The Problem with Non-Philosophers

[Archaeopteryx]

After reading your response I am so grateful that my life is not so full of doubt.

Sounds like you could do with a bit of doubt.

 

[Ahermit]

If you had the power of precognition, you wouldn't have to ask. You'd know the answer before this thread even started.

Not only have you avoided the question, but used a typical black&white type logical fallacy to back yourself up.
Much like:
Non-philosopher support precognition.
Philosopher do not support precognition.
Therefore philosophers do not support non-philosophers.

 

[Ahermit]

Sounds like you could do with a bit of doubt.

I have doubt, after all I am human, but I am not so full of it.
The more truth a person holds the less doubt he entertains.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have doubt, after all I am human, but I am not so full of it.
The more truth a person holds the less doubt he entertains.

Hmmm... I'm not so sure. To loosely quote Bertrand Russell: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

After reading your response I am so grateful that my life is not so full of doubt.

I am happy to live with doubt and uncertainty - when I have good reason to doubt.

 

[Ahermit]

Hmmm... I'm not so sure. To loosely quote Bertrand Russell: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

But wisdom is proved by there actions. A person full of doubts does not know which way to turn and is stuck struggling in trying to do something. While a person of truth and fearlessness acts true.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But wisdom is proved by there actions. A person full of doubts does not know which way to turn and is stuck struggling in trying to do something. While a person of truth and fearlessness acts true.

I don't think doubt necessitates indecision. Instead, it encourages questioning and inquiry; processes that can lead one closer to truth and better, more informed decisions. A person who is cocksure may "fearlessly" steer his ship into a reef without ever admitting that he could be wrong. That sort of fearlessness is more commonly known as hubris.

 

[Ahermit]

I don't think doubt necessitates indecision. Instead, it encourages questioning and inquiry; processes that can lead one closer to truth and better, more informed decisions. A person who is cocksure may "fearlessly" steer his ship into a reef without ever admitting that he could be wrong. That sort of fearlessness is more commonly known as hubris.

Agreed.
That is why I said '... a person of truth...' and not a person of arrogance.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Agreed.
That is why I said '... a person of truth...' and not a person of arrogance.

Doubt requires humility. It therefore opposes arrogance.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But wisdom is proved by there actions. A person full of doubts does not know which way to turn and is stuck struggling in trying to do something. While a person of truth and fearlessness acts true.

I see a false opposition of doubt with truth and fearlessness - they are not sides of the same coin.

If, on a cloudy day, I doubt that the weather will remain dry, it is wise to take an umbrella when I go out if I don't want to get wet.
If, on the other hand, I am confident and fearless that it will remain dry, I will go out without an umbrella and I may get wet. That is not wise if I don't want to get wet.
The truth here is that the outcome (i.e. the weather) is not certain, and it is wise to acknowledge that uncertainty.

One might say it's wise to be truthful and fearless in acknowledging one's doubts and uncertainties

 

[Conscious Z]

That is so illogical.
Part of determining and justifying your reasoning requires imagination of what could be true. Preknowledge requires an element of imagination. "If so..., what if..., could that be ...," etc., all these are imaginings. In this regard, unjustified methods of knowledge were used to determine what is logical or not. To disregard the illogical is in itself illogical.
Paradoxes exist because they require imagination to see both sides of the coin, though each side cannot see the other. Philosophers of logic are prone to only come from one side of the coin. And non-philosophers are more willing to accept that the coin does have another side to it. By doing so, they can see both sides of a paradox.

"What it..." is not knowledge. Knowledge requires that a person actually believe a proposition, not just consider a proposition. Further, the person must have arrived at that belief through a justified method. Finally, that belief must be true. That is what philosophers have considered to be knowledge since Plato. However, in the last fifty years, there has also been a recognition that a fourth anti-luck element must be present as well in order to avoid certain types of cases.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Good response. I think this is a big part of it. It is similar to the distinction people often draw between "theory" and "practice," as though theory is somehow inherently irrelevant to practice.

Yes, many people draw the distinction that you describe above. This kind of division between what ends up being deemed as useful and what is not deemed as such (even though it may still be useful) can even be seen manifested among a number of scientists (surprisingly!).

So, we may also want to include here the issue of why persons like scientists, who operate with complex analyses, can and often do disregard the implications of second order thinking found in the field of Philosophy of Science (and NOS - the Nature of Science). On this note, I like what John S. Wilkins has to say [in the link below], and I think we should ponder this in addition to the issue of why religious people don't "do" philosophy, and why non-philosophers (i.e. the general public) don't want often think deeply or "do" philosophy (by which I mean, of course, the implementation of logic and critical thinking, epistemology, metaphysics, axiology, etc):

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/07/why-do-philosophy-of-science/

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Ahermit]

Doubt requires humility. It therefore opposes arrogance.

Where there is humility there is truth. It is truth that opposes arrogance. Humility is accepting the truth above anything else, which brings a person back to earth (humus) from the high perch of arrogance.
That is why a person of truth is not arrogant, but humble in knowing what is true opposes any arrogance/pride/ego within.
By knowing the truth is sure and reliable, doubt has no hold, and the person becomes doubtless (fearless) to act, without looking back.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Where there is humility there is truth. It is truth that opposes arrogance. Humility is accepting the truth above anything else, which brings a person back to earth (humus) from the high perch of arrogance.
That is why a person of truth is not arrogant, but humble in knowing what is true opposes any arrogance/pride/ego within.
By knowing the truth is sure and reliable, doubt has no hold, and the person becomes doubtless (fearless) to act, without looking back.

Perhaps, but what is the truth and how do we know it?

Is believing that a falsehood is the truth more dangerous than accepting that we may not know the truth, or that the truth may be context dependent?

 

[Ahermit]

Perhaps, but what is the truth and how do we know it?

Is believing that a falsehood is the truth more dangerous than accepting that we may not know the truth, or that the truth may be context dependent?

Perhaps, but what is the truth and how do we know it?
In the response, 'perhaps', contains an element of detected truth. The truth was sensed, but became clouded by doubt (fear). It takes courage to separate the fear from the truth. I know that what I am saying is not logical on the surface, but at depth it becomes clearly true.

Is believing that a falsehood is the truth more dangerous than accepting that we may not know the truth, or that the truth may be context dependent?
Yes. Knowing what is not truth requires some knowing what is truth.
In regards to context, truth requires no context/story to prove itself. Only we do that. That is why when we hear the truth we know it without knowledge as to why it is so. Because the knowing does not comply to logic, doubt (fear) is introduced to change a 'yes' to a 'perhaps'.
It takes faith to hold onto the 'yes' long enough for all the doubt (veils) to subside (drop) and allow the truth to be seen by our doubtlessness. As I said, truth does not need to validate (promote) itself, but doubt does.
A person of truth knows the truth about their fears (doubts) and how it clouds the real truth; where logic (validity) is just another form of context/story clouding the truth again.

 

[Architeuthus]

Because the knowing does not comply to logic, doubt (fear) is introduced to change a 'yes' to a 'perhaps'.
It takes faith to hold onto the 'yes' long enough for all the doubt (veils) to subside (drop) and allow the truth to be seen by our doubtlessness. As I said, truth does not need to validate (promote) itself, but doubt does.
A person of truth knows the truth about their fears (doubts) and how it clouds the real truth; where logic (validity) is just another form of context/story clouding the truth again.

That's dangerous. I've met many deluded people and conspiracy theorists who thought that way.

Knowledge needs verification.

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)

"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." (Acts 17:11)

 

[Ahermit]

That's dangerous. I've met many deluded people and conspiracy theorists who thought that way.

Knowledge needs verification.

"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)

"Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." (Acts 17:11)

Testing the spirit is exactly what 'It takes faith to hold onto the 'yes' long enough for all the doubt (veils) to subside (drop) and allow the truth to be seen by our doubtlessness,' is about. Doubt is a fear. The only thing that fears the truth is what is not true, such as our self-fabricated ego.

There is a difference between a knowledge of the truth, which does not need verification, and knowledge of untruth that seeks verification.
Truth does not need verification, it is obvious. It does not need or want anything to make it true since it is already true. Truth is pure and complete.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God (Truth) is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

God knows what is in our our hearts.
A person of truth has deep discernment. They know the difference between discerning the heart from the context of the mind. Jesus Christ is a man of truth, and knew what was in peoples hearts. He spoke the truth and used parables to help the logical to break free (if they have an ear to hear, and not a censored mind, to hear the truth).

I feel I have nothing more to say, that would make sense, to those that cannot discern what I have been saying.

 

[Architeuthus]

Truth does not need verification

But it does; that's why the Bereans in Acts 17:11 were "examining the Scriptures."

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God (Truth) is living and active.

Let me be like the Bereans and verify that: you're mistranslating the passage. ζῶν γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐνεργὴς = "For the word of God is living and effective" (HCSB).

The phrase ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ = "the word of God" in Hebrews 4:12 refers not to truth in general, but either to the Christian message (as with the same phrase in Hebrews 13:7: "Remember your leaders who have spoken God’s word to you") or perhaps to God the Son (as with John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word").

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Where there is humility there is truth. It is truth that opposes arrogance. Humility is accepting the truth above anything else, which brings a person back to earth (humus) from the high perch of arrogance.
That is why a person of truth is not arrogant, but humble in knowing what is true opposes any arrogance/pride/ego within.
By knowing the truth is sure and reliable, doubt has no hold, and the person becomes doubtless (fearless) to act, without looking back.

Why are you assuming that doubt has no hold when a person knows something true? What could warrant such absolute certainty?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

There is a difference between a knowledge of the truth, which does not need verification, and knowledge of untruth that seeks verification.

It is not knowledge unless it has been verified. Natural philosophy has taught us that. Verification comes before knowledge. Consider Descartes, who realised the only truth he could he could know in and of itself was that he thought; acknowledging that even his experience of God could be a malevolent spirit deceiving him.

Truth does not need verification, it is obvious. It does not need or want anything to make it true since it is already true. Truth is pure and complete.

Perhaps you're conflating the concept with its reification - but what you say is contradicted by everyday experience. Instances of truth are only obvious if true by definition - and even then, as in mathematics, only the most trivial tautologies are obvious.

I feel I have nothing more to say, that would make sense, to those that cannot discern what I have been saying.

You can't blame others for failing to understand you; communicating your ideas effectively is your responsibility. What you have been communicating isn't a philosophical argument, but unsupported assertion without logical foundation.