Proof... Ha, What A Crock

[MrSpooky]

In my experience, there are very very few arguments that are fresh, new, and bold that pop up here... and most of the few that ARE fresh, new, and bold also tend to be poorly-founded and written by people who might need a broader understanding of philosophy to really flesh out well.

 

It was readily apparent to me that the OP here wrote working from a foundation of a very classic topic: Epistemological Skepticism (which was the focus of my own studies a couple years ago). ES has many manifestations, but overall the similarity lies in its criticism of Reason and Knowledge, in particular that Reason and Knowledge are not "perfect" or are otherwise flawed in some way. It's an old problem that stems from Plato and Descartes, and has recently popped up in stuff like The Matrix.

 

The result of this idea manifests itself in multiple ways, from postmodernism to epistemic nihilism. Quite frankly, I found the OP's post to be poorly written, if not shallow. I've been there in my own awe of ES right after I studied Cartesian philosophy, so I can sympathize, and it's why I tried to be civil (though I know I sound a bit cold and pretentious when I'm being direct sometimes. It's definitely not my intention, I just don't like to pad my messages to soften the blows of my criticisms).

 

Honestly, if you have something intelligent to say, great. More power to you. However, OP, your post was a muddled mess that wouldn't stand up in any sort of professional publication, nor would it stand up in any sort of academic journal, junior or otherwise. Clean it up, flesh it out, and support your claims.

 

Even if you do succeed in this arena, however, I'm afraid that the very foundation of your argument is flawed. I recommend George H. Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God," in particular the chapters on Epistemological Skepticism.

[Ex-COG]

 

cool spinning ying yang symbol. its hard not to get mad and react how to you center yourself and go in the present moment. do you have a meditation you do? what does fluffy bunny mean everyone keeps saying it does it mean your being too nice or something.

 

"Center yourself and go in the present moment". When you get angry, your emotions take you for a ride away from reality. Instead of just seeing the situation for what it is--example: people disagreeing, some of whom have strong opinions, and voice them in a forceful, perhaps insulting manner--and then calmly answering or removing yourself from the problem, you allow your emotion of anger to well up and influence your actions, often times causing you to act exactly like the person you are reacting against. Your thoughts are often running ahead of you, interpreting what the person said and what it means (whether your perceptions about them are correct or not), and how they will react to your reply. Also, your feelings may be influenced not by what's going on at the moment, but by a similar confrontation that has happened in the past and your reaction to that. Just take a deep breath, attempt to calm your emotional response, remember where you are at right now, and try a more rational approach instead. This is easier to do on a forum than in real life; if a poster's comments bother you, just put off answering until you relax, are able to think about it for awhile, and even realize that you don't have to answer (react) to the post at all. Also, if a poster is really out of line, other forum members will usually speak up, and you can see whether your initial reaction was correct or not. In a face-to-face situation it's tougher, because--unless you've worked on this in advance--you often don't have time to calm down and think up a peaceful response, all while the other guy is waiting for a comeback. Sometimes it's best to simply walk away.

 

As to "fluffy bunny". It can mean different things to different people, in general I always thought it meant taking a sickly-sweet, positive view of any situation that arose. "Just think positive, bad things happen for good reasons, it will all work out for good, don't allow doubt into your thoughts", and it can take on a "New Age" feel to it, "Push out the negative or you will draw misfortune to you, surround yourself with the white light of protection, feel the energy rising through your spirit" etc, etc.

[Ex-COG]

In my experience, there are very very few arguments that are fresh, new, and bold that pop up here... and most of the few that ARE fresh, new, and bold also tend to be poorly-founded and written by people who might need a broader understanding of philosophy to really flesh out well.

 

 

I suppose this might be the reason for some of the problems between posters. Some have a deeper understanding of philosophy and reasoning, others don't. Those who don't are looking for something to interpret their world with, and often stumble across ideas and systems which don't work out in reality. I examined different belief systems while untangling myself from Christianity, and for awhile read a lot of material from the "positive thinking, new age, esoteric" side of religion. But I ended up realizing that these forms of beliefs, like Christianity, required you to take much on the basis of faith. I'm still quite interested in spirituality, but am seeing it from a different veiwpoint; cultural and neurological causes, for example. In any case, I will say that while I sometimes have to read philosophical posts like MrSpooky's through a couple of times, I have enough knowledge under my belt to eventually grasp the meaning (at least, after I look up a few words or phrases!); while if I read some metaphisical/spiritual posts, even after reading them multiple times I can't quite make out what they mean.

[MrSpooky]

while if I read some metaphisical/spiritual posts, even after reading them multiple times I can't quite make out what they mean.

 

Definitely the problem on the part of the writer. In any sort of professional publication, if it is to be effective on any level, the responsibility to be clear and convey understanding lies on the part of the writer. Heck, if no one understands your paper in a philosophy course at the uni, you get an F. If no one understands your book when it gets published, it's going to be laughed off the shelves.

[NotBlinded]

while if I read some metaphisical/spiritual posts, even after reading them multiple times I can't quite make out what they mean.

 

Definitely the problem on the part of the writer. In any sort of professional publication, if it is to be effective on any level, the responsibility to be clear and convey understanding lies on the part of the writer. Heck, if no one understands your paper in a philosophy course at the uni, you get an F. If no one understands your book when it gets published, it's going to be laughed off the shelves.

I agree, but not 100%. Understanding also has to come from the one reading. There are many things that I don't understand and there are things that I understand now that I didn't a few years ago. The writing didn't change, but my understandings did. Just because one doesn't understand something doesn't mean that it is incoherent.

[HadouKen24]

That's very true. Take, for instance, the writing of Heidegger or Kant. Incoherent, they're not, but dreadfully hard to understand because the language they use is so obtuse and complex.

 

Or, more in the vein of spiritual writing, the works of Aleister Crowley. It takes many people years to get a grasp on what he means. And even then, it's possible to misunderstand him; he said quite often and clearly that his work was not to be taken at face value.

[Vigile]

well whyd you bring it up then?

their anything you dont think is stupid?

we can always ignore people that annoy us to death like you for example.

what a good idea bye bye

 

 

I have no questions about her post, I think it's stupid.[/b]

 

There's a difference between blunt and being stupid. Asimov was being blunt.

[NotBlinded]

That's very true. Take, for instance, the writing of Heidegger or Kant. Incoherent, they're not, but dreadfully hard to understand because the language they use is so obtuse and complex.

 

Or, more in the vein of spiritual writing, the works of Aleister Crowley. It takes many people years to get a grasp on what he means. And even then, it's possible to misunderstand him; he said quite often and clearly that his work was not to be taken at face value.

Hey,

 

Oklahoma too? Navel lint? Well, humph!

 

Yes. It amazes me. It also makes me wonder how much more there is out there that I don't understand (and this is from the stuff that I know is out there already!). When reading spiritual writings or philosophical concepts, it just has to strike a person as true when the concept becomes coherent. It's like driving through a foggy night and not really noticing how little one could see until the fog is gone. I can read many things and think, yeah okay, I think I understand what they're saying and then read or hear something else that makes me say, "Oh my god, that is what they meant by that!" The lines are revealed between the dots...they were always there, but unseen. I live for this experience!

[Cerise]

Truth and coherancy are not synonyms.

 

I know several very coherant liars.

[NotBlinded]

Truth and coherancy are not synonyms.

 

I know several very coherant liars.

If I understand the word coherent correctly, it deals with logic, reason and rationality. That is why when I say it must strike a person as being true when it becomes coherent, I mean that it makes perfect sense when understood. The truth will stand up to scrutiny; otherwise, how would you know that the ones that you know are liars?

 

There seems to be different categories for truth. I can see there are relative truths and then there is a Truth that is what it is regardless of what our truths tell us. I think The Truth is something that cannot be known through the senses. If our senses are used, it becomes a relative truth. That is why I said it must 'strike' a person as True. Yes, a feeling.

 

I do understand that there are people that can create an entire story coherently and have nothing to do with The Truth. But what is The Truth? Can there be truth in the story itself without it having to be The Truth?

[willybilly30]

when did this become my topic lol

adrianna were are you?

[NotBlinded]

when did this become my topic lol

adrianna were are you?

Actually it does relate to your topic about proof. Most scientific theories are based on coherency not on proofs. So where does that leave us when looking for the truth? As Cerise stated, "Truth and coherency are not synonyms."

[NotBlinded]

In my experience, there are very very few arguments that are fresh, new, and bold that pop up here... and most of the few that ARE fresh, new, and bold also tend to be poorly-founded and written by people who might need a broader understanding of philosophy to really flesh out well.

 

 

I suppose this might be the reason for some of the problems between posters. Some have a deeper understanding of philosophy and reasoning, others don't. Those who don't are looking for something to interpret their world with, and often stumble across ideas and systems which don't work out in reality. I examined different belief systems while untangling myself from Christianity, and for awhile read a lot of material from the "positive thinking, new age, esoteric" side of religion. But I ended up realizing that these forms of beliefs, like Christianity, required you to take much on the basis of faith. I'm still quite interested in spirituality, but am seeing it from a different veiwpoint; cultural and neurological causes, for example. In any case, I will say that while I sometimes have to read philosophical posts like MrSpooky's through a couple of times, I have enough knowledge under my belt to eventually grasp the meaning (at least, after I look up a few words or phrases!); while if I read some metaphisical/spiritual posts, even after reading them multiple times I can't quite make out what they mean.

Hi Ex-COG,

 

I love your posts! I just wanted to address a part of your post here that deals with taking things on faith in spirituality. I also had a problem with that. And I just recently learned that we take most of our entire life on faith. The things we tell ourselves about ourselves are usually lies, but we take it to be true. The story of my life is a story of my creation and the things that I have learned so I take it on faith that what I see myself as is the truth. Then I realized that I often had a very hard time wondering why I did the things I did when I really didn't want to or I say things that I didn't mean. One could say, "well, that's just how I am.". But that is a lie. It is not how I am but I believe (have faith) it to be true.

 

Anyway, I just wanted to say that.

 

Sorry willy!

[Ex-COG]

But what is The Truth?

 

Shades of Pontius Pilate! I seem to remember "what is truth?" was presented in church not as being an honest question, but as a rebellious or foolish rebuttal to the "gospel truth", kind of connected with that old testament verse which said something along the lines of "everybody did what was right in his own eyes".

 

As to your observation that;

There seems to be different categories for truth. I can see there are relative truths and then there is a Truth that is what it is regardless of what our truths tell us. I think The Truth is something that cannot be known through the senses. If our senses are used, it becomes a relative truth. That is why I said it must 'strike' a person as True. Yes, a feeling.

 

Isn't this what (I am about to show my "little bit of knowledge" as opposed to "a lot of knowledge" about philosophy) Plato said? That there is "Truth" (big Tee) which is what is universally, always true, and then "truth" (little tee) which is what we think is true at the moment? At least I think it was Plato; it's been years since I read this, so take this post as "true" until it can be proven "True".

[Ex-COG]

Hi Ex-COG,

 

I love your posts! I just wanted to address a part of your post here that deals with taking things on faith in spirituality. I also had a problem with that. And I just recently learned that we take most of our entire life on faith. The things we tell ourselves about ourselves are usually lies, but we take it to be true. The story of my life is a story of my creation and the things that I have learned so I take it on faith that what I see myself as is the truth. Then I realized that I often had a very hard time wondering why I did the things I did when I really didn't want to or I say things that I didn't mean. One could say, "well, that's just how I am.". But that is a lie. It is not how I am but I believe (have faith) it to be true.

 

Thanks! I sometimes worry if I explain myself well when I post, so it's nice to know that someone finds my posts coherent (to fit in with the terminology being discussed!).

 

We take most of our lives on faith...maybe, but don't we (at least sometimes) use rational observation, whether we recognize it as such or not? Of course, you could question if we are as rational as we think we are; most people think they are objective about decision making, but are actually influenced by the surrounding culture, their own upbringing, neurological functioning, etc. Is it possible to be totally objective and rational, and without faith; thus on track to discover "Truth" instead of our own personal story of "truth"? (Am I still being coherent?)

[NotBlinded]

Shades of Pontius Pilate! I seem to remember "what is truth?" was presented in church not as being an honest question, but as a rebellious or foolish rebuttal to the "gospel truth", kind of connected with that old testament verse which said something along the lines of "everybody did what was right in his own eyes".

And everybody does! Thy will be done, so the saying goes. What one believes about themselves will come to fruition. I see some truth there.

 

As to your observation that;

There seems to be different categories for truth. I can see there are relative truths and then there is a Truth that is what it is regardless of what our truths tell us. I think The Truth is something that cannot be known through the senses. If our senses are used, it becomes a relative truth. That is why I said it must 'strike' a person as True. Yes, a feeling.

 

Isn't this what (I am about to show my "little bit of knowledge" as opposed to "a lot of knowledge" about philosophy) Plato said? That there is "Truth" (big Tee) which is what is universally, always true, and then "truth" (little tee) which is what we think is true at the moment? At least I think it was Plato; it's been years since I read this, so take this post as "true" until it can be proven "True".

It wouldn't surprise me if it was Plato but I can honestly say that I don't recall reading that. But, being where my mind is at this time, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that Plato said that.

 

 

Hi Ex-COG,

 

I love your posts! I just wanted to address a part of your post here that deals with taking things on faith in spirituality. I also had a problem with that. And I just recently learned that we take most of our entire life on faith. The things we tell ourselves about ourselves are usually lies, but we take it to be true. The story of my life is a story of my creation and the things that I have learned so I take it on faith that what I see myself as is the truth. Then I realized that I often had a very hard time wondering why I did the things I did when I really didn't want to or I say things that I didn't mean. One could say, "well, that's just how I am.". But that is a lie. It is not how I am but I believe (have faith) it to be true.

 

Thanks! I sometimes worry if I explain myself well when I post, so it's nice to know that someone finds my posts coherent (to fit in with the terminology being discussed!).

 

We take most of our lives on faith...maybe, but don't we (at least sometimes) use rational observation, whether we recognize it as such or not? Of course, you could question if we are as rational as we think we are; most people think they are objective about decision making, but are actually influenced by the surrounding culture, their own upbringing, neurological functioning, etc. Is it possible to be totally objective and rational, and without faith; thus on track to discover "Truth" instead of our own personal story of "truth"? (Am I still being coherent?)

I think you are and yes, I think one may be able to discover the Truth, but not by the senses. A revelation if you will that happens when one is not believing their own story to be the Truth. It doesn't have form, so it can't be seen or described; it must be felt or just known. I think it has to do with oneness, but I haven't experienced that feeling of all encompassing oneness...yet.

 

Is it rational for one to believe that we are what we are told we are by others or ourselves? Our culture tells us it is rational to try to be successful. What does that mean?...it means that we are not already successful; that we lack something. So, I don't know how rational that is.

[charley]

Is it rational for one to believe that we are what we are told we are by others or ourselves? Our culture tells us it is rational to try to be successful. What does that mean?...it means that we are not already successful; that we lack something. So, I don't know how rational that is.

 

To answer those questions, I think it is allways smart to ask another : "Que Bono" (who gains) from being persuaded by others as described variously in your quote. Often you will find that the person implying that you lack something is trying to sell you something. I know, I'm a salesman. It's rational to me for you to feel that you are as I describe you to be, that you try to be successful as I suggest, and for you to feel that you lack what I offer : when I'm trying to sell you something. Just $.02 of street smarts from a street fighter can sometimes clear up academic questions like these.

 

Yes. It amazes me. It also makes me wonder how much more there is out there that I don't understand (and this is from the stuff that I know is out there already!). When reading spiritual writings or philosophical concepts, it just has to strike a person as true when the concept becomes coherent. It's like driving through a foggy night and not really noticing how little one could see until the fog is gone. I can read many things and think, yeah okay, I think I understand what they're saying and then read or hear something else that makes me say, "Oh my god, that is what they meant by that!" The lines are revealed between the dots...they were always there, but unseen. I live for this experience!

 

Let me offer a heartfelt hell-yes to the quote above. So many people opt-out for the opposite to what you describe; confusion and muddled feelings, to avoid uncomfortable, dissonant impressions and thoughts, rather than valuing the thrill of discovery and mental clarity by "connecting the dots" as you describe. I wish many more of my friends would cultivate a richer intelectual life, instead of relying on t.v., weed, or both to transport them beyond everyday life.

 

At my age, I'm supposed to be wise, and recently while giving that a try it came to mind that I should allways wait until I worked an idea

(tested it in whatever way is appropriate) before catagorizing it as understood, no matter how zen-like the intensity of the initial insight is.

[NotBlinded]

Is it rational for one to believe that we are what we are told we are by others or ourselves? Our culture tells us it is rational to try to be successful. What does that mean?...it means that we are not already successful; that we lack something. So, I don't know how rational that is.

 

To answer those questions, I think it is allways smart to ask another : "Que Bono" (who gains) from being persuaded by others as described variously in your quote. Often you will find that the person implying that you lack something is trying to sell you something. I know, I'm a salesman. It's rational to me for you to feel that you are as I describe you to be, that you try to be successful as I suggest, and for you to feel that you lack what I offer : when I'm trying to sell you something. Just $.02 of street smarts from a street fighter can sometimes clear up academic questions like these.

That is wonderful. Can you imagine that on a universal scale? I guess we don't really need to imagine though do we?

 

The segment of your post that I bolded above perfectly describes what I mean. If I believe you, then I am exactly how you describe me to be. Our rationality is applicable to what we believe about ourselves and others. The story itself could be the greatest lie ever told, but that doesn't matter; our rationality is perfect.

 

Yes. It amazes me. It also makes me wonder how much more there is out there that I don't understand (and this is from the stuff that I know is out there already!). When reading spiritual writings or philosophical concepts, it just has to strike a person as true when the concept becomes coherent. It's like driving through a foggy night and not really noticing how little one could see until the fog is gone. I can read many things and think, yeah okay, I think I understand what they're saying and then read or hear something else that makes me say, "Oh my god, that is what they meant by that!" The lines are revealed between the dots...they were always there, but unseen. I live for this experience!

 

Let me offer a heartfelt hell-yes to the quote above. So many people opt-out for the opposite to what you describe; confusion and muddled feelings, to avoid uncomfortable, dissonant impressions and thoughts, rather than valuing the thrill of discovery and mental clarity by "connecting the dots" as you describe. I wish many more of my friends would cultivate a richer intelectual life, instead of relying on t.v., weed, or both to transport them beyond everyday life.

 

At my age, I'm supposed to be wise, and recently while giving that a try it came to mind that I should allways wait until I worked an idea

(tested it in whatever way is appropriate) before catagorizing it as understood, no matter how zen-like the intensity of the initial insight is.

 

It made me smile when I read that you're supposed to be wise and you gave it a try... and then speak the voice of wisdom that implies that one should anticapte more meaning. I don't think effort on your part is needed.

[MrSpooky]

I agree, but not 100%. Understanding also has to come from the one reading. There are many things that I don't understand and there are things that I understand now that I didn't a few years ago. The writing didn't change, but my understandings did. Just because one doesn't understand something doesn't mean that it is incoherent.

 

Oh entirely true. There is work involved for the reader, sometimes a good deal, but this wouldn't be possible at all if the writer is ineffective.

[Astreja]

I feel that the onus falls squarely upon the person who wants to communicate. For instance, if I wanted to talk about cats, I wouldn't start talking about dogs and expect the listener to "get it," nor would I sigh heavily and roll my eyes if they didn't understand what I was talking about.

 

In dealing with subjective matters like personal spiritual experiences, it's vital to establish a patch of common ground. If something can't be explained verbatim, it becomes necessary to use analogies. And only through patient dialogue can we determine if our analogies are things that belong to the listener's experience.

 

It isn't rocket science to write accessible works on spirituality, but it is a lot of work.

[charley]

I don't see how anyone can construe that it's the listener who is innately responsible for a communication being understood. What I do know is that many professional communicators hold themselves responsible for being understood. This is a high standard that keeps them doing their best and refining their skills. So in my opinion it can also best serve any speakers goals to take on the responsibility for being understood, if their highest priority is to get the job of communicating accomplished successfully. If that isn't their first priority, they should be able to clearly argue why time and effort needs to be put aside to tell someone that it is their fault as unqualified listeners or readers if something is misunderstood, instead of testing for their qualifications before trying to communicate. In short, if one is going to communicate to someone, they are legitamately expected by the listener/reader to be understandable to them. If a speaker doesn't know who they are talking to, they have no excuse for wasting the time of themselves or others.