I see two statements above.
The first statement compares a belief with a fact, articulating a belief as 'something possible' vs something actual (factual). <-- this statement speaks to clarity.
It speaks to the main issue, since being wrong about a belief would require it to actually not be the case that our belief is true. So recognizing the possibility that our beliefs are mistaken is different from believing we are wrong.
The second statement compares two beliefs (two possibilities) therefore neither are definitively actual/factual.
beliefs are not "possibilities", they are positions about the truth or falsity of a state of affairs. For them to be wrong, it must actually be the case that what we believe is false.
So, this is how I see it. Something actual is already factual even if it isn't realized, therefore it qualifies as an 'unrealized' fact. Whereas something possible is also potentially false as well as possibly true. In a left/right dichotomy the objective Truth is calculated in the abstract center. It's used to reason upon two subjective opposing yet equally valid points of view. Wherefore in a left/right dichotomy it's possible to question our own beliefs on one hand without necessarily compromising our beliefs on the other hand.
If it is unrealized, it's a possibility and not a fact. I'm not sure what you're on about with the rest of this paragraph.
Okay, this is worded differently, but it's still carrying the same circular thought. You're claiming that if we honestly question everything, we end up facing inadequate grounds for justification (inadequate grounds for a just conclusion). <--- I've already proven this theory is not true ---> "It's an observable fact that it is reasonable to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty and it's unreasonable to presume someone is guilty until proven innocent."
You haven't' proven it untrue, you've adopted one of the three prongs of the trilemma(dogmatic/axiomatic) and ran with it. You've stopped the questioning at something you think is self-evident rendering it immune to questioning.
We either accept something as true dogmatically, resort to circcular reasoning, or find ourselves facing an infinite regress of questions. <--- Apart from the circular reasoning, this statement is true. Why? Because by definition, it's not possible to prove that that which is Eternal is actually Eternal.
It's not about definitions, it's an open problem in epistemics from a thought experiment about a man trying to lift himself and his horse out of the mud by pulling on his hair.
If we don't question slander, it is wickedness. If we question slander, it is faithfulness.
Defending negative prejudice is cynicism, defending positive prejudice is grace.
Negative prejudice violates Love others as oneself, positive prejudice doesn't.
As an aside Please note: "...the paralysis arises because if we honestly question everything..." <--- You said 'everything' rather than 'something'. When we claim 'everything' we're denoting an absolute.
I have no idea what you're on about with the first part of this, and the second seems to miss the issue at hand. I'm not asserting an absolute, I'm recognizing a live problem in epistemics. Questioning everything means not taking anything as self-evident, because as soon as we assert something as self-evident we cannot question it.
Well yes, "reality" is a difficult term to qualify. But that doesn't mean observable facts appear according to our opinions. On the contrary what we believe to be true manifests emotions accordingly.
The issue is, "facts" tend to more often be common agreements not to question them rather than indisputably true statements.
That's why terms like realized and unrealized exist.
The simple point is that reality dictates what is factual, and reality is not created in our imaginations.
Sure, but the key issue there is that we don't apprehend reality directly. We have senses that are interpreted. by our brains. For example, what we see is inverted and corrected by our brains rather than the raw image our eyes detect. And our perceptions are highly dependent on our beliefs and the language we use, for example speakers of languages with more words for different colors are able to perceive subtler variations of color than those with fewer color words. Reality isn't created in our imagination, but we do not apprehend it naively.
To be clear, I'm qualifying meaningful as the opposite of meaningless, and I'm qualifying meaningless with this ---> "they'll either end up paralyzed and unable to believe anything, or throw up their hands and become a nihliist".
yeah, but you used two different sense of "meaning", one being carrying a definition and the other denoting purposeful
Since I use True dichotomies to reason upon, they're not arbitrary constructs. Hence it was easy to conclude ---> it's reasonable to presume someone is innocent till proven guilty and unreasonable to presume someone is guilty until proven innocent. <--- This is not an arbitrary construct.
How was it determined that it was reasonable to presume someone is innocent until proven guilty?
It's not that complicated. I look down and see my toes and it's self-evident that I have toes. Similarly, it's self-evident to me that you exist since I'm here responding to your correspondence. Since I'm corresponding with you, I can know it's false to conclude that you don't exist.
To the first, you're conflating two distinct situations. Certainly, it would be foolish to question things immediately present to us. But if we're to question everything, we must entertain skeptical hypotheses such as the question of whether we were created in this very moment with false memories implanted in us. Or that what we "see" is a simulation and not reality. Or that the "person" we're conversing with on the internet is not in fact a person but is an AI chat bot. Claiming somehting is self-evident is simply taking skeptical inquiry off the table, and fails as a solution for Munchaussen's trilemma
We use axioms to reason upon.
These are basic axioms ---> somethings are true --->somethings are false.
They form this positive/negative dichotomy ---> True/False
Those aren't axioms, that's a tautological statement. Which while trivially true tell us nothing about reality, only about what we mean by the words we use.
This is circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. --->There are no universally self-evident Truths because the dogmatic solution is no solution.
Nope, there are no unversally recognized self evident truths because no one has proposed something that everyone agrees upon. Claiming something is self-evident isn't a solution to Munchaussen's trilemma, it's simply refusing to subject whatever is supposedly self-evident to skeptical inquiry.
Not true, the axiom that no one can prove something is Eternal means we must either trust or distrust. ---> Trust/distrust <--- True dichotomy.
I'm not sure you understand what the word "axiom" means.
