HOW do my efforts to engage in this conversation come off as trolling? You stated your issue, I wonder if it actually is one and if so HOW BIG of an issue is it to the RELEVANCE of this THREAD?

You present a whole paragraph of seemingly irrelevant or incoherent questions, and then when I ask what you think the relevance to the issue is in what you wrote, you respond by saying there is no issue, and then asking how that seems like trolling?
The issue from the start is that @Chet Hawkins claims we do not know anything, and yet provides no argument for that claim, while speaking dogmatically in a way that suggests he think he knows a whole lot.
It's tedious and boring stuff, totally vacuous, and you haven't helped make it any more interesting...to me at least.

No. I'm not thinking in terms of justification. I just see my hands, feel them, use them, so I know I have hands. Doubt about it is impossible unless I buy into some silly artificial possibility like "brain in a vat" or " evil demon.

.↪Bylaw
I agree with you that eliminating the word 'know' from the lexicon would make no difference. That said, I do think that people often take themselves to know things which they really don't.

My issue is that we do know many things, so eliminating the word 'know' would be impossible in any case, because then we could no longer speak accurately about our experiences. — Janus

I kindly ask if you REREAD my paragraph, that was replying to the bold response you made to Bylaw. I dont understand how you find it to be irrelevant to YOUR issue?

you respond by saying there is no issue, and then asking how that seems like trolling? — Janus

I asked that because you questioned if I was. You initiated that term! EVEN WITH THE EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF YOU.

This continues to be a pointless exchange.

There is no fair exchange happening, but I do not disagree Janus

You present a whole paragraph of seemingly irrelevant or incoherent questions, and then when I ask what you think the relevance to the issue is in what you wrote, you respond by saying there is no issue, and then asking how that seems like trolling? — Janus

you dont have to ask, READ...its not "seemingly" irrelevant IS IT? OR IS IT NOT?

The issue from the start is that Chet Hawkins claims we do not know anything, and yet provides no argument for that claim, while speaking dogmatically in a way that suggests he think he knows a whole lot. — Janus

Also, not really an issue but a personal one. One you have with a dying interest in understanding anyways... He claims not that, just that there is NO knowledge. Has nothing to do what he thinks he claims we dont know or how he says it...would that change things FOR YOU if how he said his arguments were tailored to your liking how does that affect your issues? Do the issues transform? Do they stem from an underlying issue, or just not HELP YOU UNDERSTAND your issues through?

Once you have a belief about something, you can have knowledge about it then after the belief because you're using the belief as a foundation for your knowledge, For example, once you believe that knowledge exists, the knowledge you gain then after that you don't need to believe you have once again since your foundational belief already takes care of that.

I don't need to believe anything when I can simply see what the case is. I don't say all knowledge is not reliant on belief. So-called propositional knowledge is defined as justified true belief, and I have no problem with that because I think, under a certain interpretation, that we can be said to know things we are not certain about.

Although the coherence of that idea turns on justification and it may not be entirely clear as to just what constitutes justification. There may be many cases where we believe such and such is the truth, and if we have good reason to believe what we do and if what we believe is the truth we may be said to have knowledge under that definition, even if we are not certain the belief is true, In that case we could be said to know, but not to know that we know.

Oh? So you're making the claim that we can know things without belief? In that case, can you tell me why life has to make sense to us? Because the reasoning you're using is based on the idea that life has to make sense, which I consider to be a belief. Can you tell me why it's not a belief?

Because tomorrow, for all we know life could suddenly stop making sense, logic that we once thought we understood so well could suddenly change, causing us to not understand how to make reasonable arguments anymore. We assume that it doesn't because of belief, because if we didn't use belief then we would know, but we can't do that because we are dependent on our ability to reason, not our ability to know. To truly know something is to not need to use reasoning because you simply understand exactly how things are in regard to what you know.

Because the reasoning you're using is based on the idea that life has to make sense, — Echogem222

Cant you see, life can and does makes sense to JANUS--which appears things "obvious" to them...when they aren't obvious then they are "issues" when the issues change without sharing where we can find, how we can find a common ground to proceed from the blockade that is placed FOR A REASON... then is it POINTLESS because it always was to begin with? I believe that is the case. Unless the point was to show that chet is wrong YOU have yet to say an original thing besides complaining about your issues. You'd think if the issues were major, you would seek answers but the answer you want does not exist because you ask NO QUESTIONS that can help others HELP YOU solve? Why did you go on to create a discussion based on what he said in the Existentialist thread? Did you think you were going to uncover something he has never said before? Do you think he WANTS to explain to you? Maybe he does, I think he tried. You do not try to understand. You try and tell what he is supposed to be doing, how he should be doing it, explaining things to YOU....but refusing to swallow the words because it's lost on you not because his confidence is problematic. I mean, it could be but that is also a non-issue here. No one has to tailor their word to a particular liking, you do not have to believe. You said you dont anyways, so its easy for you to do that...LIFE is HARD!

↪Echogem222I don't need to believe anything when I can simply see what the case is. I don't say all knowledge is not reliant on belief. So-called propositional knowledge is defined as justified true belief, and I have no problem with that because I think, under a certain interpretation, that we can be said to know things we are not certain about. — Janus

↪Kizzy
This continues to be a pointless exchange. — Janus

Because a back and forth is required and you do nothing to help yourself understand, besides what you always have done. You are claiming no arguments have been made, but what if we are getting there??? You are limiting the possibilities and ultimately only robbing yourself...Its the same old DOG SHIT, a shame.

Great questions. Lets see if they are coherent, mine apparently were not for Janus. Maybe I will take a page from your book, if your communication efforts work better for his understanding. If anything, I will know (ha ha) and NO THANKS to him, what about my questions were not good enough to be acknowledged...based on the evidence that Janus provides in how he proceeds with answering your response. My THANKS to you! Do I believe MY and HIS exchange is pointless, not on my end. BUT they are when such refusal is happening, its fine. I am not here for JANUS' amusement, "

It's tedious and boring stuff, totally vacuous, and you haven't helped make it any more interesting...to me at least. — Janus

" I am here because I CARE. Pointless exchanges are only that, for Janus, but not for the right reasons...He calls this an exchange. Do I believe this exchange is pointless? No I do not. For the reasons that ought to be clear, people are continuing to engage...18 pages later. And JANUS gets nothing...

No. I'm not thinking in terms of justification. I just see my hands, feel them, use them, so I know I have hands. — Janus

When you say, "I just see my hands, feel them, use them, so I know I have hands," you're giving an argument using a sensory justification. It seems to me it's just an enthymeme. I'm not sure why you would think that's not a justification. You're even using the word know epistemologically.

Hi Sam26, I am glad you bring this up. It is kind of confusing TO UNDERSTAND, and apparently not just for me to understand that statements like Janus' "So, when I look at my hands I cannot but be certain that I have hands — Janus," that are used NOT to defend "knowledge" but defend "certainty". I wonder the same thing, — Kizzy

We often use the term certainty as a synonym for know, so there is no problem there. You seem to be using the word certain as a kind of subjective feeling, i.e., as a conviction of what you believe. If you're using certainty in this way, it's not an epistemological use. We also sometimes use the word know in the same way, i.e., as an expression of one's inner conviction. Both uses are fine, but you have to be clear about how you're using these concepts, otherwise, things get a bit muddled.

things get a bit muddled. — Sam26

Yes, I'd say. Thanks for the further intel. I am still green with such specific philosophical terms and the proper usages. I am trying, nonetheless!

When you say, "I just see my hands, feel them, use them, so I know I have hands," you're giving an argument using a sensory justification. It seems to me it's just an enthymeme. I'm not sure why you would think that's not a justification. You're even using the word know epistemologically. — Sam26

I'm using the "know" of familiarity. I see my hands, feel my hands, use my hands, know my hands. I'm not justifying any belief, simply reporting the experience of having hands.

Because the reasoning you're using is based on the idea that life has to make sense, which I consider to be a belief. Can you tell me why it's not a belief? — Echogem222

Life does make sense to us, provided we don't ask incoherent questions. Of life didn't make sense we could not survive. We speak from present experience, not from barely imaginable possibilities.

Because tomorrow, for all we know life could suddenly stop making sense, logic that we once thought we understood so well could suddenly change, causing us to not understand how to make reasonable arguments anymore. — Echogem222

That is merely a vaguely imaginable scenario, not a serious consideration.

And JANUS gets nothing — Kizzy

Don't presume to speak for me...that would be a good start if you really want to engage.

Yeah, you're right the ending was a bit much. I do apologize for that last little bit, the part you quoted. I was meaning like "all this engagement and Janus is not getting anything out of it, nothing?!?" I see how it does presume I am speaking for you, but we both know (ha ha) that I am in no place to do that...

No problem and no need to apologize, When I spoke of it being boring, tedious, vacuous I was referring specifically to Chet's unargued pontifications, not the whole thread. I always find value in trying to formulate and express my views, and all the more if someone can show that I have been misguided. I try to be open to alternative views, perhaps I don't always succeed, and no doubt I have my own scotomas.

When I spoke of it being boring, tedious, vacuous I was referring specifically to Chet's unargued pontifications, not the whole thread — Janus

I know that but you also seemed to say that my contributions to chets boring model and your issues within this self-induced boredom you are experiencing does not help in that same sentence! Fine. Fair enough, I just wanted to know why for my own sake. I have apologized for making you think something I did not mean, not what I actually meant. Of course there is NO NEED for me to apologize...there is no need to do anything, but we all ought to do the right thing. Apologizing to move forward peacefully is the right thing, it is considerate but I prefer to stand corrected especially when it comes to my usage of words to be heard, felt, understood. Acknowledgment is only but a start.

I know that but you also seemed to say that my contributions to chets boring model and your issues within this self-induced boredom you are experiencing does not help in that same sentence! — Kizzy

I don't know, perhaps I didn't read you closely enough, but to the extent that it seemed to me that you were indulging what I see as Chet's self-indulgent grandiosity it seemed to me a "wankfest" I don't know if you agreed with him or if you were just being polite to him, but if I misunderstood you, then I in turn apologize.

I basically agree with your "move forward peacefully" but I also don't mind a bit of conflict and confrontation and challenge in the process of examining one another's ideas. I never take anything personally on here.

I basically agree with your "move forward peacefully" but I also don't mind a bit of conflict and confrontation and challenge in the process of examining one another's ideas. — Janus

Cool, that is great news.

I don't know, perhaps I didn't read you closely enough, but to the extent that it seemed to me that you were indulging what I see as Chet's self-indulgent grandiosity it seemed to me a "wankfest" I don't know if you agreed with him or if you were just being polite to him, but if I misunderstood you, then I in turn apologize. — Janus

Apology accepted.

:cool:

Life does make sense to us, provided we don't ask incoherent questions. Of life didn't make sense we could not survive. We speak from present experience, not from barely imaginable possibilities. — Janus

Life does make sense to us provided we don't ask incoherent questions... That's like saying, fairies are real until you start asking questions. You think incoherent questions invalidate your reasoning if you were to take them seriously, but the fact you can do that at all already invalidates your reasoning.

If life did not make sense we could not survive? Yeah, that's why I believe that life makes sense, but I still believe it, and yet you're acting like if you did what I'm doing now, you'd go crazy... yet I'm doing it just fine and not going crazy at all.

That is merely a vaguely imaginable scenario, not a serious consideration. — Janus

It being even vaguely imaginable already invalidates your reasoning. If you truly knew things, that should be impossible.

+++

It is your subjective opinion that things are like that which you are using to say I'm wrong. But if I decided to use your reasoning, I could just say that you're wrong because what you're saying doesn't make sense to me given the severe lack of depth your counter argument has.

When someone says they know that apples taste good, but someone else says they only believe apples taste good, the fact that someone can have a belief of something which should be known as true, should already be a strong indicator that you can't know such things.

:up:

The way you express this is jumbled. I DO NOT state ever that things are 'undecidable'. That is your word and very wrong. Everything is decidable, just always partly wrong. That is the nature of belief.
— Chet Hawkins

This is confused, If something is undecidable then we cannot know the truth about it. — Janus

I am taking the word 'undecidable' to mean what it should mean, and does in some ways, even colloquially. That is that which cannot be decided upon. We are able to decide. So you're wrong. This does not mean that decisions cannot be wrong, as you just showed. The matter IS NOT confusing to me.

Again, if you wish to break out some esoteric knowledge, even if it's academically narrowed or specific, that is less available to colloquial understanding and so hurts in helping people to earn wisdom.

We can know the truth about many things, and these are therefore decidable. It doesn't follow that people cannot decide to believe they know the truth about those things which are undecidable—this happens all the time. — Janus

No, it does not. That certainty is not possible. That is my point.

I do not refuse to use the word 'know' as I have shown in many cases in this thread. I bet I wrote it more than anyone else did.
— Chet Hawkins

You know perfectly well that I meant that you do not use the word to apply to yourself. — Janus

No, as mentioned many times I do not know anything. I believe I was aware of your incorrect turn of phrase there, yes. But my confidence IS NOT certainty, so you're wrong again.

Of course, you must use the word in order to refer to the idea so that you can reject it. Your thinking seems quite shallow, but I don't doubt that it is clouded by some dogma or other. — Janus

If you'd really like to compare thinking between us, a simple review of this thread only will reveal the true quality of Farmir of Gondor (me). You're much more akin to the likes of Boromir who thinks he can know things. It's ok! I have a few decades on you in all probability. There is till time for you to visit the snack bar and come away enriched!

I'm familiar with the teachings of both Naranjo and Gurdjieff, I have participated in the Gurdjieff Foundation in Sydney and completed two of Naranjo's 'SAT' workshops. The enneagram typology has some interesting insights, but life and people are not so configured as to fit neatly into such systems. — Janus

Yes, they are. And I can agree with you that the Enneagram intelligentsia itself is often not quite ready to stand up properly for their system. They are loathe to put the system in moral terms because they want a new secular faith to take the place of religion and also they want to make money at it. Mixing moral and immoral concerns muddies all waters.

The issue from the start is that Chet Hawkins claims we do not know anything, and yet provides no argument for that claim, while speaking dogmatically in a way that suggests he think he knows a whole lot. — Janus

So this is ad hominem. I clearly state that I do not know things in many posts, so you're accusation is not only ad hominem, but also just wrong.

Further, I have given arguments in many, many posts, meaning you are racking up quite a list of decidedly uncareful statements of wrongness.

If you'd really like to compare thinking between us, a simple review of this thread only will reveal the true quality of Farmir of Gondor (me). — Chet Hawkins

:rofl: