I agree.

I point-blank quoted several instances where this was not the case. — AmadeusD

I am not entirely sure now which exchange and instances you are referring to, but if I think someone is giving their opinion on something, but making it sound like a fact, I tend to look for another viewpoint. I do this to myself too, just to see if I am assuming too much or missing another way of viewing things. This may be frustrating for others who have set ideas on things. But, as I said before, I appreciate that others have different views to me, I just get a little argumentative when people write opinions as facts. Actually, considering my viewpoint on this very question-- that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty-- strictly speaking, I think all points made are opinion. But I get the feeling we will disagree on this. It is perhaps prudent for me to leave this alone before I totally get on your nerves!

You're welcome to :)

but if I think someone is giving their opinion on something, but making it sound like a fact, I tend to look for another viewpoint. — Beverley

I just get a little argumentative when people write opinions as facts. — Beverley

This does certainly frame your comportment well. It is likely prudent, but I have no interest in such :)

↪Chet Hawkins I disagree. Evolution is not sentient. It does not choose anything consciously. It is a process that occurs in the real world - whatever its true nature. — Truth Seeker

Evolution is sentient. The whole universe is.
If we discuss properties of matter, we are discussing everything that is. I suppose one might also say that space must be discussed as separate from matter. But space is really more so the distance between matter. So, matter and distance then. And then one can speak of energy. So we have matter, energy, and space. And then maybe time.

How is any 'choice' not somewhat aware? Answer to the aware: It is always aware. It's only a matter (ha ha) of degree. The space between meaningful or realized as meaningful parts of matter of choice, which MATTERS, is larger. And you think this means none. Hilarious!

The 'real' world you describe and most people accept is a childish delusion of anger only. Anger is the honest emotion, 'keeping it real', by demanding that all images, all desires, stay somewhat in tune with objective moral truth. Anger is the honest emotion, 'calming fears', by demanding that we stand up every morning and face the unknown, our fear.

Everything contains the fractal seed of sentience. Therefore everything partakes of sentience. It is indeed a very unaware perspective that denies this obvious approach to 'reality'.

{When they told me I was delusional, I nearly fell off my unicorn!}

Evolution is sentient. The whole universe is. — Chet Hawkins

I think you would need to support this with some pretty exceptionally spectacular empirical evidence.

Even accepting that premise, much of the rest of the post (as example:

How is any 'choice' not somewhat aware? Answer to the aware: It is always aware. — Chet Hawkins

Anger is the honest emotion, 'keeping it real', by demanding that all images, all desires, stay somewhat in tune with objective moral truth. — Chet Hawkins

)

dont make sense in and of themselves. Then, this claim:

It is indeed a very unaware perspective that denies this obvious approach to 'reality'. — Chet Hawkins

It isn't obvious to any but a few who take that line of thinking. Being convinced of something does not make it so. This theory may feel good to you, but it is not something all-together coherent. Particularly when my opening remarks are take into account - No support for the premise is a big problem. I'm not going to get into the Morality issue - you've spent thousands of words explaining that you do not operate on the level others do.

Of course compassion and caring solve many problems, but not all. Clearly not all. For example, in the event of a plague compassion and caring helps enormously, but many will still die.
— jgill

Yes, of course, we cannot solve the problems of the world, but we can make small differences
(small on a worldwide scale) that actually may make a big difference to the person being helped. Furthermore, it can also help the person giving the help in my view. — Beverley

The last bit has to be said. Compassion helps the giver. Why?

It does so because anger is the source of compassion. Anger is the pre-balanced emotion, more honest. It partakes of both fear and desire, the typical polarity of the universe, and thus aids in cancelling both to balance. Why is it an aid?

As internally balanced anger can relate both to fear and to desire. It's a common ground, a roundedness, neutral. Anger demands the normal aims of both fear and desire vanish. It is both angry and finally calming, balance. Compassion is the so called 'empty love'. It calms the excited state of friendship, that 'you are like me' bond. And it calms the fire of pure passion, of desire itself, which is also exhausting and over-extending. This is why it is called empty. The balance is the final effect of the emotion anger, which makes it and its echo amid love, compassion, the source of the 'unity principle', effectively, "You are me and I am you'.

In this reflection, compassion shows us neither fear's delusional worthiness, nor desire's delusional worthlessness. Balance is achieved. Honesty shows us that by helping others we are only helping ourselves and we neither need to aggrandize that (virtue signal) nor to wallow in the temporary defeats of failure.

Amid peace of BEING who we are, anger, allows us to find balance from which it is easier to proceed along the path to perfection.

Evolution is sentient. The whole universe is.
— Chet Hawkins

I think you would need to support this with some pretty exceptionally spectacular empirical evidence. — AmadeusD

Shaka, when the walls fell!

I present to you, the universe. THAT is my evidence. Is it not yet enough. I will try to do better. Maybe you think I have no part in that?

Even accepting that premise, much of the rest of the post (as example:
How is any 'choice' not somewhat aware? Answer to the aware: It is always aware.
— Chet Hawkins

Anger is the honest emotion, 'keeping it real', by demanding that all images, all desires, stay somewhat in tune with objective moral truth.
— Chet Hawkins
)

dont make sense in and of themselves. Then, this claim: — AmadeusD

Sense alone is your goal. It cannot be the only goal or that is not wisdom. Wisdom seems to defy reason, via anger and desire. Reason is only fear. The fourth way includes all the other three in balance. If it seems like I am spouting lunacy only, I offer that the one-eyed man is not in fact considered king in the land of blind. He is put away and thought of as insane.

It is indeed a very unaware perspective that denies this obvious approach to 'reality'.
— Chet Hawkins

It isn't obvious to any but a few who take that line of thinking. Being convinced of something does not make it so. This theory may feel good to you, but it is not something all-together coherent. Particularly when my opening remarks are take into account - No support for the premise is a big problem. I'm not going to get into the Morality issue - you've spent thousands of words explaining that you do not operate on the level others do. — AmadeusD

I take that as high praise. Many thanks!
I will don my jesters hat (is how you see me) and preach sight to the blind even more.

So you advocate for the patron saint of depression, Macbeth:

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

Reason is fear. Confidence is anger. Who 'wins' when they battle? What of passion as well?

Your very existence is supported by the unknown. So what you know alone will never support you. It takes something more.

Every time I see the title of this thread, I'm reminded of Oprah Winfrey and her "What I know for sure" column/book.
https://www.oprah.com/spirit/the-top-20-things-oprah-knows-for-sure

Apart from some philosophers, people in general seem to be completely sure of a whole lot of things.

We do not actually KNOW anything at 100%. — Chet Hawkins

You vs. Oprah.

The thing is that in everyday life, we mostly have to deal with Oprah-type people, people who are 100% sure of things. So far, I have not found a viable way in philosophy for dealing with such utterly and completely sure people, much to my dismay and loss.

I present to you, the universe. THAT is my evidence. — Chet Hawkins

Are you serious my guy?

offer that the one-eyed man is not in fact considered king in the land of blind. He is put away and thought of as insane. — Chet Hawkins

Your self image is a rather impressive edifice

Reason is fear. Confidence is anger. Who 'wins' when they battle? What of passion as well? — Chet Hawkins

Oh, interesting. :)

It is possible that Hinduism is true. No, I am not a Hindu but there are Hindus on Earth. It is impossible to test the hypothesis that living things are souls who reincarnate according to karma in an illusory universe called Maya. — Truth Seeker

Why do you think it is possible Hinduism is true? What about Buddhism, Christianity? Hinduism has Karma and Maya. Christianity has Garden of Eden, the Heaven and Hell. Buddhism says you will be reincarnated to this world into some other species according to your Karma.

What attracts to you to Hinduism, but not to Buddhism or Christianity?

The thing is that in everyday life, we mostly have to deal with Oprah-type people, people who are 100% sure of things. — baker

the thing is... people arent asked a follow up or for a confirmation if they are 100% certain before people run off with what they accept to be wrong, rather than ignored or refused to be accepted as right (or wrong) Ignoring provides a way around, through without being seen yet, truth reveals though....No one cares to ask oprah if shes certain about those claims. AND those people that happen to care and exist, well, I can fully avoid and refuse their beliefs of certain claims, usually easily. I can see it coming, and confirm by simply asking a few questions. Because if I was bothered, i would have to admit a few different outcomes could happen, I like being bothered or if/when I want to become unbothered...That doesnt mean I am repelled from people who like or quote Oprah TO MAKE ANY POINT...Those Oprah-type people? Or just Oprah?

The thing is....these "people" and whatever insane claims they are making and "are sure completely sure of" are/is accepted, just as wrong or something "we (who is we?) mostly have to deal with")instead of just refusing to accept it (as right[orwrong?]) As anything! and its (its i mean they-those people you mean) [of bad opinions, disguised as bias-both non negotiable in general, how could they be certain of anything? you might know... ] you seem to be saying these certain people are simply tolerated by you MUCH to your own dismay AND loss? Can you prove, rather than letting the surety of acceptance you express in the comment you shared that you, if not you, people that were/are actually really bothered by Oprah-like people of certainty, and confirm that acknowledging it is your loss that you havent found a way in philosophy for dealing....you think one exists for you! that is to your loss and dismay. That seems to me like choosing to deal, not even accepting to DEAL with shit claims instead of attempting to understand or accepting the truth in those shit claims and why you dont want to understand shit claims...all that should be considered before making that judgement again, you dont have to deal with any insane claim of certainty...especially Oprah fans that do that.

Do you deal with things better from anything but when dealing from personal experience? (or close relation and clear understanding to/of that experience?)


"My kid is the cutest kid on the entire planet! You cant tell me otherwise"
Obvious this is dumb to say, bias or not. You'd have to get every kid lined up, in person, and confirm to be actually true. Their certainty should be taken with tone, and of course in context to what is exists to be so sure about anyways... what claims of certainty are you actually bothered with?

So far, I have not found — baker

So you looked, right? I believe you...Its clear you accept/tolerate instead of refuse or ignore and become susceptible to problems when examples are poor and used wrongly to build a weak stance upon already incredibly unstable grounds, bounds, and/or mounds. This is the mound I am talking about,

So far, I have not found a viable way in philosophy for dealing with such utterly and completely sure people, much to my dismay and loss. — baker

, what does this even mean?

chet vs oprah = you vs me

what claims of certainty are you actually bothered with? — Kizzy

To begin with, everyday things.
Such as an acquaintance accusing you of having done something, and ignoring evidence to the contrary. For example, an acquaintance (with whom I used to be on friendly terms years ago) accused me once that I called her. I denied, while she insisted that I was lying. Given the facts of the situation, I surmised that what happened was that her phone pocket-dialed me (she said she was backpacking and had her phone in her backpack and that it unclocked itself; this was back in the day of old Nokias that did all kinds of crazy things on their own). I wasn't around for that first call, but I returned it, and this was what she saw. It would be easy to just check the call history. But she refused to do that and instead insisted that I lied. The ease with which she accused me of lying!! And yet, who in the world would not side with her?

Things like that happen all time. One would need to have a team of lawyers and a camera crew at one's side at all times.

Secondly, metaphysical/spiritual/religious things. Like when people claim with 100% certainty that they know which religion is the right one (and how everyone who isn't a member of that religion will burn in hell for all eternity or some such).

So you looked, right? I believe you...Its clear you accept/tolerate instead of refuse or ignore and become susceptible to problems when examples are poor and used wrongly to build a weak stance upon already incredibly unstable grounds, bounds, and/or mounds. This is the mound I am talking about,

So far, I have not found a viable way in philosophy for dealing with such utterly and completely sure people, much to my dismay and loss.
— baker
, what does this even mean?

Good luck with refusing or ignoring a claim made by someone who is in a position of power over you, like a police officer, an IRS agent, your boss, etc.

Good luck — baker

thanks :roll:

Thank you.

I agree.

I disagree. Pantheism has no evidence to support it.

Your worldview is esoteric and your evidence is not evidence but faith.

It's not just Hinduism that could be true. All religions and the worldviews they offer could be true. I am an agnostic atheist because the evidence does not support any religion. Most religions believe in immortal souls that either reincarnate or resurrect despite the lack of evidence for the existence of the soul. It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything such as souls and gods and imaginary creatures such as fairies. Just because it is impossible to prove a negative, it does not make them true.

I'm not at all sure we are disagreeing here. — Banno

I'd refer you to yourself:

This is said without irony? — Banno

In Chess, it is true that the bishop stays on it's own colour. — Banno

Without the bishop staying in one colour, it wouldn't be chess. Because of that, the above is simply an analytic statement of "If the bishop stays on its own colour, it is true that the bishop stays on its own colour", which is non-informative. I could raise an issue about analytic statements, but when I say nothing is set in stone I am referring mostly to a posteriori judgements. Every "it is true that..." has implicit "ifs", each "if" is a drop of uncertainty. Skepticism is a problem, a problem must be recognised before it is overcome.

Stressing about Skepticism is futile, agreed. If Hume cannot overcome it and Kant cannot defeat it, what hope do mere mortals have?

Still, it's worth keeping it in mind as a problem. For ignoring it completely defeats the point of what is right about it, that we cannot attain certainty - in this world at least. — Manuel

Well put and case in point.

Physically no, but metaphysically and logically? May be or why not? — Corvus

Because... it is not logically necessary that there is life in Mars, and we know there is none there.

Cogito to "I exist" is a deductive leap, tautology or just monologue. Problem with Cartesian cogito is, it lacks the content. Lack of content in cogito allows even denial of Ergo sum. What if, the content of cogito was "I doubt" or "I deny"? Does "Ergo sum" still stand? — Corvus

You say the cogito lacks content, which doesn't make sense, then you say "what if the content was...", implying it has a content different from what you were about to say, meaning it has content.

Are you serious my guy? — AmadeusD

No one making Deepak Chopra-like claims is serious.

:ok:

No one making Deepak Chopra-like claims is serious. — Lionino

Except Deepak? hehe

Because... it is not logically necessary that there is life in Mars, and we know there is none there. — Lionino

What are the evidences for the claims?

You say the cogito lacks content, which doesn't make sense, then you say "what if the content was...", implying it has a content different from what you were about to say, meaning it has content. — Lionino

Cogito was empty, so I put some contents to demonstrate anything can be put in as the content, even the contents which doubts or denies the existence of Descartes. If cogito content was "I think I don't exist.", then the conclusion "therefore I exist.", would be a contradiction.

What are the evidences for the claims? — Corvus

Logic does not use evidence.

If cogito content was "I think I don't exist." — Corvus

What?

It's not just Hinduism that could be true. All religions and the worldviews they offer could be true. I am an agnostic atheist because the evidence does not support any religion. Most religions believe in immortal souls that either reincarnate or resurrect despite the lack of evidence for the existence of the soul. It is impossible to prove the nonexistence of anything such as souls and gods and imaginary creatures such as fairies. Just because it is impossible to prove a negative, it does not make them true. — Truth Seeker

Isn't your acceptance of all religions and the worldviews they offer as possibility contradiction to your true belief, which is an agnostic theist's view? Why do you accept them as possibility for being true?

If you are an agnostic atheist, then shouldn't you reject all the religious claims as false and impossibility? Are you being an unauthentic agnostic atheist? Or your acceptance of the religious claims as possible truths were dishonest? Which is the case?

Logic does not use evidence. — Lionino

Evidence or arguments or whatever. Your claims don't have any backings.

If cogito content was "I think I don't exist."
— Corvus

What? — Lionino

"You think you don't exist, therefore you exist.", is a contradiction.
For your cogito's empty content, "you don't exist" could be posited in there.

Except Deepak? hehe — AmadeusD

Deepak is not serious either, but as in a serious person.

Evidence or arguments or whatever. Your claims don't have any backings. — Corvus

My claim that there is no life in Mars has plenty of backing.

If you think you don't exist, therefore you exist, is a contradiction. — Corvus

Good thing that was not Descartes' argument.

My claim that there is no life in Mars has plenty of backing. — Lionino

"The earth is flat." had more plenty of backings for far longer time.

Good thing that was not Descartes' argument. — Lionino

I was just pointing out "I think therefore I am." is illogical.
The "think" has no content.

"The earth is flat." had more plenty of backings for far longer time. — Corvus

And there is nothing necessary about the Earth being flat or otherwise.

I was just pointing out "I think therefore I am." is illogical.
The "think" has no content. — Corvus

That it is illogical does not follow from it having no content, that is nonsensical especially when logic deals with syntax, not semantics, content is irrelevant. Even then, neither of those two are true, it is both logical and think has content because it means something. You are denying something that is self-evident.

And there is nothing necessary about the Earth being flat or otherwise. — Lionino

When I said "backing", I was meaning the logical arguments or scientific evidence, rather than the media backings. You said that your claim had a lot of media backings, and I was saying media and popular opinion backings don't offer the necessary ground for your claims.

That it is illogical does not follow from it having no content, that is nonsensical especially when logic deals with syntax, not semantics, content is irrelevant. Even then, neither of those two are true, it is both logical and think has content because it means something. You are denying something that is self-evident. — Lionino

Thinking must have contents. You cannot just say "I think, therefore I am". What were you thinking of? Were you thinking of a beer? Or a burger? or chips? We don't know what you were thinking of. You should have made clear the content of the thinking for your conclusion "I am". (You = Descartes)

And "Cogito" is not sufficient or necessary logical ground for existence. It is epistemic perception of existence, which is the ground for the existence. Existence cannot be deduced logically.

You said that your claim — Corvus

I said no such thing. My statement was that it is not logically necessary that there is life in Mars, which it isn't, all you need to do is acquaint yourself with the meaning of logical necessity.

What were you thinking of? — Corvus

It doesn't matter, it can be anything, that is the point. I walk therefore I move. "Well but you didn't say where you are walking so the statement is illogical". It is a nonsensical argument.

And "Cogito" is not sufficient or necessary logical ground for existence. It is epistemic perception of existence, which is the ground for the existence. Existence cannot be deduced logically. — Corvus

I also have no clue what this means.