Philosophy undermines truth

[Atla]

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?

Yes, foolish, but on your part. Almost every comment you write is foolish.

But the bigger problem is that you often ask question which would take weeks to answer. That's education, or psychotherapy.

[bahman]

P1. Gödel brought to our attention the existence of unprovable truths.
P2. Philosophical social norms discriminate against the uttering of unprovable claims, even if those claims are true.
C. Therefore Philosophy values justification more than it values truth and in doing so undermines truth.

This leaves an open question: If Philosophy undermines the pursuit of truth; then what shall truth-seekers practice instead?

BY what fact do you claim that the proof for the truth does not exist?

[Will Bouwman]

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.

The thing is, those of us who get to choose our opinions or beliefs do so for aesthetic reasons - we like ideas, or we don't. The chances of persuading someone who doesn't like your idea are slim. The only thing can't be disputed is that there are ideas. That's why 'I think, therefore I am' is so foundational, but beyond that, what we think is down to flavour, rather than fact.

[Iwannaplato]

The thing is, those of us who get to choose our opinions or beliefs do so for aesthetic reasons - we like ideas, or we don't.

I also find that things challenge my beliefs and they change. Not so much other people per se, though they may be parts of the situations, chronic processes that change my beliefs, but stuff that happens. Or stuff I decide to practice/explore. I don't think it is just aesthetics, liking certain beliefs, though those are factors.

The chances of persuading someone who doesn't like your idea are slim.

Agreed. And words on a screen are even less likely than in person, longer term connections. If people are willing to take suggestions about experiences or practices that might challenge their beliefs, the chances go way up. Arguments on line....I'm not even sure if it would be healthy to be persuaded about anything fundamental that way. But it's definitely an unlikely way to change someone's mind.

The only thing can't be disputed is that there are ideas. That's why 'I think, therefore I am' is so foundational, but beyond that, what we think is down to flavour, rather than fact.

I'd go with emotions over thoughts which seem more ephemeral to me, though I think Descartes would have includes these in the cogito. But given the usual English translation, I mention this.

[Gary Childress]

I've often been fascinated by the phrase "The truth will set you free".

WHY?

When one IS FULLY Truthful, then BECOMING WISER FOLLOWS, EXPONENTIALLY.

'you' WILL SEE IF 'you' do 'it' some time. BUT, 'you' ALSO HAVE TO WANT TO CHANGE, for the better, and NOT necessarily FOR 'you' AT ALL.

Fuck off Age. If you want people to change, then why don't you give it a try yourself? Most of your responses to me are unsolicited and really want to make me vomit. They are inconsiderate toward others and usually offensive. And you don't seem to care one bit how you brush up against others. Fucking psychopathy at its finest! Grow a fucking conscience or get the fuck away from me, asshole!!

[Skepdick]

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.

The thing is, those of us who get to choose our opinions or beliefs do so for aesthetic reasons - we like ideas, or we don't. The chances of persuading someone who doesn't like your idea are slim. The only thing can't be disputed is that there are ideas.

So it can be disputed that there are likes and dislikes about ideas?

Tell us more about the aesthetics of moral beliefs.

[Skepdick]

The difference is that I understand it.

You sure seem to like the aesthetics of that belief...

It is futile trying to discover truth.

So you disagree with the truthfulness of the statement that Descartes had to have existed before he started thinking?

The best you will achieve is a coherent story that is consistent with the available data.

And what's the data consistent with?

Maybe if we gave up the pursuit of grand narratives we'd be able to settle on truths devoid of the grandeur of Truth with a capital "T".

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

So if I asked you whether Descartes existed before he started thinking your'd answer me with "there is data" ?

[Skepdick]

BY what fact do you claim that the proof for the truth does not exist?

I am not sure how to parse that sentence.

I am claiming THAT it is a fact that some truths are not provable with facts.

[Skepdick]

I absolutely continue searching despite believing.

The halting problem is computer science 101 - it really should be common knowledge.

A search algorithm must have some sort of termination crteria; an exit condition. Otherwise it would continue searching forever.

This in and of itself isn't terrifying. What's terrifying is that such a search algorithm may have already found what it was looking for, but it failed to recognize it and simply carried on searching.

It will never find what it's looking for because it has no fucking idea what it's looking for. That's why it's absolutely necessary to make the search criteria explicit.

[Will Bouwman]

The thing is, those of us who get to choose our opinions or beliefs do so for aesthetic reasons - we like ideas, or we don't.

...I don't think it is just aesthetics, liking certain beliefs, though those are factors.

No doubt there are all sorts of psychological and social factors that influence our beliefs; in many cases they may be decisive. Even if all such factors are absent, so that two individuals are completely free to decide for themselves, they might still interpret exactly the same information differently. This is something I wrote for Philosophy Now a few years ago:

The ‘theory-dependence of observation’ is this idea that exactly the same information can be interpreted in different ways. Kuhn argued that just as your worldview is influenced by your experience, so your scientific paradigm is determined in part by the education you’ve had. This led to accusations of relativism, which Kuhn tried to counter by saying that there are objective criteria for deciding between paradigmatic theories:
1. How accurately a theory agrees with the evidence.
2. It’s consistent within itself and with other accepted theories.
3. It should explain more than just the phenomenon it was designed to explain.
4. The simplest explanation is the best. (In other words, apply Occam’s Razor.)
5. It should make predictions that come true.
However, Kuhn had to concede that there is no objective way to establish which of those criteria is the most important, and so scientists would make their own mind up for subjective reasons. In choosing between competing theories, two scientists “fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice may nevertheless reach different conclusions.”

https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996

[Will Bouwman]

So it can be disputed that there are likes and dislikes about ideas?

If you like.

Tell us more about the aesthetics of moral beliefs.

Is lying wrong?

[Skepdick]

Is lying wrong?

Isn't it?

[attofishpi]

Is lying wrong?

Isn't it?

Are you having a midlife crisis Skeppy?

[Iwannaplato]

The thing is, those of us who get to choose our opinions or beliefs do so for aesthetic reasons - we like ideas, or we don't.

...I don't think it is just aesthetics, liking certain beliefs, though those are factors.

No doubt there are all sorts of psychological and social factors that influence our beliefs; in many cases they may be decisive. Even if all such factors are absent, so that two individuals are completely free to decide for themselves, they might still interpret exactly the same information differently. This is something I wrote for Philosophy Now a few years ago:

The ‘theory-dependence of observation’ is this idea that exactly the same information can be interpreted in different ways. Kuhn argued that just as your worldview is influenced by your experience, so your scientific paradigm is determined in part by the education you’ve had. This led to accusations of relativism, which Kuhn tried to counter by saying that there are objective criteria for deciding between paradigmatic theories:
1. How accurately a theory agrees with the evidence.
2. It’s consistent within itself and with other accepted theories.
3. It should explain more than just the phenomenon it was designed to explain.
4. The simplest explanation is the best. (In other words, apply Occam’s Razor.)
5. It should make predictions that come true.
However, Kuhn had to concede that there is no objective way to establish which of those criteria is the most important, and so scientists would make their own mind up for subjective reasons. In choosing between competing theories, two scientists “fully committed to the same list of criteria for choice may nevertheless reach different conclusions.”

https://philosophynow.org/issues/131/Th ... _1922-1996

I don't disagree with any of the above but I think it's a bit different from your quote on aesthetics. I don't think this entails that it's all just aesthetics or emotional attachment to the implications, say. Otherwise we could conclude there is no point in checking anomalies. Or reevaluating our own beliefs in the face of...whatever. I think some people can get better at finding things that work well and letting go of things that don't. Sometimes focus on rigor helps. Sometimes facing scary anomalies and sitting with cognitive dissonance. Sometimes being able to face denials and bias possibilities. And so on.

IOW one could have read that idea about aesthetics as a claim that it's all a kind of meme fashion crapshoot.

(as an aside I suppose I don't like the wording of number 4. I don't see the OR as an ontological assertion, I see it as a methodological suggestion) How one works with groups of peers)

[Will Bouwman]

So if I asked you whether Descartes existed before he started thinking your'd answer me with "there is data" ?

No. If Descartes did anything, he had to exist in order to do so. The point Descartes was making would be that 'Descartes existed and thought', is not the only possible explanation for the data you have relating to Descartes having existed and thought. Try substituting Descartes with Jesus.