Exactly. Enabling obsessive behavior is not harmless, even if talkin’ philosophy is fun.
Machinaforce, I hope you hear that, while I am frustrated with your unwillingness to engage, I take your intent seriously. My focus on managing one’s thoughts is not some mental-health play at you as an individual. It is the most correct possible answer to your question, based on all of the philosophy I have read.
If you continue to laugh it off, then you aren’t taking your own discussion seriously. Can you see that?
It doesn’t strike me as Machinaforce is laughing off the suggestion that he needs some professional mental health attention. It sounds more like he is offended by the suggestion that he would benefit from it or that he is in fact suffering from a mental illness that needs treatment. In other words, his mental illness is actually standing in the way of him getting treatment. It’s a solipsistic and nihilistic condition, much like his obsessive philosophical meanderings. (IMO).
Unfortunately, he’s in deep denial and in much deeper trouble than he appears to be willing to admit to himself. I doubt there’s very much anyone here can say to him to change that unfortunate fact. Maybe there is someone in his life that can help him. I suspect he isn’t making it any easier on them either.
I guess the whole appearances bit troubles me in regards to the certainty of knowledge. All knowledge is highly probable at best since the Trilema pretty much skewers any claim at true certainty. So by living according to what “appears” instead of what “is” in its nature just seems cheap to me.
Then there is the part about beliefs being a source of pain. Likely the beliefs about ourselves and how therapy is really just the rearranging of beliefs but not exactly true ones (well there’s the issue about the notion of “truth” when it comes to the skeptic). That’s what it mentioned in the paper and I have to agree since I don’t have a counter to it
What am I, chopped liver? You are going to walk right past?
That pretty much sums up your situation. If this is what you believe, I can see where it’s a source of pain.
I am NOT discussing therapy. I am discussing Managing One’s Thoughts. It starts how Exapno starts: We are here. Living works on some level. Now what?
If a system - like skepticism - suggests conclusions that simply don’t align with those brute facts, then it must be reconsidered in some form.
Managing one’s thoughts starts with working to acquire the discipline to keep that thought present when asking big questions. That has NOTHING to do with therapy or the pain of beliefs. It is essential to asking the big questions. And it is hard to do.
Let’s say that, while cradling my injured hand and blinking back tears, I refrain from thrusting my hand into a bonfire a second time because of what it is. Now let’s say I do the exact same thing, but because of what it appears to be.
Or say you watch genuinely me enjoying the taste of honey, and I say “is”. Or you watch me genuinely enjoying the taste of honey, and I say “appears”. My question is: what changes for you? Do you envy me more in one case, and pity me more in the other? Do you – if I haven’t yet mentioned my mindset – prepare to maybe cluck your tongue, but wait since (a) you can’t yet tell whether I’m reacting to pain and pleasure as an “is” guy or an “appears” guy, since (b) what’s the difference?
No, you don’t “have to agree”. Go perform an experiment, and seek out folks who’ve performed experiments. Are there folks who say they’re in no pain? Ask them about their beliefs, or lack thereof – and, yeah, if they all declare for this particular brand of skepticism, then maybe try it out for a while and see if it works for you. But if you find a grouchy bunch of pained skeptics, as well as a guy who believes in stuff but seems to have it all together – well, maybe try out his way for a while.
Do beliefs lead, inevitably, to pain? Does this approach provide comfort? Don’t just agree; try both, and find out. If one turns out to be like a handful of fire and the other turns out to be like a mouthful of honey, then, sure, say you agree.
Rephrase your question in a way that relates to your personal life circumstances and not as a myriad philosophical harangues you’ve dumped on us and repeatedly asked us to examine and debunk for you.
Do that and people might view you as something other than a one trick pony.
I guess the appearance argument seems to carry a hint of detachment for me. Like one isn’t engaged with the experience and merely observing it like a microbe through a microscope.
The fact that I can’t seem to find a flaw in their argument hurts to. Otherwise I would just ignore it an move on. But if beliefs and opinions cause pain (because great conflict has been waged over different views and even the opinions we have about us cause pain) then how is one supposed to live without them? Can I truly label things as good and bad? It’s as though the skeptic calls everything into question, and when I factor in the Trilema I am left with an unsatisfactory basis for my beliefs.
It seems like the more I try to hold onto my beliefs and opinions the more I can feel the words of Pyrrhonism eroding them away. Yet I know there is a reason why it didn’t branch out further than it did in the past, but I can’t fathom what that reason is.
What do you think it would be like to be “engaged with the experience”, then?
If, while trying my best to be a good skeptic, I touch a flame – why, I experience the sensation of pain. When, in the course of human skepticism, I put a big fine drop of honey on my tongue – well, I enjoy experiencing the sweet taste.
What, by contrast, would my life be like if I were engaged with the experience?
Is that a belief you hold? Is it your opinion? Is it something you noted, by reflecting on your experiences? Is it something you learned from other people?
Because it sure as hell sounds to me like you think you can learn from experience; or that you think others can learn from experience, and you can learn from them: that you can arrive at beliefs and hold opinions, just like other folks can.
Explain that.
What’s that, you say? You know how far it branched out in the past? You know it could have branched out further, and you know there’s a reason why it didn’t?
So, knowing stuff and having beliefs – this is what you still think you can do? You said the “fact” that you aren’t finding a flaw in their argument “hurts” you – and so you’re competent to notice when something hurts?
The description they have isn’t accurate for Pyrrhonism. If you read the talk page you see that the edit they undid gives a more accurate account of what it is.
The problem is that it seems like logic is on their side and that their method of continuously suspending judgment is the only sensible thing to do in life due to their five points and the Munchausen TRilema
Well, since you’re disregarding everything I posted, I’ll put it back out there for you: you say “it seems like logic is on their side” – but you just got through saying that you know how far it branched out in the past; and you know it could have branched out further, and you know there’s a reason why it didn’t branch out further.
The problem is, it seems like you, uh, know stuff.
And you say you “can’t seem to find a flaw in their argument” – but you add that not being able to find a flaw in their argument hurts; and you fold that into a broader claim, their broader claim, that “beliefs and opinions cause pain”.
The problem is, that seems to be you relaying a belief; it seems to be you stating an opinion; it seems like you don’t have a problem doing any of that; it’s a bit like how you blithely tossed out an “I know” in the post I was replying to, and a bit like how you note that something seems to be the only sensible thing to do.
You seem to learn from experience, and from the experience of others; and you seem to reason about it, and reach conclusions – X and Y cause pain, and so I should do Z; but if A and B were true, then C should’ve resulted but D happened – all of which you mention as if they were beliefs and opinions and knowledge.
That’s what folks who reject skepticism do; you’re doing it; what’s the problem?
A neuroscientist and a Buddhist monk discuss brain activity and what it tells us about how Human brains function and should be managed. Active mental engagement - rumination - provides far less value to the overall health and capacity of the brain as learning to manage one’s thoughts via various forms of meditation, including via playing music and athletic activity.
Reputable reporting focused on the Science of brain management. Hmm, that might be worth reading and commenting on, eh?
The issue being that rejecting skepticism and therefor pyrrhonism by extension seems like the “wrong” choice. That acting based on opinions or beliefs (or even holding them) is incorrect. The fact that the guy supposedly found peace by permanently suspending judgment on nonevident matters seems to show that it’s the right way to do things and anything else is wrong.
Holding opinions and beliefs when they are ultimately founded on unsatisfactory justification seems to be the error they claim society does. The Trilema shows that all claims are eventually rooted in three unsatisfactory bases. In the example of the paper in regards to therapy, it’s just rearranging the beliefs. But the beliefs they have aren’t well justified and what is deemed correct or not is a matter of opinion and not objective. It’s like telling someone something is ok when they feel it is wrong, who is right in that sense and how do they know? It’s just a larger matter at hand. The problem I have with skepticism is that it punches many holes in the quest for knowledge or any foundation to build a life upon. Perfect certainty is a dream and justification of knowledge seems hazy. At that point how does one live? What of morality?
The moral skepticism lies in my mind the more questions arise and the less answers I have. Anything I devise doesn’t surivive the barrage of “how do you knows”. Makes me wonder how people were able to ignore skepticism and therefor pyrrhonism.