what he knows is inferior to him. dont let the goons tell you otherwise. furthermore, disdain for what is inferior for yourself is fine but pointless vocalizing it is a sign of weakness of character.
Why do you say dont like Dan & Mr Reasonable?
the funny thing is that subjects like psychology philosophy history politics attract most pretentious, cretins and armies of haunted kooks and incels. i am not saying most people are idiots, i think most people that have an intererst in these field are complete asswit kooky morons. if you took a thousand welders and a thousand chemists, you would have a far more fruitful and intelligent conversation about history or philosophy than with a 1000 philosophy enthusiasts…if we consider idiots who consider themselves A PHILOSOPHER or a philosophic innovator…we would shift that 1000 to 100,000 thousands or more…
look at how many morons think philosophy is a science… its so ridiculous its hard to believe. a philosophy expert who has ‘dealt’ with philosophy for tens of years has never realised philosophy has no proofs nor experiments… you ask them to prove one philosophical proposition, of any given philosopher… they start dancing like they are walking on hot coals…they JUST KNOW they are right…no need to prove it, especially to themselves… to be honest…any idiot who cosplays as something…a mexican neonazi, an autistic revolutionary, a slavic neonazi, a Heidegger expert who doesnt know that that post-modern school dismissed truth proposition and proposes his propositions are true… whatever…belongs in a fucking funny farm…i can show you armies of neonazi idiot yanks who fail to realise what most basic assumptions of Nazism are…but they are experts…
Your problem is that you suffer from an extreme degree of arrogance. You are actually pretty dumb and clueless but you’ll never figure it out simply because you never listen.
As I already told you, in order for anyone to accept any proposition, they must first prove ti to themselves. Without such a requirement, it wouldn’t matter what you believe; it would all be the same. Believing “God exists” would be just as fine as believing “God does not exist”. It would all be arbitrary. That is why saying that philosophy has no proofs is such a stupidity.
when i asked you to prove your nonsense about how you can determine objective values, you ran. you have a ready answer, yet you refuse to share it. another asswit kooky clown.