I do not think "comfort" is a significant philosophical problem. The phrase "I am not comfortable with..." is a euphemism, a dodge, or perhaps even an empty expression. Certainly. it has been used far too often to retain any vitality. One could say, "I find the idea of a second Trump term nauseating." Or one could say "I am not comfortable with a second Trump term." Which one leaves the speaker the most wiggle room?

The word "comfort", and its derivatives (comfortable, uncomfortable, discomfort) have been enjoying an increase in popularity during the last 40 years. (information source: Google Ngram produces stats on the use of words in print over the last 220 years.)

Here's the frequency history for "uncomfortable":



"Comfort" and the other 3 derivatives have similar frequency histories. I've noticed the increased use of "comfort" and derivatives. I haven't yet starting loathing the term, or begun wishing to kick the "comfortable" user in the teeth, but... it's only a matter of time.

Why? Don't know. The popularity of words varies over time.

There's a such thing as comfort in logic and reason ie. when the two go together, often with some form of morality- and there's inane adaptation to a mentality that is- at any given moment- outside of all three. So long as one is "on top" or otherwise "right" in ways of social or personal superiority. These individuals are fine, so long as they abide to the larger system, that encompasses and provides for higher reason and understanding irrespective of personal position. That said, if you're making references to the "comfort" that is found in religious philosophies, rather "holding the feet to the fire" to those who hold comfort, solace, or confidence in a position -any position- that either isn't or cannot be proven or disproven here and now... I fail to see the "big deal" so to speak. We debate with those whom we deem debatable.

I think OP is maybe talking about the idea of people taking comfort in ideas, e.g. religious ones, and that being derided as a bad thing.

If I am correct OP, I think the reason for that derision is the implication that in taking comfort in an idea, you are engaging in wishful thinking, saying something you would like to be true, to the neglect of whether something actually is true or not.

I am writing at 3am, unable to sleep as often, and I think that comfort is fine if you have it but I am not sure that it is a real goal in philosophy.

If anything, I envy you because whatever way I have of thinking about the world of all things I have never felt 'comfort', especially when I adhered to religious beliefs. I remember the stress of being told that my ideas verged onto the new age and were dangerous, especially my interest in Carl Jung. He is not a philosophy in the strict sense but he encapsulates a lot of philosophy.

I wrestle with ideas, but I am not saying that I do not enjoy books but I am not sure that the term comfort is the right word. Life is too precarious and the word comfort stresses ease where in fact I often feel more in a battlefield and the ideas are tools or weapons against inner demons and monsters.

But maybe my inner life and daily experience has a more aggressive plot than yours. I could envy you if you find comfort in philosophy but that would be pointless as I don't know anything about you and envy is an unproductive emotion.

What would say that in a way you are lucky if you find comfort in philosophy because if anything I find it a necessity and it often leads me to seewhat I would rather not see, but I will say no more and I don't want to overdo the tortured artist/ philosophy act because it has been overdone and is in itself a glamour seeking stance.

Perhaps if you can construct a philosophy which leads to comfort it might cheer up the misery of so much doom and gloom of being tangled up in knots and tangles. I don't wish to be a doom and gloom philosopher and if nothing else I like Dosteovsky's wish to transmute evil into good. Even in the darkness, we may rise to the heights of ecstasy. If anything I have never found comforts but extreme lows and some highs but rarely much time for plateaus in between. In other words, little rest.

If you are engaging in philosophy, you are expecting your ideas to be exposed to pointed and rational criticism. Often the ideas of comfort are those that we don't want exposed to that criticism. If you wish to live with a comfortable idea that is not critiqued, then that's your choice. But its not philosophy.

I often hear accusations that people don't want to engage or accept something because of reasons of comfort, but why is that such a bad thing? — Darkneos

It is a bad thing because 'comfort' is unreasoned. Philosophy is a practice of reason (among other things), and positions are meant to be held to account on the basis of their theoretical commitments and entitlements. 'Comfort' is, as it were, pathological - it does not belong to the order of reason - and is not open to critique. Consequently it is philosophically useless.

I think the context matters but if an individual has their well-thought-out, fact-based assertions dismissed due to an emotional reason such as finding someone finding it preferable to simply continuing believing whatever is convenient, it is going to be poorly thought of from an intellectual standpoint.

Setting aside philosophy for a second, if you don’t make challenging your own beliefs a practice and you succeed in life in doing nothing harmful to others, you’re both extremely lucky and some kind of saint.

Which none of us are, human beings have many moments of misfortune and imperfections in our interactions with others. There is simply no way to cruise life morally in this world without inflicting doubt on yourself and challenging yourself to be a better person using rational reflection. And it’s going to take effort, not comfort.

And yeah, that includes comfortable religious beliefs. If you want to train that rational muscle, you have to be consistent and honest.

This isn't about you and neither was my thread about solipsism.

Well the problem I have with challenging beliefs is that you end up with something like solipsism as a result. I mean at what point do you stop? What merit is there in being rational if I have no ground to stand on? I understand that some views like homosexuality being immoral need to be confronted, but not everyone is like that. The universe is vast and scary, there doesn't seem to be any real reason for us to be here or even continue existing. What harm is there in beliefs that offer comfort and solace in an indifferent reality? Also better person? That depends on what someone means by "better". Why is challenging yourself an improvement? According to whom? Isn't morality more or less what people say it is and not because there is any inherent good to it?

But doesn't philosophy have to start with axioms, statements that cannot be proven? What high ground does one have to chide others for their unreasonable beliefs when a philosopher is ultimately no different?

I just think if no one else is being harmed then it doesn't matter what folks believe. They don't need to challenge themselves if they are doing fine.

Honestly the replies remind me of Death from Discworld and his take on it (well Terry Pratchett).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi1atm2HkS8

Well the problem I have with challenging beliefs is that you end up with something like solipsism as a result. I mean at what point do you stop? What merit is there in being rational if I have no ground to stand on? I — Darkneos

There is a difference between challenging beliefs as in rejecting them all until they can be proven from the ground up -- which, as you say, inevitably leads to solipsism and other nihilistic views, because there is no "ground" -- and challenging beliefs as in being open to the possibility that they might be wrong, and being responsive to evidence that suggests they are.

I have an essay against the former called Against Cynicism that touches on the difference, as well as an essay for the latter (rather, against its opposite) called Against Fideism.

The former essay is dependent upon another called Against Nihilism that I think might help assuage some of your concerns about solipsism. They're all part of my general philosophy of Commensurablism that I think (hope) could be helpful for you.

On the general topic of comfort, I think you might also enjoy the Optimism section of my essay On the Meaning of Life.

I hope some of those can bring you some comfort.

Just to add to Pfhorrest, the fact that you were able to distinguish between solipsism and dubious beliefs about homosexuality means you already hold some kind of intuition that distinguishes necessary practical skepticism and going into the deep end to (groundless) skepticism. The bit about morality seems to contradict your recognition that incorrect beliefs about homosexuality need to be challenged. Your outlined response here seems to me more about being provocative about a subject you have yet figure out how to articulate in a clear way rather than any real rejection of the necessity to challenge one's own thinking.

I just think if no one else is being harmed then it doesn't matter what folks believe. They don't need to challenge themselves if they are doing fine — Darkneos

Fine and dandy, but this is a philosophy forum, not a drum circle.

It's not really a contradiction. I know that morality or labeling something as moral doesn't mean more than the sound of the word, but as a gay man trying to live my life I have a vested interest in challenging homophobia.

I have laid out my point though. I only really got into philosophy because it was deemed to be "smart" and "good" to challenge one's views, despite that fact that in doing so it resulted in misery. A running trend I see in some philosophy majors is regret in having their assumptions challenged. I mean not everyone pulls away from solipsism so easily. Though people who say it's true are wrong as it can never be known.

Your essay against nihilism is rather weak, same with solipsism. Moral nihilism I would argue is true as there isn't an objective standard for it. Doesn't mean have no morality or meaning, but recognizing there isn't a capital T version of it.

I can still question the need to challenge beliefs knowing how bad the process can go.

It was mentioned earlier that I use practical skepticism and recognize when it goes too far, but then again who decides what is "too far" or practical.

Yeah, human beings have interests because we are a certain type of creature, living within a social context. That's what discussion about ethical issues are, normative questions about how we should live and treat each other given we're certain type of human beings. Do you deny that it would be a more pleasant society if people weren't homophobic and that's a "better" way of running society? Not so different from other normative questions like "how to play better chess" or "how to be a better scientist" They're objective claims given certain assumptions we adhere to. How to be a better human being among others is another one of them. Just because they're not exactly the same as scientific claims doesn't mean they're just empty words.

The number of people who adhere to solipsism are pretty close to non-existent, there is no such risk. People apply skepticism all the time in healthy ways, I don't know what your problem is about this frankly.

My issue is where does one draw the line. At what point is skepticism too far and according to whom? I mean these standards that we set are essentially just arbitrary at the end of the day right?

Do you deny that it would be a more pleasant society if people weren't homophobic and that's a "better" way of running society? Not so different from other normative questions like "how to play better chess" or "how to be a better scientist" They're objective claims given certain assumptions we adhere to. How to be a better human being among others is another one of them. Just because they're not exactly the same as scientific claims doesn't mean they're just empty words. — Saphsin

Better is not objective though even with assumptions. I mean why assume X is better than Y? I wouldn't argue that society would be better if people were not homophobia because that wouldn't be a true statement. It would be true to say it would be different but not better. Even better chess or be a better scientists are subjective claims that aren't grounded in solid "hard" rules.

All this is the result of challenging your assumptions, at some point there is nothing left and you have to rely on illogical leaps of faith to get out.

Where the line is (or if there even is a line, perhaps it's more of a stretched out spectrum with gray areas) could be an interesting philosophical puzzle to tease out, and there are people working on this in Epistemology among Philosophers. But there are a lot of issues where we haven't teased out the fine details, but it doesn't result in total ignorance. Again, I really don't see why you think there is a risk of falling into something like solipsism just from the idea that we could use more skepticism. This is very black and white thinking, and you're blocking yourself from exploring the question by insisting upon it.

Better is not objective though even with assumptions. I mean why assume X is better than Y? I wouldn't argue that society would be better if people were not homophobia because that wouldn't be a true statement. It would be true to say it would be different but not better. Even better chess or be a better scientists are subjective claims that aren't grounded in solid "hard" rules."

Chess players who win choose certain moves that are "better" and we objectively evaluate that to be the case from the fact that such players can win the game.

You're looking for a requirement to deem certain claims to be evaluated as true that doesn't need to be there. Performances in Chess games are a real thing, and they can be evaluated using logical reasoning.

Lies can be comforting and the problem is lies can lead to disastrous consequences. The problem is what comforts someone could spell faers doom. I suppose a wise person would take the trouble to separate the harmless comforting lies from the harmful yet comforting lies. Who has the time and the energy though? Why not just refuse to be comforted and err on the side of caution?

My issue is where does one draw the line. At what point is skepticism too far and according to whom? I — Darkneos

It's not a matter of skepticism being taken too far on any kind of linear axis, it's about there being two different senses of "skepticism", where you can (and should) do one of them 100% and the other 0% at the same time without contradiction.

There's skepticism as in being open to the possibility of your opinions being wrong, and accepting evidence to the contrary if it should happen to come up. This is something you should always do 100%. Always be open to new evidence, always be willing to question your opinions. I call this "criticism" to distinguish it.

Then there's skepticism as in rejecting every opinion out of hand just because there isn't good enough reason to force you to accept it, to prove that it is correct beyond any shadow of a doubt. This is something you should 0% never do, because if you're consistent about it, it will lead you straight to nihilism, solipsism, etc. I call this "cynicism" to distinguish it.

If you're critical but not cynical, that means you're open to tentatively believing in things just because they seem right to you, without being able to conclusively prove them right beyond all doubt, and yet also completely willing to throw those beliefs out if you should come across evidence to the contrary of them, and on the lookout for evidence that would be contrary to them.

That means you're free to believe comforting things (and should, for your own well-being), until you should see reason to reject them. And then you should find the next most comforting thing that might still be the case, and believe that until there is reason to reject it. (While meanwhile, also acting so as to minimize the chances of the least-comforting things coming true.)

I don’t think it’s on a linear axis, but I do think there is a spectrum of viable skepticisms. I’m more skeptical about political forecasts than scientific consensus, which I’m more skeptical of than logical conclusions. I think skepticism relies to some extent on confidence in practical terms, you can be open to being challenged on issues, but the problem is we don’t have all the time in the world. It’s not a reasonable way of living life to be open minded to the possibility of every conspiracy theory for instance, you have to make judgment on what’s worth your time. You have to juggle confidence and open mindedness.

That's been my issue, that just because someone believes something means there is some truth to it, there isn't. That was my mistake.

The problem I have is the extreme end, where you really get challenged. Where what you thought to be certain and obvious turns out to not be so. I'm still trying to process that I can't prove or determine if anything outside my thoughts exists. The external world is something I took for granted until philosophy challenged that. That would be an example of where challenging your assumptions is a bad thing and where I fail to see the merit of doing so. Even challenging how I know things (or how do you know you know). Please enlighten to my the merit of tearing asunder my certainty of others and external reality.

In my experience a lie can also avoid disaster and give peace of mind to troubled folks. Refusing to be comforted and erring on the side of caution in my experience tends to pan out poorly.

I can understand that skepticism of some things has merit, but from what I gathered it's far removed from the practice of the skeptics of old who doubted pretty much everything and in some instances held no beliefs (Pyrrhonism).

You can look at the current president as an example of how doubt is a slippery slope, people are losing faith in the institutions that run this country because of one guy. He might as well be the definition of solipsism because he certainly doesn't live in our reality, but that emboldens others and with fake news on top of that doubt is everywhere and reality is what you want it to be. Doubt is indeed a slippery slope and the more you practice it the more you begin to unknowingly doubt things that are fundamental to your sanity. Although this is speaking from personal experience and from some philosophy majors I spoke to in my school (and professors).

In my experience a lie can also avoid disaster and give peace of mind to troubled folks. Refusing to be comforted and erring on the side of caution in my experience tends to pan out poorly. — Darkneos

Give me an instance of it and I'll switch sides.

Pyrrhonism — Darkneos

:up:

I mean if a belief or idea brings someone comfort and help and it doesn't impact anyone else then why is accusing them of wanting to be comfortable a counterpoint in an argument? — Darkneos

The problem is that an "argument" is the opposite of something that "doesn't impact anyone else".

Skepticism requires a grounded basis just as much as Justified Belief. In a court case where one side has presented a fair amount of evidence, you need additional reasons to express skepticism, your skeptical case can not be arbitrary. Or in a more extreme case, you can try to pretend that you doubt mathematical statements like 1+1=2, but it would be posturing, it wouldn't be real skepticism. Properly functioning skepticism is a lived experience based on workable reasoning.

Think about why we make the case for skepticism in the first place. Skepticism in one own's moral judgment is grounded in the observation of cases of fallible human beings all around us, no one is perfect and we have emotional biases. Skepticism in science is grounded in an abundance of history of once established scientific truths that have been overridden by new evidence or better theories. (or its corollary, the trust we have in scientific theories to the extent we have them is because of its successes, in its predictions in experiment and its applications in technology)

What could skepticism that everything we observe and know about the world is fake possibly be grounded in? Doubt has to be based on something, we can't just doubt things just for doubt's sake.

I don’t think it’s on a linear axis, but I do think there is a spectrum of viable skepticisms. I’m more skeptical about political forecasts than scientific consensus, which I’m more skeptical of than logical conclusions. I think skepticism relies to some extent on confidence in practical terms, you can be open to being challenged on issues, but the problem is we don’t have all the time in the world. It’s not a reasonable way of living life to be open minded to the possibility of every conspiracy theory for instance, you have to make judgment on what’s worth your time. You have to juggle confidence and open mindedness. — Saphsin

That's perfectly in keeping with what I'm talking about. If some crazy conspiracy theory seems unlikely to you, you're free to believe to the contrary of it, without being able to prove the contrary of it. But if you should come across actual proof that it is true, then you should accept that proof and modify your beliefs accordingly.

Likewise, logical deductions are proof you can see for yourself; scientific consensus can usually tell a much more tractable story of why it's held and how you can check for yourself if you cared to; political predictions, usually less so; etc. Those are all degrees of how much something seems like it to you, and so how inclined you are to believe that way instead of to the contrary. Wherever you fall on any of those issues, you're free (as in, not epistemically wrong) to believe however seems likely to be correct to you, without having to conclusively prove that your position is right and everyone else is wrong; so long as you're also open to accepting evidence that you are wrong.

What could skepticism that everything we observe and know about the world is fake possibly be grounded in? Doubt has to be based on something, we can't just doubt things just for doubt's sake. — Saphsin

Besides the optical illusions, the fact that our senses don't perceive all reality, dreams, the effects of psychotropic substances on our perceptions, the rubber hand illusion when it comes to selfhood, do I need to continue? I mean the senses have been a subject of doubt for as long as philosophy has existed, likely with the Allegory of the Cave. Most people who espouse solipsism say "how can you prove otherwise".

Solipsism is recognizing that you can't prove, or even determine, whether anything outside of your thoughts exists. So solipsism is a fact. But I guess you are asking whether it's possible that the world as you perceive it doesn't exist.

You see my point?

Besides the optical illusions, the fact that our senses don't perceive all reality, dreams, the effects of psychotropic substances on our perceptions, the rubber hand illusion when it comes to selfhood, do I need to continue?

Your train of thought shouldn't continue because it is extreme. Try applying your reasoning arguing for radical skepticism to milder cases of skepticism and see if it works, and it clearly doesn't. That scientists make mistakes doesn't mean the whole scientific field is bunk and astrology might be equally true. That a friend that you know has told a lie to you before, being put under suspect to lower moral character, doesn't mean you should be open to the fact he might turn into Hitler the next week. Those aren't grounds for skepticism, the comparison between the pair examples are only superficially similar.

Is it though? I mean there is literally tons of evidence that show how fallible our sensations are. The biggest one being how we don't perceive all of reality itself and the things that we build are based on our imperfect sensations. So if it's imperfect all the way down then how can any of that be called knowledge? Neither you nor I can verify the existence of anything "outside" of us or whether it exists. It's something that must be taken on faith. You call it extreme but is it? I mean when there are so many examples of the fallibility and imperfection of a medium on what grounds do you have to believe what you are perceiving is the truth?

I heard it mentioned that any branch of knowledge is based on faith, faith that our observations are true observations and that we aren't being misled by some evil deity or whatever you want to call it. Like I quoted before, we cannot confirm or determine whether anything beyond our thoughts actually exists.

This is more than just a friend telling one lie, and astrology has no evidence to support it. There is plenty of evidence to show how imperfect our senses are. Even the philosophers of old knew this and began to question whether what we see or experience is really "there". In the end one can never know.

I am a solipsist as is everyone else (you too) — most believe there is actually an external reality peopled with other minds.

In my solipsistic worldview, each of our realities exist in superposition with all other realities. To each of us there is only our personal reality which is formed by our brains through consciousness, which constructs a mashup of external stimuli, transduced via our sense detectors into meaning and internal stimuli from memory, beliefs, dreams, and ideas (also via consciousness) which color our perception (perception is reality) of externally experienced (putatively shared) reality.

As we create each other ~7.5 billion potential creations (to use an electronics analogy, most of those potentials (other minds) are buried in our background noise, practically speaking we only create images of those of whom we are aware from signals which can be distinguished from the noise much the same as a time slice of superposed sounds in a recording.) Those signals (entities) are strengthened in proportion to our awareness, the emotional investment with which we imbue them, or by proximity, immediate or extended (a prime example of extension being social media).

This all happens in superposition. Our immediate realities occupy the local environs in overlaid dimensional layers and they seem to be spatiotemporally oriented, more or less. This creates the illusion of a common experience. We mostly agree this illusion (as we don’t realize that it’s an illusion) generally comports to a framework that facillitates social convention and harmony, albeit subconsciously.

All experiences are unique to the individual’s perception (perception is reality) and shared by co-creation of the event. Sometimes people’s perceptions are so out of sync with each other’s that there can be no agreement, comportment or even acknowledgement that the “shared” event could be other than the individual’s manufactured experience (cf. Trump’s perception vs. the press.)

Sorry about that quote, this one is better. The question is on "how you do prove the existence of anything beyond one's perception".

All evidence you will ever encounter is evidence of your own perception and nothing else. There is no evidence available, not of the type you seek. Neither will logic nor reasoning, nor anything similar help you; they are perceived as well, and not only that, they all rest—down on the very deepest level—on assumptions. This is true for any theory, without fail. These assumptions are for you to discard (or cling to) as you see fit, since there is no evidence for them either.

The very idea of "proof" is just an instance of the longing of mankind. This longing for stability and security is born out of our fear. "What if there is nobody else?" "What if I'm imagining it all?" "What if..." But such questions will not suffice. "Someone else" is clearly in the realm of ideas and hope. At least, you have no means to conclude anything else; nobody does! People will scream and shout; they will do anything to deny this fact. Remember this, and you will probably start noticing it yourself.

So in the end, one doesn't know whether everything is as it seems. That's all there is to it. You may very well keep believing in the "stuff out there," that's fine, but remember that it will always remain a belief. You could argue that solipsism is completely useless (it is, under most definitions of "use"), but know that it is not less true just because of that.

The rest is up to you. Embrace or deny; each option will bring both joy and sorrow. Good luck.

We're talking past each other because you're ignoring my core argument, which I clarified twice by now.

I'm talking about actual doable skepticism, and I gave several examples of how rational grounding relates to smaller cases, reread my posts above. The point was to show that what you're doing is not actual justifiable skepticism, but just getting from A to speculation Z without any plausible connection. Making up any possible alternate scenario that one can formulate in words is not a case for skepticism, neither in the radical skepticism that you're promoting or the common familiar types of skepticism that all of us observe and agree upon.

I don't think so. You are attempting to draw a line between justifiable and radical skepticism when the evidence on hand seems to lean more towards radical skepticism. I've already mentioned a few of the many examples of how flawed our senses are and how easy they are to mislead. Your position of "justifiable" is not tenable. I've given you plenty of quotes that explain why.

In regards to the friend lying it's not unreasonable to be open to the fact they might turn into Hitler next week. It's unlikely to occur but it could happen. It also would make you doubt their words in the future because they did it once. Scientists are also human and therefor prone to the same errors and lapses in judgment that the rest of us are so why should they be trusted? Why should I trust their observations when one cannot prove they have observations, etc?

I think trying to draw a line between justified and radical is just splitting hairs. It's all skepticism, the question of where to stop speaks more to the comfort level of the person not the topic.