Questioning vs Doubting

You’re right. No, wait. No, but. Goldang.

You are missing his point. In Dan’s lingo, people who question (“questioners”) ask questions in order to learn whereas people who doubt (“doubters”) ask questions in order to instill doubt. Take a look at Biggy, for example. He’s not here to learn, isn’t he? He might be asking questions – though I never really see him do that – but he’s certainly not asking them in order to learn. He’s here to make other people doubt themselves, to lose confidence in their beliefs, to abandon them, and to stay there, in the state of ignorance, known as bliss to some. He doesn’t want people to grow big because when they are big they are dangerous. Strong convictions he finds terrifying because what if someone acquires a strong conviction that he’s ugly? That’s unbearable, you see, even if the person in question is quite friendly, because the mere possibility that he’s something bad is intolerable to him. So he goes around, annoying people, calling himself “the next James Randi” and everyone else “the next pinhead”. His actions betray him although his words ornament him. They say that actions speak louder than words but not for Biggy . . . Biggy’s self-knowledge is unprecedented and we all know it deep down inside, so even though we ought to doubt everything, we aren’t supposed to doubt that; nor any other one of his qualities (of which there are many.)

Absolutely shameless general description intellectual contraption if there was one making you the subject instead of Mary and John and Maia and Satyr who were all born in the belly of the middle-class beast in a No God world bursting at the seams of contingency, chance and change. Dasein.

Maybe you only see him that way because it is harder to see and let go of your thoughts/actions (internal/external) that are not in line with the eternal? That is why we don’t have heaven on earth.

meno’s simple explain:

The world as such, contrasted or not in line with the inclusive presence of up to date intelligents, asks the primal, pivotal question , echoed down through the myriad reps of history; is the world as is: as it is, (common nomenclature) meant to be, or , it is not, but designed in a way it should be, -even merely striving to be progressively better and more adapted to how it turned out before?

Discouraged because progressive development does not go up linearly, within a given epoch?

May be can’t deal, with It and resigns it’self to doubt and the days to himself : yeah see , cut it out it’s useless, see all the effort and power wasted through time to nourish and give example to the young? Who’se egos are not yet bristling with disappointing wounds, cut doubly crossed by fortune!

No. Evolution is both: a psychic rebellion against those who turn down the appearent laboratory which appears to give control over all the ingredients into it’s failing and flailing time-sensitive temporally bracketed creation- rather the ups and downs of such correlation between limited and infenitely variable experience , as signs of fallibility of a self constructed artifact, which bought the paradox of attributing failure upon a designer who did it, so as to reflect it back into it’s own intellect ?

And if so, why not these sense of impression not correlate with the other impression, that shows the progressive trend to have implicit goals, In It’s self, those that sunflower like turn toward the sun, the giver of the power which enables to will further not backward that , of whose nihilization can not nature exemplify, a negatively deconstructed process, using all the gained energy, to go against it’s source, to destroy as an avenging angel, and thus destroy the ideals that was constructed on?

Can or should negative pedestals be erected for clever sophistry for which even Socrates was poisoned?

A double edge has this silken promotions, but as it appears to signify a change for the better? the ideals by which it is undermined with negative intent is, regardless, a testament to solitary pain, and the avoidance of sacrifice for others

meno’s simple explain:

The world as such, contrasted or not in line with the inclusive presence of up to date intelligents, asks the primal, pivotal question , echoed down through the myriad reps of history; is the world as is: as it is, (common nomenclature) meant to be, or , it is not, but designed in a way it should be, -even merely striving to be progressively better and more adapted to how it turned out before?

Discouraged because progressive development does not go up linearly, within a given epoch?

May be can’t deal, with It and resigns it’self to doubt and the days to himself : yeah see , cut it out it’s useless, see all the effort and power wasted through time to nourish and give example to the young? Who’se egos are not yet bristling with disappointing wounds, cut doubly crossed by fortune!

No. Evolution is both: a psychic rebellion against those who turn down the appearent laboratory which appears to give control over all the ingredients into it’s failing and flailing time-sensitive temporally bracketed creation- rather the ups and downs of such correlation between limited and infenitely variable experience , as signs of fallibility of a self constructed artifact, which bought the paradox of attributing failure upon a designer who did it, so as to reflect it back into it’s own intellect ?

And if so, why not these sense of impression not correlate with the other impression, that shows the progressive trend to have implicit goals, In It’s self, those that sunflower like turn toward the sun, the giver of the power which enables to will further not backward that , of whose nihilization can not nature exemplify, a negatively deconstructed process, using all the gained energy, to go against it’s source, to destroy as an avenging angel, and thus destroy the ideals that was constructed on?

Can or should negative pedestals be erected for clever sophistry for which even Socrates was poisoned?

A double edge has this silken promotions, but as it appears to signify a change for the better? the ideals by which it is undermined with negative intent is, regardless, a testament to solitary pain, and the avoidance of sacrifice for others rather than of others.

Sorry for double post.

Yes. Sometimes it is one step forward, two steps back until we get our sea legs.

And sometimes… we’re letting others get theirs.

Doubt for its own sake is pathological and irrational, just as is belief for its own sake. In fact these two things are impossible to exist, which is why when people try to make them exist or claim that they exist all that is really going on is the person is engaged in an act of self-denial and necessary ignorance (necessary on their part to maintain such a stupid level of mentality).

Modern “philosophy” with all its in-built doubting, denials and skepticisms are little more than the inversion of a religious fanaticism.

Extreme doubt for its own sake <===> extreme belief for its own sake.

Who cares? Both are retarded.

Should we not have empathy to one who is ensnared by their own thoughts?
Frustration can emerge when one blames the other for one’s inability to invoke change.
Before attacking the other, perhaps we can reflect on our own shortcomings.

I would like to note on the record regarding being genuine, open and transparent:
There’s been a long history of members from a different community actively seeking to undermine / harass ILP and it’s members.
Why? For bragging rights and a crusade against ‘inferior’ folk. Seemingly rooted in some jaded old dude’s feelings of betrayal at being banned.
Terribly philosophical stuff.

It feels awfully rich that it’s iambiguous in the crosshair when there’s other blatantly disingenuous parties also being named.
This is not so much a case of defense for iambiguous, [I’m steering clear of that battle]… rather, a case for perspective.

Appearances don’t tell the entire a story, and even if someone appears inauthentic, doesn’t alone make it so. Vice versa.
Maybe iambiguous might be more sincere than you realize, and other parties less so.

===

As to you general point, Dan -

I agree there are limits to the utility of doubt.
It has it’s place, but is not a solve all.
It can detrimental when handled without care.

Furthermore, as I think you allude to: one can question / assess something,
without needing to introduce one’s initial / current impressions into the evaluation.
One can evaluate something, without the question of doubt / belief entering the equation.

None of this means I missed his point.
What I said is a challenge to that way of thinking - which, I have to say, is not that accurate.
You may well have experienced his resistance to your way of thinking. I know I have. But I have also experienced him responding positively to a new idea that I have suggested to him - something you you seem to want to refuse to do under any circumstances.
SO take a look in the mirror buddy

So you’re saying that Biggy isn’t a doubter? You’re saying that Biggy is open to new ideas whereas I am not? And you know that I am not based on exactly what?

All I can say is that it very much seems like that you’re one of those who enjoying doubting for its own sake.

I’m team PLIKT (Philosophy Love I Know Thyself)
… forwards & backwards.

Everyone gather round & bring it in for a big PLIKT synthesis of the fractured & fragmented Biggy/Satyr distinction. Until they smile at each other, shake hands, and mutually recognize their right to exist in both places simultaneously without going bananas…

…ah eff it, this is useless. You can’t reconcile the identical. So yeah team PLIKT!

I refuse to take sides in this fight club until they are beating themselves up in real time—offline. For Christmas. When & where?

It’s not Biggy versus Satyr but Biggy cersus those who respect other people’s boundaries. Do you want people to cooperate with each other or do you want them to pointlessly fight? That is the question. And Biggy’s attitude isn’t cooperative.

That’s like asking Hume’s guillotine to cooperate.

_
@Dan~ I would like to add ‘preaching’, to the annoyance of ‘doubting’ …when some mistake preaching for debate.

And vice versa^^

I don’t know, until recently I would have said yes, but it is proving very hard to have any kind of empathy for you and your deliberately repetitive egoistic ignorance.

Please stop doing whatever it is you think you’re doing, it has nothing at all to do with philosophy.

Group hug for HumAnIze. Warm fuzzies, rainbows, comfort, puppies, and cold, hard facts.

Based brother