Philosophy undermines truth

[Age]

So in English, where is that difference between here and there that there is?

You don't know the difference between here and there? Yeah... you aren't speaking English.

If 'you' are here implying "skepdick" that 'you' know the difference between 'the definition' of these two words, do 'you' still want to STAND BY 'your' ADMITTED ABSOLUTE INABILITY to define words or explain the meaning of words?

You would have to ask someone who doesn't think Descartes' project is futile.

You brought Descartes (despite thinking his project is futile) into the discussion, guy. I am asking you.

[Age]

So in English, where is that difference between here and there that there is?

You don't know the difference between here and there? Yeah... you aren't speaking English.

We are both speaking English. The difference is that I understand it.

You would have to ask someone who doesn't think Descartes' project is futile.

You brought Descartes (despite thinking his project is futile) into the discussion, guy. I am asking you.

It is futile trying to discover truth. The best you will achieve is a coherent story that is consistent with the available data.

LOL
LOL
LOL

And what IS 'the available data' BASED UPON, EXACTLY, IF NOT ANY 'truth' AT ALL?

What IS 'data', after all?

It is futile you asking me to prove anything because, beyond 'there is data', nothing is provable, in my opinion.

Which INCLUDES 'this' statement AND CLAIM of 'yours' here right "will bouwman"?

CLAIMING, 'nothing is provable', sounds like A CLAIM that would be BETTER made WITH ACTUAL PROOF.

By the way, do 'you' have ABSOLUTELY ANY so-called 'data' AT ALL, from which 'you' have MADE UP 'this story', itself?

Or did 'it' COME FROM NOTHING MORE than just the 'thoughts' and IMAGINATION within 'that head'?

[Iwannaplato]

All ecosystems have decomposers. Not that that's all philosophy and philosophers do.

[Will Bouwman]

It is futile you asking me to prove anything because, beyond 'there is data', nothing is provable, in my opinion.

Which INCLUDES 'this' statement AND CLAIM of 'yours' here right "will bouwman"?

Yep.

CLAIMING, 'nothing is provable', sounds like A CLAIM that would be BETTER made WITH ACTUAL PROOF.

It is futile you asking me to prove anything because, beyond 'there is data', nothing is provable, in my opinion.

[Iwannaplato]

It is futile you asking me to prove anything because, beyond 'there is data', nothing is provable, in my opinion.

Which INCLUDES 'this' statement AND CLAIM of 'yours' here right "will bouwman"?

Yep.

CLAIMING, 'nothing is provable', sounds like A CLAIM that would be BETTER made WITH ACTUAL PROOF.

It is futile you asking me to prove anything because, beyond 'there is data', nothing is provable, in my opinion.

I'm going to use this exchange, though mainly your assertion, as a jumping off point. Pardon any misrepresentations - and feel free to correct them - as I extend them a bit.

So, here we have someone asserting something 'nothing is provable', calling it an opinion, and perhaps we could call it a belief, whatever Age's reaction to that term. If someone attacks Will Bouwman's position/belief/opinion for not proving it. He can agree that he didn't. A discussion could take place where people differ or explore this, and during that discussion WB could explain this and why he believes it. If attacked for not demonstrating it, he could say, yes, I have not presented an argument that I think should convince you. I have stated my reasons for thinking this. He might also question parts of the justifications for believing that some or many things are provable. If WB is right, his truth is not undermined. If the other people are correct their positions are not undermined.

We reach, perhaps, that place where we cannot reconcile positions.

There is a spectrum of degrees of justification (or so it seems). Some arguments will be more convincing, some less. Sometimes for good reasons, it seems, sometimes for less good reasons, it seems.

And this is all part of the predicament (to give it a slightly negative edge) or situation (to use a more neutral term) we find ourselves in. We cannot always reconcile differences.

And given that people are fairly stubborn, for good and for ill, not being able to demonstrate X is true, or prove X is true, doesn't stop people from trying, nor do they tend to give up their beliefs, true or not.

Some people will manage to learn some skills. Others may notice that their reasons for believing something no longer impress themselves. This could lead to exploring in the world around that belief or trying to find better justification. In rare cases they might no longer believe something.

[Atla]

Which INCLUDES 'this' statement AND CLAIM of 'yours' here right "will bouwman"?

Yep.

CLAIMING, 'nothing is provable', sounds like A CLAIM that would be BETTER made WITH ACTUAL PROOF.

It is futile you asking me to prove anything because, beyond 'there is data', nothing is provable, in my opinion.

I'm going to use this exchange, though mainly your assertion, as a jumping off point. Pardon any misrepresentations - and feel free to correct them - as I extend them a bit.

So, here we have someone asserting something 'nothing is provable', calling it an opinion, and perhaps we could call it a belief, whatever Age's reaction to that term. If someone attacks Will Bouwman's position/belief/opinion for not proving it. He can agree that he didn't. A discussion could take place where people differ or explore this, and during that discussion WB could explain this and why he believes it. If attacked for not demonstrating it, he could say, yes, I have not presented an argument that I think should convince you. I have stated my reasons for thinking this. He might also question parts of the justifications for believing that some or many things are provable. If WB is right, his truth is not undermined. If the other people are correct their positions are not undermined.

We reach, perhaps, that place where we cannot reconcile positions.

There is a spectrum of degrees of justification (or so it seems). Some arguments will be more convincing, some less. Sometimes for good reasons, it seems, sometimes for less good reasons, it seems.

And this is all part of the predicament (to give it a slightly negative edge) or situation (to use a more neutral term) we find ourselves in. We cannot always reconcile differences.

And given that people are fairly stubborn, for good and for ill, not being able to demonstrate X is true, or prove X is true, doesn't stop people from trying, nor do they tend to give up their beliefs, true or not.

Some people will manage to learn some skills. Others may notice that their reasons for believing something no longer impress themselves. This could lead to exploring in the world around that belief or trying to find better justification. In rare cases they might no longer believe something.

I think this is one of those points in philosophy, beyond which we need to split things into two or more connected layers (layer/level/context/sense), otherwise it's game over.

On a more fundamental layer, nothing is provable (with the exception of: I think, therefore there's something rather than absolute nothing). We can only work with what we have, what is available to humans, but the world may be infinitely larger, more complex, more unthinkable beyond that. And our proofs about or infinitesimal little corner of the world, may amount to just about nothing.

And on the less fundamental layer, which only extends to what we have, the known world and what's inside it, it's just fine to talk about proving and disproving things. Even if we always use some unprovable axioms.

The above is especially true for Eastern philosophies, where without properly splitting things into the more fundamental absolute, and less fundamental relative layers, we will certainly end up with a lot of nonsense.

[Wizard22]

P2. Philosophical social norms

I guess it matter which philosophy social 'circles' you run in... sometimes I prefer Truth over Justice too.

It depends on the extenuating circumstances.

[Age]

Which INCLUDES 'this' statement AND CLAIM of 'yours' here right "will bouwman"?

Yep.

CLAIMING, 'nothing is provable', sounds like A CLAIM that would be BETTER made WITH ACTUAL PROOF.

It is futile you asking me to prove anything because, beyond 'there is data', nothing is provable, in my opinion.

I'm going to use this exchange, though mainly your assertion, as a jumping off point. Pardon any misrepresentations - and feel free to correct them - as I extend them a bit.

So, here we have someone asserting something 'nothing is provable', calling it an opinion, and perhaps we could call it a belief, whatever Age's reaction to that term.

If 'it' is an 'opinion' or a 'belief' all DEPENDS ON whether one 'thinks' 'something' is true, or, whether one 'believes' 'something' is true.

If someone attacks Will Bouwman's position/belief/opinion for not proving it. He can agree that he didn't. A discussion could take place where people differ or explore this, and during that discussion WB could explain this and why he believes it. If attacked for not demonstrating it, he could say, yes, I have not presented an argument that I think should convince you. I have stated my reasons for thinking this. He might also question parts of the justifications for believing that some or many things are provable. If WB is right, his truth is not undermined. If the other people are correct their positions are not undermined.

We reach, perhaps, that place where we cannot reconcile positions.

There is a spectrum of degrees of justification (or so it seems). Some arguments will be more convincing, some less.

I found that there is ONLY one argument that is even worth repeating, that argument is a sound AND valid one, and when one ever does come about, then I am NOT necessarily 'convinced' of ANY 'thing'. But since 'I', NOR absolutely ANY one "else, could refute a sound AND valid argument 'I' just up end up AGREEING WITH and ACCEPTING 'that argument'. As, OBVIOUSLY, 'it' IS EXPRESSING, and/or SHOWING, an ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things'.

ALL other arguments, by the way, to me, are NOT 'more' NOR 'less' so-called 'convincing' of ANY 'thing'.

Sometimes for good reasons, it seems, sometimes for less good reasons, it seems.

And this is all part of the predicament (to give it a slightly negative edge) or situation (to use a more neutral term) we find ourselves in. We cannot always reconcile differences.

We CAN and DO, WHEN we KNOW, EXACTLY, HOW and WHY 'the differences' exist.

And given that people are fairly stubborn, for good and for ill, not being able to demonstrate X is true, or prove X is true, doesn't stop people from trying, nor do they tend to give up their beliefs, true or not.

I would, and have been, just QUESTIONING WHY BELIEVE some 'thing' to be true IF and WHEN one does NOT even have THE PROOF for 'that thing' ANYWAY?

Also, WHEN one DOES HAVE THE PROOF, then there IS NO 'need' to BELIEVE 'that' to be true ANYWAY.

Some people will manage to learn some skills. Others may notice that their reasons for believing something no longer impress themselves. This could lead to exploring in the world around that belief or trying to find better justification. In rare cases they might no longer believe something.

ONLY THROUGH EXPLORATION MORE or ANEW IS FOUND/UNCOVERED.

Whereas, WHILE one IS BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, NO MORE EXPLORATION EXISTS, and thus NO MORE LEARNING EXISTS here, in regards to 'that thing', anyway.

[Age]

Yep.

I'm going to use this exchange, though mainly your assertion, as a jumping off point. Pardon any misrepresentations - and feel free to correct them - as I extend them a bit.

So, here we have someone asserting something 'nothing is provable', calling it an opinion, and perhaps we could call it a belief, whatever Age's reaction to that term. If someone attacks Will Bouwman's position/belief/opinion for not proving it. He can agree that he didn't. A discussion could take place where people differ or explore this, and during that discussion WB could explain this and why he believes it. If attacked for not demonstrating it, he could say, yes, I have not presented an argument that I think should convince you. I have stated my reasons for thinking this. He might also question parts of the justifications for believing that some or many things are provable. If WB is right, his truth is not undermined. If the other people are correct their positions are not undermined.

We reach, perhaps, that place where we cannot reconcile positions.

There is a spectrum of degrees of justification (or so it seems). Some arguments will be more convincing, some less. Sometimes for good reasons, it seems, sometimes for less good reasons, it seems.

And this is all part of the predicament (to give it a slightly negative edge) or situation (to use a more neutral term) we find ourselves in. We cannot always reconcile differences.

And given that people are fairly stubborn, for good and for ill, not being able to demonstrate X is true, or prove X is true, doesn't stop people from trying, nor do they tend to give up their beliefs, true or not.

Some people will manage to learn some skills. Others may notice that their reasons for believing something no longer impress themselves. This could lead to exploring in the world around that belief or trying to find better justification. In rare cases they might no longer believe something.

I think this is one of those points in philosophy, beyond which we need to split things into two or more connected layers (layer/level/context/sense), otherwise it's game over.

LOL What does the 'this' word here even REFER TO, EXACTLY?

On a more fundamental layer, nothing is provable (with the exception of: I think, therefore there's something rather than absolute nothing).

WHEN one LEARNS, and KNOWS, what 'that thing' IS, EXACTLY, then this HELPS 'that one' UNDERSTAND FAR MORE.

We can only work with what we have, what is available to humans, but the world may be infinitely larger, more complex, more unthinkable beyond that.

How could 'the world' be larger than INFINITE?

And our proofs about or infinitesimal little corner of the world, may amount to just about nothing.

Well then ARE 'those proofs' REALLY 'PROOFS'?

And on the less fundamental layer, which only extends to what we have, the known world and what's inside it, it's just fine to talk about proving and disproving things. Even if we always use some unprovable axioms.

So, to 'you', it is JUST FINE to talk about 'proving' even if 'you' are USING some 'unprovable axioms', anyway. By the way what does the word 'axiom' even MEAN or REFER TO, to 'you', EXACTLY, if there ARE, or COULD BE, 'unprovable axioms', anyway?

The above is especially true for Eastern philosophies, where without properly splitting things into the more fundamental absolute, and less fundamental relative layers, we will certainly end up with a lot of nonsense.

As just SHOWN here above.

[Iwannaplato]

ONLY THROUGH EXPLORATION MORE or ANEW IS FOUND/UNCOVERED.

Whereas, WHILE one IS BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, NO MORE EXPLORATION EXISTS, and thus NO MORE LEARNING EXISTS here, in regards to 'that thing', anyway.

Accidently saw this, but hey. Well, not for me.
I believe things to different degrees. I absolutely continue searching despite believing. I suppose if I am absolutely certain I consciously stop searching, but can note anomolies. But believing X to be the case, does not in any way keep me from exploring. But I can't speak for others.

[Atla]

I'm going to use this exchange, though mainly your assertion, as a jumping off point. Pardon any misrepresentations - and feel free to correct them - as I extend them a bit.

So, here we have someone asserting something 'nothing is provable', calling it an opinion, and perhaps we could call it a belief, whatever Age's reaction to that term. If someone attacks Will Bouwman's position/belief/opinion for not proving it. He can agree that he didn't. A discussion could take place where people differ or explore this, and during that discussion WB could explain this and why he believes it. If attacked for not demonstrating it, he could say, yes, I have not presented an argument that I think should convince you. I have stated my reasons for thinking this. He might also question parts of the justifications for believing that some or many things are provable. If WB is right, his truth is not undermined. If the other people are correct their positions are not undermined.

We reach, perhaps, that place where we cannot reconcile positions.

There is a spectrum of degrees of justification (or so it seems). Some arguments will be more convincing, some less. Sometimes for good reasons, it seems, sometimes for less good reasons, it seems.

And this is all part of the predicament (to give it a slightly negative edge) or situation (to use a more neutral term) we find ourselves in. We cannot always reconcile differences.

And given that people are fairly stubborn, for good and for ill, not being able to demonstrate X is true, or prove X is true, doesn't stop people from trying, nor do they tend to give up their beliefs, true or not.

Some people will manage to learn some skills. Others may notice that their reasons for believing something no longer impress themselves. This could lead to exploring in the world around that belief or trying to find better justification. In rare cases they might no longer believe something.

I think this is one of those points in philosophy, beyond which we need to split things into two or more connected layers (layer/level/context/sense), otherwise it's game over.

LOL What does the 'this' word here even REFER TO, EXACTLY?

On a more fundamental layer, nothing is provable (with the exception of: I think, therefore there's something rather than absolute nothing).

WHEN one LEARNS, and KNOWS, what 'that thing' IS, EXACTLY, then this HELPS 'that one' UNDERSTAND FAR MORE.

We can only work with what we have, what is available to humans, but the world may be infinitely larger, more complex, more unthinkable beyond that.

How could 'the world' be larger than INFINITE?

And our proofs about or infinitesimal little corner of the world, may amount to just about nothing.

Well then ARE 'those proofs' REALLY 'PROOFS'?

And on the less fundamental layer, which only extends to what we have, the known world and what's inside it, it's just fine to talk about proving and disproving things. Even if we always use some unprovable axioms.

So, to 'you', it is JUST FINE to talk about 'proving' even if 'you' are USING some 'unprovable axioms', anyway. By the way what does the word 'axiom' even MEAN or REFER TO, to 'you', EXACTLY, if there ARE, or COULD BE, 'unprovable axioms', anyway?

The above is especially true for Eastern philosophies, where without properly splitting things into the more fundamental absolute, and less fundamental relative layers, we will certainly end up with a lot of nonsense.

As just SHOWN here above.

This wasn't written to you, but to others who understand normal human communication, which is full of context, hints, cues, implications etc.

[Age]

ONLY THROUGH EXPLORATION MORE or ANEW IS FOUND/UNCOVERED.

Whereas, WHILE one IS BELIEVING some 'thing' is true, NO MORE EXPLORATION EXISTS, and thus NO MORE LEARNING EXISTS here, in regards to 'that thing', anyway.

Accidently saw this, but hey. Well, not for me.
I believe things to different degrees.

Okay, MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE MANY DIFFERENT 'things'.

I absolutely continue searching despite believing.

So, WHEN THEN, EXACTLY, do you BELIEVE some 'things' to be true, if 'you', supposedly, STILL SEARCHING for MORE 'truth' regarding 'that thing'?

Oh, and by the way, have 'you' NOT YET RECOGNIZED that it is the way one has been brought up and in what country/culture they live in that the MEANINGS of words IS DIFFERENT.

See, the country/culture that 'you' were brought up and live in has a DIFFERENT meaning for the 'believe' word than what the 'believe' word ACTUALLY once MEANT and REFERRED TO, EXACTLY.

I suppose if I am absolutely certain I consciously stop searching, but can note anomolies.

Until 'you' PROVIDE some examples here, I accept that 'this' is what 'you' BELIEVE, right?

But believing X to be the case, does not in any way keep me from exploring.

Will you provide an example of an 'x', which you BELIEVE to be true, but which 'you', allegedly KEEP EXPLORING ANYWAY?

If yes, then GREAT. We WILL have some 'thing' to LOOK AT, EXPLORE, and DISCUSS.

But if no, then WHY NOT?

But I can't speak for others.

So true.

By the way, thank you for your reply here. I was wondering how long it would take 'you' to reply AFTER 'you' SAID and CLAIMED 'you' NEVER WOULD AGAIN.

[Age]

I think this is one of those points in philosophy, beyond which we need to split things into two or more connected layers (layer/level/context/sense), otherwise it's game over.

LOL What does the 'this' word here even REFER TO, EXACTLY?

On a more fundamental layer, nothing is provable (with the exception of: I think, therefore there's something rather than absolute nothing).

WHEN one LEARNS, and KNOWS, what 'that thing' IS, EXACTLY, then this HELPS 'that one' UNDERSTAND FAR MORE.

We can only work with what we have, what is available to humans, but the world may be infinitely larger, more complex, more unthinkable beyond that.

How could 'the world' be larger than INFINITE?

And our proofs about or infinitesimal little corner of the world, may amount to just about nothing.

Well then ARE 'those proofs' REALLY 'PROOFS'?

And on the less fundamental layer, which only extends to what we have, the known world and what's inside it, it's just fine to talk about proving and disproving things. Even if we always use some unprovable axioms.

So, to 'you', it is JUST FINE to talk about 'proving' even if 'you' are USING some 'unprovable axioms', anyway. By the way what does the word 'axiom' even MEAN or REFER TO, to 'you', EXACTLY, if there ARE, or COULD BE, 'unprovable axioms', anyway?

The above is especially true for Eastern philosophies, where without properly splitting things into the more fundamental absolute, and less fundamental relative layers, we will certainly end up with a lot of nonsense.

As just SHOWN here above.

This wasn't written to you, but to others who understand normal human communication, which is full of context, hints, cues, implications etc.

I have ALREADY QUERIED 'you' ABOUT this, alleged, understanding of context in human communication CLAIM of YOURS.

But, ONCE MORE, 'you' FAILED ABSOLUTELY to ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and ASKED TO 'you'.

[Atla]

LOL What does the 'this' word here even REFER TO, EXACTLY?


WHEN one LEARNS, and KNOWS, what 'that thing' IS, EXACTLY, then this HELPS 'that one' UNDERSTAND FAR MORE.



How could 'the world' be larger than INFINITE?



Well then ARE 'those proofs' REALLY 'PROOFS'?


So, to 'you', it is JUST FINE to talk about 'proving' even if 'you' are USING some 'unprovable axioms', anyway. By the way what does the word 'axiom' even MEAN or REFER TO, to 'you', EXACTLY, if there ARE, or COULD BE, 'unprovable axioms', anyway?


As just SHOWN here above.

This wasn't written to you, but to others who understand normal human communication, which is full of context, hints, cues, implications etc.

I have ALREADY QUERIED 'you' ABOUT this, alleged, understanding of context in human communication CLAIM of YOURS.

But, ONCE MORE, 'you' FAILED ABSOLUTELY to ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and ASKED TO 'you'.

I didn't fail, I simply choose not to waste my time trying to explain something to an autistic-schizophrenic, that he/she can't understand anyway

[Age]

This wasn't written to you, but to others who understand normal human communication, which is full of context, hints, cues, implications etc.

I have ALREADY QUERIED 'you' ABOUT this, alleged, understanding of context in human communication CLAIM of YOURS.

But, ONCE MORE, 'you' FAILED ABSOLUTELY to ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and ASKED TO 'you'.

I didn't fail, I simply choose not to waste my time trying to explain something to an autistic-schizophrenic, that he/she can't understand anyway

Okay, then ALL IS COMPLETELY and TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE here.

That is; 'you' TALK TO and RESPOND to an "AUTISTIC-SCHIZOPHRENIC" when 'you' WANT TO SAY and CLAIM that what 'they' SAY and CLAIM is "magical thinking' or 'a fantasy', BUT WHEN the "AUTISTIC-SCHIZOPHRENIC" ASKS 'you' A QUESTION, FOR CLARIFICATION, 'you' THEN simply CHOOSE to NOT so-call 'waste your time' trying to explain some 'thing' to THAT "AUTISTIC-SCHIZOPHRENIC" who 'you' BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY can NOT UNDERSTAND ANYWAY, correct?

If yes, then could it be SEEN as just Truly STUPID, FOOLISH, OR 'just a waste of time' TO JUST RESPOND AT ALL?