Implicit, unspoken, hidden, undisclosed, etc.

Pan, I usually use the primary definition for whatever terms I employ. Webster's collegiate. It is available online.

OK then, so you are not using it to mean "unknown" or "undiscovered"?

Nah. I do not talk about the unknown. I mean, afterall, if it can be discussed, then it is obviously not unknown. The unknown is a negative limit. We must acknowledge it, but cannot possibly describe that which may or may not 'exist' there.

So, then you are accusing jr of knowingly holding a belief while denying it publicly?


I remember 3 pages of semantic crap about your use of the word "covert". You made a claim of someone being "covertly dishonest" then defended your use of the term to mean "unknown, concealed, covered".

One way implies purpousful concealment, the other plain ignorance...

No, actually I'm not, and that does not necessarily follow from anything I've said.

I think that jrbogie thinks that what he writes is the case. I say that because I find no need to question his honesty regarding those things, and I know that to state X is to believe that X is true.



Ummm... ok. So I've employed the term in more than one way on more than one occasion. Is that a problem?



False dichotomy, it could mean something a little nicer... right? I mean, a charitable reading of what I said would have taken note that the term "covert" was used in a definition regarding what constitutes being a presupposition.

I mean, you've asked me to define some terms, then wrongly used the terms given within the definition in an attempt to set out a case regarding something or other completely different from the definition itself.

Why ought I continue to answer questions from you Pan, when it is clear that there are ulterior motives? I mean, come out with it already, will ya? If you have something to say, do not beat around the bush, say it.

What kind of philosophy do you like? I looked it up on wiki and apparently there are several different kinds.

Epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, philosophy of language... oh yea...

Ethics.

Simply silly huh? I mean, what's to doubt regarding that?

If I say "The cat is on the mat" and another knows what it means, then they are certain what those terms refer to. If they understand what it would take for the claim to be true, then they understand what I mean. In order to understand what another means, certainty regarding the language itself must be had.

I mean what better to demonstrate this other than when another doesn't know what you mean? One has a lack of certainty regarding their own belief about what the speaker means, and this uncertainty causes one to ask for clarity.

All belief, if by that I mean false, true, justified, unjustified, and the combinations thereof have common denominators, some of these would be...

1. Truth presupposition about something or other
2. Requires making a distinction
3. Requires mental correlations
4. Requires trusting our own perceptual faculty
5. Physiological sensory perception

That is all pretty simple and logical. Not very deep or thought provoking though. So I don't know why it is important for you to argue that because you feel certain about these things, that it would bother you that everyone may not want to claim absolute certainty.

If we live in a simulated mind matrix that can be changed by a thought, and the cat on the mat vanished, the person that was absolutely certain could then go completely insane with denial.

So, having had my own certainty turn out to be totally wrong (a mistake) I chose to keep the slight belief that anything is possible.

But within the scope of everyday life we do take certain common things for granted. The sun will come up tomorrow. People will drive on the correct side of the road. People will speak the same language and they will not shoot me on sight etc.

Am I absolutely certain the sun will come up tomorrow? Pretty much. I have no reason to doubt it won't.

But what if we live in a simulated reality and someone pulls the plug on it? Or what if this is just a dream, and I wake up?

I can't absolutely rule out that possibility, but I don't worry about it.

Sometimes simple is all that is needed to show how far away from reality thought can get. If it gets too far away, it begins to deny itself.



I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never said that it would bother be that everyone may not want to claim absolute certainty. What bothers me is the spread of known demonstrable falsehood.



Perhaps, but we don't live in such a reality, nor do we have sufficient reason to believe that we do.



It does not follow from that fact that humans are fallible creatures that anything is possible. Acknowledging one's own mistakes is admirable and can be quite difficult, however it does not follow from the fact that we've been wrong about some things that we've been wrong about everything.



That is the key to understanding what constitutes sufficient reason to be certain. If there is no valid reason to doubt, then we can be certain. We are certain first, and learn to doubt later. That is important to understand.

What ulterior motives? It's the same as always...

I'm just pointing out the faults in your logic...
You do ridicule people. Whether it be covert or overt, I am absolutely certain of this fact.

Silly, foolish, nonsense, implying a lack of reasoning, etc., are all forms of ridicule. Ridiculing someone for their beliefs does not make your points valid, it only shows a lack of decorum and patience and most likely, knowledge.


Well, it doesn't follow that if creative believes X, then X must be true. That is where your logic fails you.


There's a whole world of people whose criterion is much stricter than yours...

That's the claim, I've yet to see the justification for it.



I have.



They can be.



Agreed.



Agreed.



Not my logic.

Try again?

No need to, you just validated my points...



Deny again???

Can I show you the error in your logic without offending you?

Sure, but take notice of you admittance of ridiculing people...


Ad Absurdum



That's one logical error of many.

I admit to having partook in a little ridicule from time to time. We all have, have we not?



It does not follow from the fact that I can admit that I have that I am actively ridiculing whenever another feels that way or makes the accusation - such as the one which grounds this conversation. The allegation was that I begin threads for the purpose of ridicule. That is not true.

My arguments do not depend upon ridicule for their validity. Do you understand this? I mean, the argument stands or falls on it's own merit, rididule or the lack thereof notwithstanding.

Your earlier post is based upon at least one false presupposition. I do not hold that X is true because I believe X.