You’ve failed miserably. You quoted a bunch of stuff, half of which is true, and completely pointless, and half of which is meaningless, lacking clear definitions.
Meanwhile, you continue in your (rather absurd) error in believing that labelling things increases suffering. Exactly the opposite is true: putting up warning signs against danger reduces suffering.
Why? You’ve kept mentioning the honey-seems-to-taste-sweet-to-some bit; and I’ve kept replying that, instead of inaction, that’ll move me to actively grab for some honey when next I’d like to enjoy something that’ll seem sweet.
I’ll build a foundation on that, is what I’m saying; is what I’ve been saying. Why would subjectivity instead lead me to inaction? If it were objectively sweet, I’d be moved to action; but, near as I can tell, subjectively sweet is equally moving.
Why wouldn’t it be?
I don’t think it’s a matter of warning signs, but just labeling certain things as bad. Like losing a home, or a bad grade, or pain (though their point on the last one is kind of off to me). That we make things seem worse than they are.
Well I don’t know how the ten points are half wrong. That’s what it said on the wiki article.
I guess I just want something that can’t be contested to give a sense of control to the things around me. Knowing how things work is empowering, but one of the five points is infinite regress in which your proof will have something that can’t be proven.
Or to put it another way, skepticism has been credited with the Munchausen Trilema.
And the problem of induction:
Both of which poke a hole in the certainty of knowledge. The trilema is the one I am having a hard time getting over.
Shrug. Maybe. For a long time, rape was “the fate worse than death.” Now, we don’t believe that so much.
But this isn’t an issue with “reality,” but only with social values. Labelling chocolate as “good” probably has boosted chocolate sales more than an “objective” assessment of its flavor could justify. In this case, your beef is with advertising, not philosophy.
Hey, I can sympathize; but I can also get by without certainty. I admittedly don’t know, with certainty, that the next sip I take will be sweet but not bitter; but I go in for another sip despite that, and – as usual – it works out pretty well.
I can’t switch that phrase there out for “as always”; but that’s okay. It doesn’t limit me to inaction; I note that a hole done got poked in what could have been certainty, and then I take action anyway: without certainty, but with experience.
That’s not some hypothetical; I assure you, it’s what I actually do.
You suspend judgement about fire. And honey. So you warm your hands with honey, and put the fire in your mouth.
Maybe the fire will taste sweet, and the honey will be hot. You don’t know. Except doing it this way, suspending judgement, will cause you actual suffering. You know it, I know it, the American people know it.
Doing it the other way, warming your hands withe the fire and putting the honey in your mouth, you are going to avoid all sorts of intense suffering. Yeah, sometimes the honey is full of strychnine, and sometimes the fire is a piece of cloth blown by a fan and illuminated by some LEDs.
So by all means take a closer look at everything. But if you can’t tell chicken shit from chicken salad, you better resign yourself to a life that’s miserable, brutish, and short.
But if you don’t care if your life is miserable and short, then go right ahead and throw out the chicken salad and eat the chicken shit. It’s your life and your funeral so you get to make the call.
I get that. To be honest I’m not 100% if what they are suggesting with their 10 points and 5 tropes really change anything at all or mean that one should suspend. So far things have worked as I expect them to, not as they “appear”.
not really sure how they got to their conclusion.
You might want to read the points and tropes I pasted on the page. I don’t think that’s what they are getting at. It’s more like a “true nature” thing.
She Said, She Said.
Dude - philosophy is a tool. Skepticism is the the western basis for saying “question everything.” Your long ass lists above are nothing more than a set of interrogative approaches, and the types of mindsets that a skeptic should think upon to keep from slipping into arrogant surety.
The scientific method frames current beliefs as Theories. Stating what we have come to understand, but framed in a way that “keeps us honest” by acknowledging that another approach may better fit the data we have available.
It’s the same thing. Applied Skepticism. We keep the doubt actively present. We also use our knowledge to design GPS systems that factor in the General Theory of Relativity. We don’t get lost in the doubt; we use it to keep ourselves honest and we get on with things.
Life Happens. Philosophy is only a tool within that context.
And shit.
I think you’re now going too far in the other direction.
Sometimes things don’t work out the way you’d expect. Sometimes, when going by appearances, you’ll find yourself in a Things Are Not As They Seem scenario where judging things based on how you perceive them will result in surprise, because you didn’t fundamentally understand what was actually in front of you.
That’s doesn’t mean you need to respond with inaction; you can still engage in action; you’d just maybe want to be philosophical about it, pausing from time to time when reflecting on how we sometimes go astray when guiding off appearances. But so long as it’s a choice between “guiding off appearances” and “nothing”, time and again you can shrug and return to “guiding off appearances”: granting that the skeptics have a point, and reminding yourself to take it seriously – but taking appearances seriously too, because, hey, that beats the alternative.
No, I think QuickSilver is spot on in their observation of your behavior.
The point of this philosophy is that fallible human beings can never know the “true nature” of a thing, so don’t get all worked up about it. Does honey taste sweet? Then go ahead and eat it, and build the door, and since you’ll never know for sure the ultimate nature of the honey or the door, obsessing about what’s behind the veil is pointless.
It’s the exact opposite of your interpretation. Since we don’t know, give up on the notion of absolute certainty because desiring it is pointless and doomed to failure and will only make you miserable. Does this remind you of anything?
You are obsessed with the problem that humans are fallible and your reaction to this insight is to collapse in a heap on the floor, sobbing. The philosophical school we are talking about would dismiss all that. Radical skepticism doesn’t have to lead to collapsing in a heap on the floor, instead it just means every time you hear someone pontificating about reality you think to yourself, “That’s just, like, your opinion man.”
Except this goes beyond simple skepticism, at least the kind that you are trying to get at.
So? Then stop that. Choose to not go there, yes?
It’s like telling your brain not to think a thought, it doesn’t happen. Not to mention the points they make have not been refuted.
But then how does anyone build anything solid to live by at that point? What about hopes and dreams and desires. It’s more than just fallible, it’s about throwing away hope because it is a judgment, desires because of the same rule. It’s suspending judgment on everything, and leaving you with nothing.
I hope for stuff, and sometimes I get it. I’ve also got dreams that sometimes come true, and desires that sometimes get satisfied; and I’m guessing that’d all still be the case if I could somehow perceive the true reality behind appearances – but, so long as I’m in a world of appearances, I can only tell you that it works here already.
A sufficiently convincing illusion is indistinguishable from reality.
I have the illusion of family, friends, a place to live, a cup of tea, and the internet. If this is an illusion, please don’t awaken me.
If one were to actively behave on the basis of this denial of reality, one would quickly become hopelessly mired in absurdities, such as eating fire and warming oneself by the honey-pot.
Doubting reality is fine. We all do that now and then. Acting on those doubts would be a dead giveaway of severe mental illness.
Throwing away hope? Huh? Didn’t your own quote talk about going ahead and building the door and performing the surgery and not worrying about it?
If this is all an illusion, what’s the point of collapsing in a heap? What does it gain you? Eventually, inevitably, and sooner than you think it’s all going to be over anyway, and the best guess we can make is that nothing will be left of you to go on and have any more existences, whether real or illusionary.
So you might as well go ahead and enjoy this possibly illusionary existence in whatever way seems good to you, because the only alternative is to collapse in a paralyzed heap on the floor. If that’s all you want your finite fallible life to be, then go right ahead. As the man said, you come from nothing and you’re going to go back to nothing, so what have you lost? Nothing!