Completely irrelevant to the thread.
That, right there, is ACTING BASED ON A BELIEF.
When you blandly refer to the “fact” that he found peace via that method, and you blandly say that shows it’s the right way to do things – well, you’re acting the same way as any other guy who blandly refers to some other alleged fact and just as blandly states “it’s the right way to do things and anything else is wrong.”
That’s what you’re doing right now! It’s what you’ve been doing! You’re a guy who holds opinions and beliefs! Am I somehow going too fast for you, here?
That’s a claim. Right there. Take a good look at it. Then maybe take a second look, because you seem to be missing that – as a claim – it’s one of those “all claims”.
I’m referring to the Münchhausen Trilema which sort of negates certainty of knowledge. I don’t think you understand the topic at hand here.
You think I don’t understand. Is that your belief? Is it an opinion you hold?
You offer up a claim, here, about “the Münchhausen Trilema” and what it negates. You’ve also been known to phrase that claim as follows: “The Trilema shows that all claims are eventually rooted in three unsatisfactory bases.” Are those claims you’re making about the Trilemma? Is that a claim you’re making about “all claims”?
You say that acting on beliefs – and even holding them – is incorrect: “acting based on opinions or beliefs (or even holding them) is incorrect.” Since you don’t think I understand the topic, teach me by answering my question: does that statement of yours, there, reflect a held belief about what’s incorrect?
You refer to “a fact” about right and wrong and finding peace: “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.” So, help me out, here: does it? Do you believe that? Did he?
These are yes-or-no questions; if you “understand the topic at hand here”, you should be able to crisply answer all eight – with a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ – in short order.
Where did you get the idea that “agreeing with your conclusions” = “understanding the topic”?
If you behaved as MrDibble said upthread, and questioned your ability to live if you couldn’t find your answer, who the heck are you to judge?
Did you do that, Machinaforce? Assuming you are not going to say he was lying, why should anyone talk with you about your philosophy questions??
The witholding of judgement is a big part of buddhism, maybe the most important and profound. So there is lots of firm ground on this.
In the US Eugene Gendlin formulated and wrote a book about something he calls “focusing.” It’s derived from research about what the people who are helped by analysis are doing as their “inner act”. This is critical because therapy is an art and not a science roughly speaking, and outcomes are not controllable. Focusing is done all over the world now.
It involves turning things over in your mind without naming them, until you have had a shift. Not naming things imediately is very powerfuil when used correctly. I guess it’s the exact opposite of posting here, and I’ll plead to that.
I should add that Gendlin was a philosophy guy at University of Chicago, and also a psychotherapist. I don’t htink there is a psychologist or self help author who is as philosophically literate, and profound, as he is.
That’s a great post. The thing that is difficult is that folks like you, me, Exapno - actually, pretty much everyone - are trying to speak to someone who is choosing not to listen.
**Machinaforce **- this place is, like, the opposite of 4chan. We don’t grab popcorn to watch people suffer. I don’t see value in sitting idly by while you start thread after thread obsessed on the Kafkaesque implications of extreme philosophy. Especially if the stakes are a lot higher than is readily being discussed.
You can set up a thread but it ain’t your personal sandbox. I am not threadshitting - I am addressing your central OP directly and constructively.
It’s funny because “focusing”, while you can do it alone, is done in other settings with a partner, taking turns being listened to, and that listening to the other person is part of the effect. It’s called peer counseling. When I get a chance to talk about Gendlin I do, but I step back and let people see something in it if they need or want to.
The site that he links too sounds too much like pseudoscience. It has nothing to do with Pyrrhonism or skepticism.
The bit about buddhism is sort of related since he visited India when he came up with this philosophy which is why it seems so similar to buddhism.
In fact, the link seems like one of those scams out to get your money.
No, it has nothing to do with skepticism or any other specific system. It is one approach to managing one’s thoughts. If you don’t like that one, fine. There’s plenty.
The point is: do you see that managing one’s thoughts is an essential ingredient to the type of thinking you are attempting? That if you find yourself questioning the value of living if you apply a philosophical system a specific way, something is not working, and that managing one’s thoughts is how one is aware of stuff like that?