100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: On belief... | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Tue 09/27/11 11:13 PM
|
|
You loose patience when people don't play the game your way. (or agree with you.)
I lose patience trying to guess what you are talking about. It's very often ambiguous. so meh. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, I tried. I thrive on disagreement. You've no idea how wrong you are about that. Learning that one is mistaken about something or other requires disagreement. I seek out the differences because a self-contained system cannot recognize it's own flaws. Think/believe what you may. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't play games here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, I do not make up the rules of logic/philosophy, I just do my best to follow them and point them out when necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
jrbogie
on
Wed 09/28/11 02:11 AM
|
|
Now, here's another problem I see. It is one grounded upon behavioral expectation. If another makes statements which do not hold up to stringent critical thinking processes(logic/reason) while in the midst of objecting and/or debating to statements that I've made, then they ought expect criticism in return. I am actively practicing and engaging in critical/analytical philosophy, and this is a philosophy forum. When engaged in philosophical discourse, if another's statements logically lead to absurd, unintelligible, nonsensical, self-contradictory, and/or counterintuitive conclusions, I will point it out as clearly as I know how. That's one part of doing philosophy, and a crucial one for building and/or maintaining a coherent set of thoughts/beliefs about the world and/or ourselves. It is also crucial for not assenting to falsehood or likely falsehood. of course "stringent critical thinking processes [logic/reason] varies among individuals, no. your falsehoods are not likely my falsehoods. Yet another problem here is one of interpretation of facts/events. I do not aim at ridicule. You've accused me of intentionally proposing questions/dialogue for the intent of ridiculing another. This is an allegation that you are not equipped to be able to make about me.
i'm eqquped to make any allegation i choose to make about you or anybody else. there is no question that you believe that that is the case, afterall you've stated it clearly enough. Following your earlier statements, I'm inclined to think that you believe that you know this, because you've experienced it and equate experience and knowledge. Well, that notion is false. Knowledge cannot be false. It cannot be knowledge. It is therefore, false belief. Now, in order for you to accept that, you must first trust the source. Evidently, that could be a problem in this case. Nonetheless, it is a requirement for taking another at their word. I'm telling you jrbogie, I am not ridiculing you personally. I'm merely being very critical of what is being stated/claimed. There is a huge difference.
oh, i'm all to familiar with false beliefs posing as knowledge. christianity for instance. the sources you trust differ from the sources i trust. you ridicule many here personally. So here are the choices...
1. You accept the notion that you're mistaken about another's intent, based upon the testimony of the other. 2. You do not and continue to hold a false belief. you don't get to limit my choices. i've one that you neglected to mention. i can believe nothing. I cannot tell you what to do, nor would I. All I can say, is that your interpretation of what has transpired here in this thread and perhaps others is lacking in truth somewhere along the line. I am sorry you feel that way.
no doubt my interpretations differ from yours as does what i find to be lacking. but no need to be sorry. i'm here for my entertainment and amusement and this thread has provided both. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, I do not make up the rules of logic/philosophy, I just do my best to follow them and point them out when necessary.
we all make up our own rules of logic/philosophy. you simply insist on playing by your rules while rejecting the notion that others may follow a different set of rules. what is a persons philosophy if not his own notions derived from his own thinking supported by his own life experiences? must i agree with the logic/philosophies of augustine, thomas aquinas, hitler, muhamed simply because they've made known how they came to their conclusions? that's what you fail to get. you just cannot seem to fathom that someone else just might not adhere to the same reasoning process as you. so you resort to rediculing their reasoning seemingly thinking, 'believing' as you'd say, that such a debate tactic somehow raises your reasoning process on high above all others. it never has that effect, of course, but i see it often on the forums. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There's an example of absolute certainty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is no ABSOLUTE certainty and i need not refer to an internet site to realize that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well they say that only fools are absolutely certain (positive.) So there may be some people who feel that they are absolutely certain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is no ABSOLUTE certainty and i need not refer to an internet site to realize that. Are you certain of that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
nope. just my reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good call Pan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An absolute statement denying itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Wed 09/28/11 06:38 PM
|
|
Well they say that only fools are absolutely certain (positive.)
While there is some merit within this, it is not entirely accurate. We are all certain enough to continue acting in ways based upon the consistency that we see everyday and our beliefs about what will happen. Thinking otherwise is foolish. Dismissing certainty, based upon not knowing everything is an argument from ignorance. Not ridiculing... that's what it is called. We need not know everything in order to know some things. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For one who claims to hold no belief jrbogie, the statements that you're making are chock full of presupposition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is an absolutely certain statement that is true of all humans who speak common language.
One cannot take another at their word unless they trust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Peter_Pan69
on
Wed 09/28/11 06:59 PM
|
|
Well they say that only fools are absolutely certain (positive.)
While there is some merit within this, it is not entirely accurate. We are all certain enough to continue acting in ways based upon the consistency that we see everyday and our beliefs about what will happen. Thinking otherwise is foolish. Dismissing certainty, based upon not knowing everything is an argument from ignorance. Not ridiculing... that's what it is called. We need not know everything in order to know some things.
What's that? "foolish"???? Ad Absurdum... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone who understands the words that I am writing is holding certainty regarding their belief of language construction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Foolish is lacking good judgment.
|
|
|
|
|
