And I answered even that question.
Philosophy leads to someone, not nowhere … for those who actually seek answers.
And there is a end to that road. => Understanding (solid footing).
Or do you just want to get off on doubting til you die?
Understanding isn’t ultimate or absolute. If you think it is, you’ve entered realm of faith. I’d be wary of anyone who suggests there is no more to ask.
Great OP, by the way.
It’s easy enough to find out.
Or is asking too much for terminally faithful doubters/nihilists?
To find out what?
xfzgrwql
Arcturus Descending wrote:
I was just trying to mimic you.
Aside from that, I won’t even try to argue your above point. You actually just showed yourself to be the kind of philosopher you “truly” are…not sure what kind that is though.
Perhaps you’re a pessimist. Now I can almost understand that thinking in someone like Schopenhauer whose mother thought it would have been best had he not ever been born, but not in one who is a supposed lover of wisdom and a seeker of truth. But you are, after all, only human.
Nice to know that the philosopher-God within you has come back down to Earth.
Your statement is kind of a tell.
How do you expect to discuss the Deepest Philosophy when you make such biased statements as that.
Not to me, I require very powerful reasons and answers. You haven’t really proved anything to me, regarding this topic.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thank you
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Existence doesn’t revolve around just you, your ego, or the egos of women.
It ought to be obvious by now why philosophy and females just don’t mix.
A human has a limited, 2.5 dimensional mind. They can discover many things…Hypothetically, they could potentially explore everything - to the capacity of their own minds. But there is so much they cannot see.
You haven’t asked for anything to be proven.
…and yet can still know about.
You claimed to answer everything, prove that if you will.
Even when giving a proof, one needs to know of what the other is or at least might be confused … ?
What don’t you already know about existence?
Whatever I know, I do my best to doubt.
Philosophy is an attempt to destroy dogmatic knowledge, take nothing for granted. Reexamine what you “know”. Doubt it. Un-know the world.
Now here is a counter-question. How did you come to learn what you know, except by your parents, priests, peers, and professors? Or rephrased, how do you know what you think you know?
They have pills for that.
And they call it “Nihilism”, the effort to mindlessly destroy without compunction or conscience. It is a war strategy against all intelligence (not merely those evil religions), much like drugs.
The “how” began with that same question.
One day, after a little frustration from all of the over-zealous and mindless pseudo-philosophizing, I got myself a small notebook and decided that I would not speak a single thing until I knew without any possible question that what I said had to be correct. It took a couple of weeks before I finally realized one statement that I could make. So I wrote it in the notebook.
It took a few more days before I came up with another. And then every other day or so another would come to mind. I wrote each in my little notebook.
At 7 statements, I suspected that maybe those were the mystical 7 facts of life. And again at 13. And again at 21.
But then I realized a commonality that allowed me to continue indefinitely. But more importantly, I also realized that in order to communicate with normal people, to socialize at all, it wasn’t wise to always be correct … especially if you also could prove it. So for years after that I let it go. But I never forgot what it took to be absolutely certain. As an engineer in the real world, that came in handy.
Many, many years later, I got into the game of Ontology: “of what is existence made?”
I kept thinking of a particular theory that seemed like it had to be right, but had no proof of it. Eventually I remembered by method for being absolutely certain and also found a means to empirically test my theory. Between the two, all questions concerning that theory became absolutely certain. I knew the make of existence … all existence.
The story could go on with a great deal more detail, but that is usually more than most nihilists can bear.
So now my turn.
What caused you to believe it so wise to endlessly doubt yourself to death? Why haven’t you doubted that philosophy more?
Did I say without compunction or conscience?
Did I say without purpose or aim?
No, that’s your presumption, again, not mine.
Because I meet person after person after person living their lives aimlessly, without consciousness and purpose, guided by principles and laws that they are deeply unaware. Many or most people live according to lies, an entire lifetime flushed down the toilet, just to protect lies and falsehoods. False knowledge is ignorance. Thus, to avoid this purgatory dead end of time, doubt is required to expose such lies, hypocrisy, falsehood, and ignorance.
True knowledge is inaccessible without the aid of doubt. Faith, alone, will not deliver you there.
Do you think that philosophy is only this?
Doubt and reconsidering the basic postulates is important in philosophy as well as in any science. But It is part of the human nature uniqueness and man’s day-to-day activity. From that point of view anyone may be seen as philosopher. And this may be even kind of correct statement. Someone preached that we shall doubt in everything even in our doubts. Skepticism is basically classified in two types.
The first one follows the dogma that anything shall be first doubted and thoroughly scrutinized for the sake of possible rebut (René Descartes’ approach AKA methodological skepticism or Universal Doubt)
While this may cause huge delay in achieving something (and a lot of energy lost in idle disputes for the sake of hyperbolic doubt, raised in a rank of deity of a kind) , it has its great benefits as a strict scientific approach (Lobachevski and Einstein being the most strait and notorious examples). In general: proofs shall be sought and insisted on being provided in any science. But the question still remains – Is philosophy only a science? Or is it something greater?
Another sort of philosophical skepticism goes farther than simple putting anything under scrutinizing doubt. While first skepticism is trying to tell the truth from lies, the second one is directly saying that there is no [“absolute” to say the least “firm"] truth. In other words this skepticism is claiming that the universe is universally incognizable.
I do not have philosophical education and all my relation to philosophy are strictly amateurish. But from my vague knowledge and understanding Epistemology is important part but still only one part of the philosophy. In such a manner if one is mainly tempted to research ontology (with some reasonable doubt in his/ her approach) that does not automatically render the guy as being a false or not genius philosopher.
It may be my wrong but I failed to understand which skepticism you are advocating for.
Another thing I think is important to that topic [related to absolute philosophical skepticism only] is that claiming: anything shall be doubted (ab initio and till the bitter end) is an attempt to impose yet another dogma which eventually serve universal chaos (out casting the universe and everything far and forever beyond the grasp of human/ robotic minds). And that is hardly a science.
So have you doubted the idea that people SHOULD pursue truth by doubting every thought?
Your reasons for doubting everything sound a lot like my reasons for seeking certainty, rather than merely doubting everything.
How about the philosophy of starting to doubt some specific things first and see if anything improves? Maybe be a little scientific about it?
I agree that everyone (literally) lives in deception. And every life on the planet has done the same. What I have yet to see is how doubting everything changes that. People have been philosophizing for thousands of years. They seem at least as miserable now as ever. And it seems the more they doubt, the worse everything gets.
Can you come up with substantial evidence that says that doubting makes life better?
accurate
Humans can neither see nor truly know or understand what is beyond their comprehension.
Philosophy strengthens the premise.
Science strengthens the proof.
Religion strengthens the procedure.
A true intellect masters all three in tandem: three aspects of true knowledge.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Of course
Doubt and faith are pathological compulsions. I have developed a science about it. Some humans are compelled to doubt more (pessimism) and others to faith more (optimism).
However the intellectual population changes. Some ages need more doubt, other ages need more faith. The popularity of faith is obvious in societies. Faith tends to bring people together, doubt tends to break people apart.
Faith is popular. Doubt is unpopular. Faith is an extension of hope. Doubt is an extension of fear. People feel repulsion and dread from fear, hence the cause for doubt to break societies and groups of people apart.
Doubting makes life truer, not better per se. Whether doubt or faith, either requires an aim and direction.
And that happens for an evolutionary and very significant reason.
That entirely depends on who your friends are. You have faith in doubt. Others have doubt in doubt. It isn’t a matter of how much of faith or doubt. It is entirely an issue of;
WHAT you have FAITH in and
WHAT you have DOUBT in.
And vsvrsa
And vsvrsa
Each causes the other as well as feeds off of it. You are promoting fear when you promote doubt.
Fear Scatters,
Hope Gathers
Doubt Scatters,
Faith Gathers.
It is only when you want to destroy things that you promote doubt and fear (aka “terrorism”).
I haven’t found that to be true, but I asked for evidence.
But then again, If it isn’t making life any better, why care if it is “truer”?
Well, with that thought, you might be able to get somewhere with your promotion of very specific doubts, rather than the universal doubt everything at all times forever.
The aim has to first be, “for what should we aim?”
Doubt each possible answer until you can find one that you cannot doubt.
That is the ancient “test of fire”.
I can tell you what that will lead toward, but you won’t believe me until you already see it yourself (because you don’t learn except through relentless doubt - the very, very slow path).
===========================
Excellent point.