You conveniently failed to answer my questions: — Janus

Balls. You asked me pages back if I were certain of anything. I said yes. You didn't follow up on my reply.

making asides to others — Janus

The consummate politician is always playing to the crowd.

Balls. You asked me pages back if I were certain of anything. I said yes. You didn't follow up on my reply. — Banno

Can you know something without knowing it? Are you certain of anything? If so, do you know it is true or not? Do you feel certain of anything that you don't know to be true? — Janus

It's not the only question there. Do you now admit that you were wrong, and that there is a valid distinction between being certain of something and feeling certain of something?

The consummate politician is always playing to the crowd. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, he is certainly behaving more like a politician than a philosopher!

Do you now admit that you were wrong, and that there is a valid distinction between being certain of something and feeling certain of something? — Janus

It is as I pointed out, many pages ago: You have invented a novel distinction by confusing truth and certainty.

You continue to ignore my example that clearly shows they are not the same: to repeat, one can feel certain that God exists, but one cannot be certain, i.e. know, that God exists. — Janus

You must disagree with some part of the above then. Which part?

:rofl:

Fucksake. I disagree with your differentiating "feeling certain" from "being certain", because on yur own account "being certain" is just feeling certain of something that is true.

Not sure if this is the third, or fourth time, I've said that. Today.

Are you a chatbot?

...we can feel certain even we are not... — Janus

We can feel certain even when we are not right. We can feel certain even when we are not justified in being so. We can feel certain even when we're dead wrong.

We cannot feel certain when we are not feeling certain.

So, Janus, help me out here...

Would you agree to all of the above statements?

If feeling certain is about one's confidence, being certain is about the truth of the belief, and the truth of the belief is not determined by the certainty of the individual, then it only follows that one's being certain is not determined by the certainty of the individual.

:yikes:

Looks like following the logic leads us to conclude that that is a bit of nonsensical language use.

What else could possibly be the determining factor regarding whether or not someone is certain that X is the case, or being absolutely certain that 'X' is true, if not the high level of confidence(the complete lack of doubt) that the believer has that X is the case, or that 'X' is true?

The certainty that S has about X is one thing, and X's being certain is another.

When S feels certain then they are. What does it mean for S to be certain if not that they are?.

How else is there to parse this?

:yikes:

You know, I feel certain but I cannot be certain.

I think you hit the nail on the head. A conflation of truth and certainty. The former is about the belief, the latter is about the believer. Janus' use of "feeling certain" is about the believer, but his use of "being certain" is about the truth of the belief.

I think you hit the nail on the head. — creativesoul

several pages ago. Pretty unimpressive. I don't know if I should be more disappointed with Janus for such poor argument or myself for not walking away form such an absurd discussion.

May not be worth fretting over. Clearing up confusion for others helps even if we fail to convince those who oppose us.

Right, I get it; you're compelled to resort to expletives and ad hominems because you can't give a straight answer to the question I asked without making my point for me.

We can feel certain even when we are not right. We can feel certain even when we are not justified in being so. We can feel certain even when we're dead wrong.

We cannot feel certain when we are not feeling certain. — creativesoul

Why would I not agree when you are simply echoing what I've already said?

Janus' use of "feeling certain" is about the believer, but his use of "being certain" is about the truth of the belief. — creativesoul

No, you've got it wrong again. Feeling certain is feeling that you know the truth while being certain is knowing the truth; both are about the person. So, again I can feel certain that God exists, but I cannot be certain that God exists. I can be certain that 2+2=4. Can you spot the difference yet?

Banno won't say whether he agrees or disagrees with those two statements, because he will appear a fool if he disagrees, and if he agrees he will be acknowledging that he actually agrees with my distinction, which his ego won't allow him to do. So, he hides behind insults and attempts to appear above the discussion. It's a bit sad, really.

No need for people to fret much over this...

Your language use is very odd. You claim that feeling certain that 'X' is true is not equivalent to being certain that 'X' is true.

So what extra is needed aside from S's feeling certain that 'X' is true in order for S to be certain that 'X' is true?

Let 'X' be "God exists"...

Feeling certain is feeling that you know the truth while being certain is knowing the truth... — Janus

I can feel certain that God exists, but I cannot be certain that God exists. — Janus

"Feeling certain" seems to suggest belief, while "being certain" seems more like knowledge.

"I believe that God exists, but I cannot know that God exists".

What does your practice add to our understanding here that the quote above lacks?

What does your practice add to our understanding here that the quote above lacks? — creativesoul

You just seem to be paraphrasing what I've already said. Do you agree that there is a valid distinction between feeling certain and being certain, or not?

Just because acting in a particular way worked out fine in the end for Frodo, doesn't mean doing something similar will work out fine for me as well.
— baker

How would you know? — Isaac

I'm not a hobbit. Nor an elf. Or even a man, for that matter (notice how there are very few strong female characters in much fiction).

In other words, the ideology put forward in a text of fiction may come with some assumptions about requirements that need to be met in order for acting in line with said ideology to be morally satisfying. Whereby these requirements might never be explicitly stated in the text itself.

Imagine reading a work of fiction, agreeing with the ideology in it, feeling inspired, confident about life because of it, only to some time later discover that it was meant to apply only to a particular category of people (or not even to people at all).

One can read through a book of philosophy or religion, find it appealing, and only later discover that the author intended it only for men. Even though he might never say a bad word about women in the text; but one might later discover that when he speaks of men, he doesn't actually mean humans, but specifically men, males. Or that it's intended only for white people, or only for Indians, or only the upper class, etc.

I've had this experience, and it left me disheartened. My trust in finding support through stories has been eroded.

we need the support of others believing what we do. The solution to that is that those others do not have to be real for this effect to work. Stories.
— Isaac

As long as this is merely a description of what works for people, that's one thing. But to take it as a prescription?? To _deliberately_ pick a work of fiction and use some of the characters in it as one's "support group"? In my experience, this doesn't work.
— baker

What has failed about it?

Like I said above, the intuitive trust in stories is gone, for me.

After that, only a deliberate taking up of this approach remains. Like with so many things, when doing something deliberately, it loses its power somehow. Like if you deliberately try to fall asleep, you can't; if you deliberately try to be "more spontaneous", you're even more uptight.

I think that the trust in stories that you're talking about is what is sometimes termed "states that are essentially by-products". Ie. they cannot be achieved deliberately.

Here from Jon Elster:
States that are essentially by-products

No need for people to fret much over this...

Your language use is very odd. You claim that feeling certain that 'X' is true is not equivalent to being certain that 'X' is true.

So what extra is needed aside from S's feeling certain that 'X' is true in order for S to be certain that 'X' is true?

Let 'X' be "God exists"... — creativesoul

I know I know! Meeting God.

Do you agree that there is a valid distinction between feeling certain and being certain, or not? — Janus

No, but you may convince me otherwise..

I can feel certain that God exists, but I cannot be certain that God exists. — Janus

So what extra is needed to go from feeling certain that God exists to being certain?

We can feel certain even when we are not right. We can feel certain even when we are not justified in being so. We can feel certain even when we're dead wrong.

We cannot feel certain when we are not feeling certain.
— creativesoul

Why would I not agree when you are simply echoing what I've already said? — Janus

Well, to be blunt, you've said none of those things. I do think you meant them though. What you said was...

we can feel certain even when we are not...

If what I said echoes that then that is an incomplete thought filled out by my echoes.

I'm trying to get Janus to explain what the difference is, according to his/her position, between feeling certain and being certain. Seems to me like that difference amounts to feeling certain being on par with belief whereas being certain is on par with knowledge. That difference is truth to some, warrant to others, and truth plus justification to some. Belief is required for all.

Clarity has not been forthcoming.

I've had this experience, and it left me disheartened. My trust in finding support through stories has been eroded. — baker

My question was about how you'd know. I mean, it's not as if Frodo had a party throughout the book. His journey was, if I recall correctly, pretty much one trial after another without let up even up to the last chapter and then he had to leave anyway. I don't see how someone in mid-life could possibly say "well, I tried it and it hasn't worked".

After that, only a deliberate taking up of this approach remains. Like with so many things, when doing something deliberately, it loses its power somehow. Like if you deliberately try to fall asleep, you can't; if you deliberately try to be "more spontaneous", you're even more uptight.

I think that the trust in stories that you're talking about is what is sometimes termed "states that are essentially by-products". Ie. they cannot be achieved deliberately. — baker

Yes, I sympathise with that, it is difficult to get out of the idea that one's first thoughts are somehow more authentic. But there really is no reason to think they are. They just happened to have arrived first. There's nothing special about them.

I've had this experience, and it left me disheartened. My trust in finding support through stories has been eroded.
— baker

My question was about how you'd know. I mean, it's not as if Frodo had a party throughout the book. His journey was, if I recall correctly, pretty much one trial after another without let up even up to the last chapter and then he had to leave anyway. I don't see how someone in mid-life could possibly say "well, I tried it and it hasn't worked". — Isaac

True. But I'm talking about the belief, or faith, that acting in a particular way is worth the effort.
It's this belief or faith that can be eroded.

After that, only a deliberate taking up of this approach remains. Like with so many things, when doing something deliberately, it loses its power somehow. Like if you deliberately try to fall asleep, you can't; if you deliberately try to be "more spontaneous", you're even more uptight.

I think that the trust in stories that you're talking about is what is sometimes termed "states that are essentially by-products". Ie. they cannot be achieved deliberately.
— baker

Yes, I sympathise with that, it is difficult to get out of the idea that one's first thoughts are somehow more authentic. But there really is no reason to think they are. They just happened to have arrived first. There's nothing special about them.

No, I'm not talking about one's first thoughts, I'm talking about mental states that cannot be brought about deliberately.

But I'm talking about the belief, or faith, that acting in a particular way is worth the effort.
It's this belief or faith that can be eroded. — baker

Yes. I think that process of erosion is more in one's control than is immediately apparent perhaps. One can lose faith st every setback, or one can retain it despite failures.

No, I'm not talking about one's first thoughts, I'm talking about mental states that cannot be brought about deliberately. — baker

Yeah, I'm disputing the existence of those states. I'm saying that such states only appear to be impossible to bring about because we erroneously assume that the state they are intended to replace (our first thoughts) is arrived by some more 'natural' process. It isn't.

If one is, say, sad, that state of sadness is a constructed narrative to explain the sea of interocepted prior states being experienced. Other narratives are equally valid and perfectly possible to believe.

Like any narrative, there are limits, it has to work (predictions made using it have to turn out), but there are multiple narratives which work no better or worse than each other. We're free to choose between them.

I'm trying to get Janus to explain what the difference is, according to his/her position, between feeling certain and being certain. Seems to me like that difference amounts to feeling certain being on par with belief whereas being certain is on par with knowledge. That difference is truth to some, warrant to others, and truth plus justification to some. Belief is required for all.

Clarity has not been forthcoming. — creativesoul

What’s so special about knowledge? Knowledge can be wrong and outlive its usefulness.

A spoon may be in my hand or I could just be hallucinating it. All that really matters is if it works, if it is useful in fulfilling my objectives. Adding belief will only trap me in some ideology that I rather be free from.

There is no spoon. :razz:

So what extra is needed to go from feeling certain that God exists to being certain? — creativesoul

You can't be certain that God exists, because being certain is knowing and the things we can be said to know are things that are inter-subjectively corroborable.

I'm trying to get Janus to explain what the difference is, according to his/her position, between feeling certain and being certain. Seems to me like that difference amounts to feeling certain being on par with belief whereas being certain is on par with knowledge. — creativesoul

Feeling certain is feeling that you know the truth while being certain is knowing the truth; both are about the person. So, again I can feel certain that God exists, but I cannot be certain that God exists. I can be certain that 2+2=4. Can you spot the difference yet? — Janus

Can you see how what you said above is the same, in different words, as what I said above? Also you do seem to be agreeing that there is a difference between being certain and feeling certain. If not then point to the difference you think is there between the two statements above.

Do you think we can be said to know anything we cannot be certain of? Do you think we can be said to believe anything we do not feel certain of? ( To anticipate an objection that might be raised to the second question: I allow that we might vacillate between believing and doubting; being certain and being uncertain, but the question is whether it could make sense to say that we can simultaneously and rationally (or even irrationally for that matter) both believe and doubt something.

Go back and read carefully what I've said, and then tell me what you agree or disagree with, and then we can talk.

I didn't say that I beleive nothing. Actually I do believe to be true hundreds or thouands of things.

I said, instead ---"I (consciously) try Not to beleive most things that are SAID To ME. Please notice the "SAID TO". By that I mean - "SPOKEN TO ME". or "WRITTEN TO ME".

A very large difference.

Also I spend lots of time in the internet. The net is full of hundreds of professional liers (LIERS )who spend thier lives thinking up words that will sound truthful.

Also I spend lots of time in the internet. The net is full of hundreds of professional liers (LIERS )who spend thier lives thinking up words that will sound truthful — Ken Edwards

Seems to me Ken, that you fight against the nefarious and you are a seeker of nefarious internet trolls so you can give them a good mental kicking! All power to you! Keep kicking that troll ass!

Ok, thanks for that clarification. I was misled by this:

I carefully avoid believing anything at all. Believing something can be extremely dangerous and can frequently be described as evil behavior. — Ken Edwards

You can't be certain that God exists, because being certain is knowing and the things we can be said to know are things that are inter-subjectively corroborable. — Janus

I disagree, though this is semantics and use does vary.
Certain has to do with a mental attitude, not the truth value of one's belief.
When someone asserts that they are certain, they think they know. They have no doubt. They are sure they are correct. Just as if they are uncertain, they lack the completely confidence in their belief.
They might in fact be correct and would answer correctly on a test when uncertain.
It's a partly emotional attitude.

If someone says they are certain God exists,regardless of whether God exists this can be a true assertion. They are certain of it. Their belief about the existence of God may well be wrong, but that they are certain is not. Just as being uncertain is not about the truth value of the belief. I was so sure I was right. I was so certain he was wrong.

And we also talk about degrees of certainty.
We use those degrees of certainty to describe our confidence in what we are asserting. Our attitude toward the probablity that our belief is correct.

Also we say when finding out something we believed (with great certainty) was incorrect...
I was so certain that X was true.

We don't say Oh, it turns out I wasn't certain, I just believed.

No, we were certain and were wrong.

Often you will see certainty described the feeling of being completely sure about something

Convinced and sure will come up as the first synonyms. And we can be convinced by others, for example, that X is true when it is not. We are talking about an attitude about our confidence level, our degree of certainty. Unsure tells us that this is an attitude related to our confidence we are right. You can be unsure and be right and sure you are right or just sure and be wrong.

Of course language is floppy. Some definitions will define certain using the verb 'know'. But these are not philosophical works. And in common parlance 'know' is often used as an intensifier. You think she's a lesbian. No, I KNOW.
But generally I would say the word leans towards the description of an emotional attitude about what we belief. How certain we are. And look at that sentence. How certain.

I can't see any way to tell someone that they are incorrect if they use certain to be a kind of attitude. I can see arguments mounted that it can ALSO mean one is confident about a belief AND correct.