Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by nothing »

Regardless of what so-called good & evil are (and/or are not), it would anyways take a state of "belief" to ever "believe" one is the other and/or the other is the one. This means that "evil" is nothing more than a condition wherein one "believes" the polar opposite of what is true (ie. that which is, is not and/or that which is not, is). Evil is thus a condition defined by/as belief-based inversion.

As such, "evil" can not occur lest by way of "belief". Another way of stating this (within the context of Abrahamic theology) is: it is not even remotely possible to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil lest by way of "belief" such to ever "believe" evil is good / satan is god (thereby such to bring suffering & death into the world). That is: all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers".

If an all-knowing god does exist, it must know all: not to "believe" for knowing if/when the constituency of any "belief" is not necessarily true. It is for this reason that the pursuit of knowing all (who/what/where/why/when/how and ultimately if): not to "believe" is a/the only practical approach to any possible all-knowing state: god, or no god. Those who call themselves "believers" are thus liable to be (up-to) 180-degrees upside-down such to "believe" the polar opposite of what is true (ie. evil is good / satan is god).

Between 'all knowledge' and all 'belief-based ignorance(s)',
All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum...
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7057
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:21 pm Regardless of what so-called good & evil are (and/or are not), it would anyways take a state of "belief" to ever "believe" one is the other and/or the other is the one. This means that "evil" is nothing more than a condition wherein one "believes" the polar opposite of what is true (ie. that which is, is not and/or that which is not, is). Evil is thus a condition defined by/as belief-based inversion.

As such, "evil" can not occur lest by way of "belief". Another way of stating this (within the context of Abrahamic theology) is: it is not even remotely possible to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil lest by way of "belief" such to ever "believe" evil is good / satan is god (thereby such to bring suffering & death into the world). That is: all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers".

If an all-knowing god does exist, it must know all: not to "believe" for knowing if/when the constituency of any "belief" is not necessarily true. It is for this reason that the pursuit of knowing all (who/what/where/why/when/how and ultimately if): not to "believe" is a/the only practical approach to any possible all-knowing state: god, or no god. Those who call themselves "believers" are thus liable to be (up-to) 180-degrees upside-down such to "believe" the polar opposite of what is true (ie. evil is good / satan is god).

Between 'all knowledge' and all 'belief-based ignorance(s)',
All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum...
Belief is subject to time as time necessitates the lack of totality in observing something. Belief is the observation of things through time, thus belief is unavoidable given we observe through time.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by nothing »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:16 am Belief is subject to time as time necessitates the lack of totality in observing something. Belief is the observation of things through time, thus belief is unavoidable given we observe through time.
Belief is indeed subject to time because any/all "false" belief(s) (otherwise taken to be "true") have an associated gravity.
This "gravity" is ultimately a natural consequence of "believing" the polar opposite of what is true such to locally induce.
Any/all actions (ie. "karma") performed under the pretense of such "false" beliefs (as if) being "true" can only exist in/throughout "time".

By contrast, to be spiritual is to transcend the limitations of the physical (ie. "time").
If one observes things only through "time", one is not at all spiritual.

Be careful not to impose a (ie. your own local) boundary where none otherwise exists on the whole:
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:16 am ...given we observe through time.
...you may observe through time, but this is not necessarily true for all others.
It is certainly possible (for spirituality: necessary) to "observe" that which is not bound to/by "time".
This condition is met if/when the phenomena being observed is space/time-invariant,
the same condition "truth" invariably satisfies. If there is no "time", there is no "gravity".
If "time" exists, "gravity" exists (& not the other way around as Western science "believes").

To state "belief" is "unavoidable" is to suffer a "belief"-based ignorance which betrays knowledge (itself).
Belief is avoidable in/as knowledge which otherwise negates it.
The presence of knowledge implies the absence of belief (& vice versa).
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 7057
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

nothing wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:31 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:16 am Belief is subject to time as time necessitates the lack of totality in observing something. Belief is the observation of things through time, thus belief is unavoidable given we observe through time.
Belief is indeed subject to time because any/all "false" belief(s) (otherwise taken to be "true") have an associated gravity.
This "gravity" is ultimately a natural consequence of "believing" the polar opposite of what is true such to locally induce.
Any/all actions (ie. "karma") performed under the pretense of such "false" beliefs (as if) being "true" can only exist in/throughout "time".

By contrast, to be spiritual is to transcend the limitations of the physical (ie. "time").
If one observes things only through "time", one is not at all spiritual.

Be careful not to impose a (ie. your own local) boundary where none otherwise exists on the whole:
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 2:16 am ...given we observe through time.
...you may observe through time, but this is not necessarily true for all others.
It is certainly possible (for spirituality: necessary) to "observe" that which is not bound to/by "time".
This condition is met if/when the phenomena being observed is space/time-invariant,
the same condition "truth" invariably satisfies. If there is no "time", there is no "gravity".
If "time" exists, "gravity" exists (& not the other way around as Western science "believes").

To state "belief" is "unavoidable" is to suffer a "belief"-based ignorance which betrays knowledge (itself).
Belief is avoidable in/as knowledge which otherwise negates it.
The presence of knowledge implies the absence of belief (& vice versa).
We observe through time. Any phenomenon which is observed, including the totality of being, is observed through time thus necessitating belief. Provide an example of something which is not observed through time.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by nothing »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:14 pm We observe through time. Any phenomenon which is observed, including the totality of being, is observed through time thus necessitating belief. Provide an example of something which is not observed through time.
As stated: it is possible to observe phenomena which is not bound to space/time.
We can observe "through time" but also can observe not through time.

As stated: all "matters" related to truth are intrinsically space/time-invariant as matters of truth indiscriminately apply to (ie. in) all places at all times, resulting not in any mundane "observation" (subject to/of local distortions) but "realization" containing no such distortions. The realized state thus necessitates having a/the capacity to consciously account for one's own distortions, else: "observed" phenomena is bound (ie. to space and/or time) according to those same distortions.

In other words: if you "believe" that "belief" is "necessary" whereas in reality it is not, the same is your impasse.
One may be grounded in "belief" but the same implies an absence(s) of true knowledge (hence observation through time is inescapable).
However, one may conversely be grounded in "knowledge" implying an absence(s) of false "belief".

Stating "belief" is "necessary" catastrophically discriminates against the alternative state (of being): knowledge
as arrived at by way of consciously falsifying any/all false "beliefs" (the same one would otherwise be "grounded" in).
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4146
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Terrapin Station »

nothing wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:21 pm Regardless of what so-called good & evil are (and/or are not), it would anyways take a state of "belief" to ever "believe" one is the other and/or the other is the one. This means that "evil" is nothing more than a condition wherein one "believes" the polar opposite of what is true (ie. that which is, is not and/or that which is not, is). Evil is thus a condition defined by/as belief-based inversion.

As such, "evil" can not occur lest by way of "belief". Another way of stating this (within the context of Abrahamic theology) is: it is not even remotely possible to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil lest by way of "belief" such to ever "believe" evil is good / satan is god (thereby such to bring suffering & death into the world). That is: all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers".

If an all-knowing god does exist, it must know all: not to "believe" for knowing if/when the constituency of any "belief" is not necessarily true. It is for this reason that the pursuit of knowing all (who/what/where/why/when/how and ultimately if): not to "believe" is a/the only practical approach to any possible all-knowing state: god, or no god. Those who call themselves "believers" are thus liable to be (up-to) 180-degrees upside-down such to "believe" the polar opposite of what is true (ie. evil is good / satan is god).

Between 'all knowledge' and all 'belief-based ignorance(s)',
All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum...
Huh?

Re the very beginning of your post, I basically get that at least conventional usage of the terms have them as opposites. If x is evil, x is not good. That bit is fine.

But then you lose me already with "Evil is nothing more than a condition wherein one believes the polar opposite of what is true." I suppose you're implying that you'd say that good amounts (at least partially) to "believing what is true," but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as "believing what is true" doesn't seem to link up very well with the conventional usage of "good" in a moral sense.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by nothing »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:36 pm Huh?

Re the very beginning of your post, I basically get that at least conventional usage of the terms have them as opposites. If x is evil, x is not good. That bit is fine.
If x is evil, x is the polar opposite of what is true.

There are two "definite" states in perpetual conjugation: that which is & that which is not.
What "is" is to alpha (A), "not" is to omega (Ω).
"Is" & "Not" are a/the polar binary (of definition).

Example(s):
Α: Islam is a religion of peace.
Ω: Islam is not a religion of peace.

One of these is "true" (Ω) and the other is the polar opposite of what is true (A).
Consider this in light of what follows.
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:36 pm But then you lose me already with "Evil is nothing more than a condition wherein one believes the polar opposite of what is true." I suppose you're implying that you'd say that good amounts (at least partially) to "believing what is true,"
No - "belief" is the condition required for evil, not good.

Good is (in) knowing what NOT to "believe".
If you "believe" something, it is because you do not know.
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:36 pm but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as "believing what is true" doesn't seem to link up very well with the conventional usage of "good" in a moral sense.
Believing something to be true allows for the inversive condition that one "believe" the polar opposite of what is true.
Knowing something to be true allows not for the same inversive condition, hence knowledge > belief.

"Belief" is thus required for evil & all knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum...
As one knows all: not to "believe" one definitely indefinitely approaches any possible all-knowing "state": god, or no god.

If an all-knowing god exists, knowing all not to "believe" approaches that same all-knowing god.
If an all-knowing god exists not, knowing all not to "believe" entails knowing not to "believe" in a non-existent all-knowing god.
It doesn't matter which is true: god, or no god, knowing all not to "believe" satisfies both conditions simultaneously.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4146
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Terrapin Station »

nothing wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 5:55 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:36 pm Huh?

Re the very beginning of your post, I basically get that at least conventional usage of the terms have them as opposites. If x is evil, x is not good. That bit is fine.
If x is evil, x is the polar opposite of what is true.

There are two "definite" states in perpetual conjugation: that which is & that which is not.
What "is" is to alpha (A), "not" is to omega (Ω).
"Is" & "Not" are a/the polar binary (of definition).

Example(s):
Α: Islam is a religion of peace.
Ω: Islam is not a religion of peace.

One of these is "true" (Ω) and the other is the polar opposite of what is true (A).
Consider this in light of what follows.
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:36 pm But then you lose me already with "Evil is nothing more than a condition wherein one believes the polar opposite of what is true." I suppose you're implying that you'd say that good amounts (at least partially) to "believing what is true,"
No - "belief" is the condition required for evil, not good.

Good is (in) knowing what NOT to "believe".
If you "believe" something, it is because you do not know.
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:36 pm but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, as "believing what is true" doesn't seem to link up very well with the conventional usage of "good" in a moral sense.
Believing something to be true allows for the inversive condition that one "believe" the polar opposite of what is true.
Knowing something to be true allows not for the same inversive condition, hence knowledge > belief.

"Belief" is thus required for evil & all knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum...
As one knows all: not to "believe" one definitely indefinitely approaches any possible all-knowing "state": god, or no god.

If an all-knowing god exists, knowing all not to "believe" approaches that same all-knowing god.
If an all-knowing god exists not, knowing all not to "believe" entails knowing not to "believe" in a non-existent all-knowing god.
It doesn't matter which is true: god, or no god, knowing all not to "believe" satisfies both conditions simultaneously.
Oy vey, what a mess.

So first, knowledge (or more specifically what we call propositional knowledge in philosophy), is a type of belief. Namely, it's justified, true belief.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3458
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Sculptor »

nothing wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:21 pm Regardless of what so-called good & evil are (and/or are not), it would anyways take a state of "belief" to ever "believe" one is the other and/or the other is the one. This means that "evil" is nothing more than a condition wherein one "believes" the polar opposite of what is true (ie. that which is, is not and/or that which is not, is). Evil is thus a condition defined by/as belief-based inversion.

As such, "evil" can not occur lest by way of "belief". Another way of stating this (within the context of Abrahamic theology) is: it is not even remotely possible to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil lest by way of "belief" such to ever "believe" evil is good / satan is god (thereby such to bring suffering & death into the world). That is: all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers".

If an all-knowing god does exist, it must know all: not to "believe" for knowing if/when the constituency of any "belief" is not necessarily true. It is for this reason that the pursuit of knowing all (who/what/where/why/when/how and ultimately if): not to "believe" is a/the only practical approach to any possible all-knowing state: god, or no god. Those who call themselves "believers" are thus liable to be (up-to) 180-degrees upside-down such to "believe" the polar opposite of what is true (ie. evil is good / satan is god).

Between 'all knowledge' and all 'belief-based ignorance(s)',
All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum...
You might be happy to learn that I read that all twice.
The first time was a little difficult and seemed to be nonsense.
You may well be happy to learn that on the second reading my opinon of it changed completely.
Rather than it being nonsense I realise that it was far from just nonsense but also confused gibberish and nonsense.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by nothing »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:48 pm So first, knowledge (or more specifically what we call propositional knowledge in philosophy), is a type of belief. Namely, it's justified, true belief.
Knowledge is certainly not a "type of belief" - such a suggestion is absurd.
If you "believe" something, it is because you do not actually know.
If you "know" something, you know what not to "believe" about it.
Knowledge is thus a practical negation of belief.

"Justified true belief" is some ridiculous new age dogma attempting to pass off the uncertainty in/of "belief" as (if) certain knowledge.
It arises from people who merely "believe" what they want to be true & "justify" it according to their own mundane desire(s).

Trying to state "knowledge" is a type of "belief" is the same as stating certainty is a kind of uncertainty. It is a conflation of polar opposites.
There is no such thing as a "justified true belief" & if you "believe" there is, you "believe" the polar opposite of what is true.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:54 pm You might be happy to learn that I read that all twice.
The first time was a little difficult and seemed to be nonsense.
You may well be happy to learn that on the second reading my opinon of it changed completely.
Rather than it being nonsense I realise that it was far from just nonsense but also confused gibberish and nonsense.
I don't believe you can read/comprehend very well, as you certainly can't spell very well.
If your "opinon" (sic) is that it is nonsensical confused gibberish, you should be able to indicate specifically what is & why.
If you instead see "all of it" as so, then perhaps "realise" (sic) the problem is in your own distorted vision.

Maybe Age/Terrapin can teach you how to "justify" yourself.

General:
Age/Terrapin has the "justified true belief" mental virus which causes "believers" to catastrophically conflate knowledge & belief, and
Sculptor is unable to grasp the (very simple) concept(s) and has admitted to being confused.
He will likely try to blame me for his own confusion but that is what people who can not account for their own internal state of being do.

Questions:
Age/Terrapin - can you define (your use of) the words "justified", "true" and "belief"?
Sculptor - can you indicate, specifically, what is nonsensical/gibberish?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3458
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Sculptor »

nothing wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:40 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:48 pm So first, knowledge (or more specifically what we call propositional knowledge in philosophy), is a type of belief. Namely, it's justified, true belief.
Knowledge is certainly not a "type of belief" - such a suggestion is absurd.
If you "believe" something, it is because you do not actually know.
Actually it is commonly used in this way. Knoweldge is a "justified true belief". Just because you beleive in a thing does not necessarily mean it is false. Where that the case then no one would permit any beliefs, as they would all be, by definition false.
Chew that one over!
Personally I would rather keep the two words separate but that is not the coin.
If you "know" something, you know what not to "believe" about it.

Knowledge is thus a practical negation of belief.

"Justified true belief" is some ridiculous new age dogma attempting to pass off the uncertainty in/of "belief" as (if) certain knowledge.
Its as old as the hills.
At least as old as Plato's Theaetetus
But the phrase, as it comes into the modern world is Edmund Gettier's. He coined it in 1963, hardly "new age dogma". He died about a month ago. But were he alive I do not think he be happy with your idiotic dismissal.
It arises from people who merely "believe" what they want to be true & "justify" it according to their own mundane desire(s).
Some might, but then you might claim knowledge that Trump won the election or that COVID is a conspiracy. People claim false knoweldge and there are soime people modest enough to say their knowledge is belief.
Trying to state "knowledge" is a type of "belief" is the same as stating certainty is a kind of uncertainty. It is a conflation of polar opposites.
No it is not.
Why would you think that? Or do you just beleive it?
There is no such thing as a "justified true belief" & if you "believe" there is, you "believe" the polar opposite of what is true.
gibberish.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:54 pm You might be happy to learn that I read that all twice.
The first time was a little difficult and seemed to be nonsense.
You may well be happy to learn that on the second reading my opinon of it changed completely.
Rather than it being nonsense I realise that it was far from just nonsense but also confused gibberish and nonsense.
I don't believe you can read/comprehend very well, as you certainly can't spell very well.
What you beleive is of no significance!!
You don't know shit!
If your "opinon" (sic) is that it is nonsensical confused gibberish, you should be able to indicate specifically what is & why.
If you instead see "all of it" as so, then perhaps "realise" (sic) the problem is in your own distorted vision.
Word salad.
Is English not your first language?

Maybe Age/Terrapin can teach you how to "justify" yourself.

General:
Age/Terrapin has the "justified true belief" mental virus which causes "believers" to catastrophically conflate knowledge & belief, and
Sculptor is unable to grasp the (very simple) concept(s) and has admitted to being confused.
He will likely try to blame me for his own confusion but that is what people who can not account for their own internal state of being do.

Questions:
Age/Terrapin - can you define (your use of) the words "justified", "true" and "belief"?
Sculptor - can you indicate, specifically, what is nonsensical/gibberish?
Yes, happily - answer: most of what you think and write it seems.
DPMartin
Posts: 340
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:11 am

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by DPMartin »

nothing wrote: Tue Apr 20, 2021 11:21 pm Regardless of what so-called good & evil are (and/or are not), it would anyways take a state of "belief" to ever "believe" one is the other and/or the other is the one. This means that "evil" is nothing more than a condition wherein one "believes" the polar opposite of what is true (ie. that which is, is not and/or that which is not, is). Evil is thus a condition defined by/as belief-based inversion.

As such, "evil" can not occur lest by way of "belief". Another way of stating this (within the context of Abrahamic theology) is: it is not even remotely possible to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil lest by way of "belief" such to ever "believe" evil is good / satan is god (thereby such to bring suffering & death into the world). That is: all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are "believers".

If an all-knowing god does exist, it must know all: not to "believe" for knowing if/when the constituency of any "belief" is not necessarily true. It is for this reason that the pursuit of knowing all (who/what/where/why/when/how and ultimately if): not to "believe" is a/the only practical approach to any possible all-knowing state: god, or no god. Those who call themselves "believers" are thus liable to be (up-to) 180-degrees upside-down such to "believe" the polar opposite of what is true (ie. evil is good / satan is god).

Between 'all knowledge' and all 'belief-based ignorance(s)',
All knowledge negates all belief-based ignorance(s) ad infinitum...
no this is way off base


Adam didn't know evil until he experienced it, therefore he didn't have to believe and trust that what he was experiencing is evil. but, he was informed the truth before hand of what was good and evil for him.

so it required faith, believe and or trust, in the one who informed him to not experience evil. but once he experienced what was evil for him there is no faith (belief/trust) required to know what was evil for him in the circumstance at that time.


its as simple as that.

you receive a check for something you're selling you trust when you deposit that check you will be credited money for it, once the check clears, you don't have to trust to receive the money any more. once you experience, you know, and belief and trust are not required for what you have experienced.
nothing
Posts: 621
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 9:32 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by nothing »

Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm Actually it is commonly used in this way.
Yes, because it is commonly misunderstood/abused in that way.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm Knoweldge is a "justified true belief".
Belief is not knowledge.
You can only "believe" something if you don't know.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm Just because you beleive in a thing does not necessarily mean it is false.
Nobody stated as much - it is possible to believe something that is true, however it is still not knowledge.
If you believe in a thing it is because you do not know it is true.
If you knew it were true, it would be knowledge & not mere "belief".
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm Where that the case then no one would permit any beliefs, as they would all be, by definition false. Chew that one over!
Belief is, by definition, not knowledge.
Belief implies one or more degrees of uncertainty - to not actually know, but merely "believe".
Knowledge implies no degrees of uncertainty - to actually know thus what not to "believe".
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm Personally I would rather keep the two words separate but that is not the coin.
Knowledge and belief are antithetical - they should be separate.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm Its as old as the hills.
At least as old as Plato's Theaetetus
But the phrase, as it comes into the modern world is Edmund Gettier's. He coined it in 1963, hardly "new age dogma". He died about a month ago. But were he alive I do not think he be happy with your idiotic dismissal.
It's new age branded & indeed "old" as it is the same old underlying problem: trying to pass not-knowledge as knowledge.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm Some might, but then you might claim knowledge that Trump won the election or that COVID is a conspiracy. People claim false knoweldge and there are soime people modest enough to say their knowledge is belief.
A person can not state their "knowledge" is "belief" without being completely ignorant of what knowledge even is.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm No it is not.
Why would you think that? Or do you just beleive it?
I already explained this above.
Belief implies one or more degrees of uncertainty.
Knowledge implies no degrees of uncertainty.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm gibberish.
Yes "justified true belief" is gibberish, I agree.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm What you beleive is of no significance!!
You don't know shit!
You should look in the mirror and tell that to yourself - it applies to you.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm Word salad.
Is English not your first language?
Project much? You literally can not even spell the word "believe".
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm Yes, happily - answer: most of what you think and write it seems.
You didn't answer the question. Try re-reading it.
DPMartin wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:23 pm no this is way off base
As FYI: what you wrote following is what is "way off base".
DPMartin wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:23 pm Adam didn't know evil until he experienced it...
Evil is not a thing that can be "known" - that is the whole point of never "believing" to know it (ie. eating from the tree).
At best, one can only "believe" to know such universal absolutes as so-called "good & evil" (as an all-knowing god would know).
At worst, one ends up "believing" the polar opposite of what is true such to "believe" evil is good / satan is god.

That is what happens to ignorant people who "believe" to know good and evil: they eventually conflate/confuse them.
Islam is a/the best example of this: to "believe" a genocidal warlord is the greatest model for all humanity for all time.
In reality, a genocidal warlord is the worst model for all of humanity for all of time.
Again: evil is in "believing" the polar opposite of what is true.
DPMartin wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:23 pm therefore he didn't have to believe and trust that what he was experiencing is evil. but, he was informed the truth before hand of what was good and evil for him.

so it required faith, believe and or trust, in the one who informed him to not experience evil. but once he experienced what was evil for him there is no faith (belief/trust) required to know what was evil for him in the circumstance at that time.

its as simple as that.
This is all "way off base", the very same you accused mine of being.
I suspected you were projecting (Cain, tiller of the soil: to draw from one's own nature).
DPMartin wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 4:23 pm you receive a check for something you're selling you trust when you deposit that check you will be credited money for it, once the check clears, you don't have to trust to receive the money any more. once you experience, you know, and belief and trust are not required for what you have experienced.
I agree with the example/premise however do not see it relating to Adam.
God was testing whether or not Adam could consciously account for his own actions.
He couldn't as he blamed both the woman and god "it's this woman that you gave me!".
Blaming others for one's own actions is the "evil" Adam could not see within himself.
This is elaborated by Cain who was a tiller of the soil - he drew from his own nature.
People who can not account for what is inside of themselves have an unconscious tendency to project & scapegoat the same onto others.
Muhammad did this as he pathologically accused "Jews" of absolutely everything he was himself guilty of (rendering Muhammad the real "Jew").
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4146
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Terrapin Station »

nothing wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 2:40 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 7:48 pm So first, knowledge (or more specifically what we call propositional knowledge in philosophy), is a type of belief. Namely, it's justified, true belief.
Knowledge is certainly not a "type of belief" - such a suggestion is absurd.
If you "believe" something, it is because you do not actually know.
If you "know" something, you know what not to "believe" about it.
Knowledge is thus a practical negation of belief.

"Justified true belief" is some ridiculous new age dogma attempting to pass off the uncertainty in/of "belief" as (if) certain knowledge.
It arises from people who merely "believe" what they want to be true & "justify" it according to their own mundane desire(s).

Trying to state "knowledge" is a type of "belief" is the same as stating certainty is a kind of uncertainty. It is a conflation of polar opposites.
There is no such thing as a "justified true belief" & if you "believe" there is, you "believe" the polar opposite of what is true.
Sculptor wrote: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:54 pm You might be happy to learn that I read that all twice.
The first time was a little difficult and seemed to be nonsense.
You may well be happy to learn that on the second reading my opinon of it changed completely.
Rather than it being nonsense I realise that it was far from just nonsense but also confused gibberish and nonsense.
I don't believe you can read/comprehend very well, as you certainly can't spell very well.
If your "opinon" (sic) is that it is nonsensical confused gibberish, you should be able to indicate specifically what is & why.
If you instead see "all of it" as so, then perhaps "realise" (sic) the problem is in your own distorted vision.

Maybe Age/Terrapin can teach you how to "justify" yourself.

General:
Age/Terrapin has the "justified true belief" mental virus which causes "believers" to catastrophically conflate knowledge & belief, and
Sculptor is unable to grasp the (very simple) concept(s) and has admitted to being confused.
He will likely try to blame me for his own confusion but that is what people who can not account for their own internal state of being do.

Questions:
Age/Terrapin - can you define (your use of) the words "justified", "true" and "belief"?
Sculptor - can you indicate, specifically, what is nonsensical/gibberish?
Oy vey.

(Propositional) knowledge being justified true belief is a standard philosophical view going all the way back to Plato at least. So there's nothing "new age" about it. It's a view that goes back almost 2500 years, and that has persisted until the present. In fact, it's one of the least controversial, most persistent philosophical views.

"Knowledge" doesn't imply certainty, by the way, and "belief" doesn't imply a lack of certainty.

Re common language usage, it makes little sense to say something like, "I know that the Earth revolves around the sun, but I do not believe that the Earth revolves around the sun." If you said something like that in a casual conversation people would think you're incoherent if not fit for a loony bin.

Believing that P is a requirement for knowing that P ("P" is a proposition--(the meaning of) a declarative statement.) But belief isn't sufficient for knowledge. Other requirements are that one has some justification that P, and the third requirement is that P is true. So to know that P, one must believe that P, one must have some justification for P, and P must be true. Hence, justified true belief.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 3458
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Evil as Belief-Based Inversion

Post by Sculptor »

nothing wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:57 pm
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm Actually it is commonly used in this way.
Yes, because it is commonly misunderstood/abused in that way.
Rubbish. You have to use the language you are given.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm Knoweldge is a "justified true belief".
Belief is not knowledge.
You can only "believe" something if you don't know.
Rubbish. Einstein did not beleive in general relativity. does that make sense to you?

Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm Just because you beleive in a thing does not necessarily mean it is false.
Nobody stated as much ...
That is exactly what you said.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm Where that the case then no one would permit any beliefs, as they would all be, by definition false. Chew that one over!
Belief is, by definition, not knowledge.
You are suffering from a category error.
An apples is not a banana.
An apple is fruit.
This does NOT mean a banana is not a fruit.


Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm Personally I would rather keep the two words separate but that is not the coin.
Knowledge and belief are antithetical - they should be separate.
LIve with it. They are not.
MY way of dealing with this is to never say that I beleive anything.
FOr things like social justice whoch most would "believe in". I call an aspiration. Such a thing is possible, and there are examples of it. But to call it an aspirication is more accurate.
For things I think are true. I call that knoweldge.
But I beleive nothing.
For other people I have to accept that the word is not the way I think it ought to be.
Sculptor wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 3:59 pm Its as old as the hills.
At least as old as Plato's Theaetetus
But the phrase, as it comes into the modern world is Edmund Gettier's. He coined it in 1963, hardly "new age dogma". He died about a month ago. But were he alive I do not think he be happy with your idiotic dismissal.
It's new age branded & indeed "old" as it is the same old underlying problem: trying to pass not-knowledge as knowledge.
end.
Post Reply