Kyocus t1_itw2dgb wrote
Reply to comment by NotABotttttttttttttt in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin
Nothing about what I just said keeps all these people from co-existing. You want to know what absolutely keeps LOTs of people from co-existing though? Dogma. Dogma unbounded by empiricism, because it leaves people in contentious silos of belief with no way to paddle to one another.
NotABotttttttttttttt t1_itw4437 wrote
Dogma is intimately tied with knowledge, just of the illogical, unrevealed kind. I'm saying that no knowledge can exist in the motley crew because they can't verify/justify it to each other because they each have different experiences. Maybe there can be overlap in some cases, but as an alternative to your kind of dogmatism, I would say that they exist in a continuous stream of agnosticism. Can they not? And in this stream of ignorance, knowledge is revealed by contingency rather than absolutes.
How can you know a stranger or know about a stranger or assume what a stranger is capable of? Tying this to ideals which justify multicultural societies that must tolerate indefiniteness within the grandeur society they all share.
I think we all accept a sort of apathetic attitude to getting to know our neighbors sometimes to justify living next to people we don't know/assume too much about. Or have no expectations of them. And this apathy rests on agnosticism rather than any knowledge. Although I can see a way out if we argue that we agree to definite laws that let us know the person next door is very likely not capable of doing anything too bad.
Kyocus t1_itwnfn6 wrote
Any group of people willing to be identified as "agnostic" with reference to any ideas they hold sacred are very likely already proficient in epistemology.
I am not claiming that all knowledge must have absolute empirical evidence prior to acceptance. That premise would be so inefficient for anyone involved that they would be frozen in a recursive cycle of defining definitions before they can make a single decision.
What I am saying is that I empirically have black hair. I have personally measured this and so have many other people who have informally seen me. I may tell you in this thread that I have black hair, and you most likely will accept my claim without further investigation. You don't accept the blackness of my hair because I'm some arbiter of truth. You accept that I have black hair because you have experienced having hair and seeing black hair. You've experienced both ideas empirically. There is no need to scrutinize simple observations which we relate to in reality because many are already shared experiences.
Though we should rely on Logical Positivism to settle disputes about our beliefs, the more consequential or extreme a claim, the more important it is that it be substantiated by empiricism. Conversely, the less consequential and more mundane a claim, the need for empiricism becomes infinitesimal.
iiioiia t1_itxf2fw wrote
>I am not claiming that all knowledge must have absolute empirical evidence prior to acceptance. That premise would be so inefficient for anyone involved that they would be frozen in a recursive cycle of defining definitions before they can make a single decision.
Luckily, evolution found a solution: belief.
Kyocus t1_itxgat2 wrote
It serves to assist our survival at times, so I suppose.
iiioiia t1_itxj23d wrote
The point is: this very popular claim that ~"the exercise of strict epistemology" would render people immobile is demonstrably false. And while this may seem "trivially true", whether it actually is is a very different matter.
Kyocus t1_itxt5qf wrote
>"the exercise of strict epistemology" would render people immobile is demonstrably false.
Have you ever taken psychedelics and become critical of all beliefs and experiences to the point of absurdity? Because it sounds like you've NEVER done anything like that.
iiioiia t1_itxw0zj wrote
I have some experience yes, although not with the absurdity part (other than realizing that "normal" consciousness/culture is undoubtedly and massively absurd, but that's not what you're getting at I don't think).
Are you a fan of them or a critic?
Kyocus t1_itxziws wrote
I am a fan. I am saying that I have experienced absurd levels of critical thought to the point of absurdity and it absolutely stops action.
iiioiia t1_ity5k9q wrote
They can be incapacitating at times!
Where do you fall on the "are (or can be) realer than reality" question - yea or nay? I'm a solid yea.
Kyocus t1_ityeruc wrote
It feels like such a level of increase consciousness that more of reality is experienced in more ways.
iiioiia t1_itzbhfo wrote
I think the world could benefit from a sound articulation of the experience/mindset, that is approachable by (and non-offensive to) various ideologies.
Have you experienced detachment from Time?
mirh t1_iu2304p wrote
This was not what they were talking about, why can't you seem to stay on topic?
The issue was people being unable to coexist together for their dear life.
It's fine to even guess the earth is flat. Just don't make that belief part of your identity or something, so much so that you are going to reject thousands of years of evidence with a loud fart.
iiioiia t1_iu24xy4 wrote
> This was not what they were talking about, why can't you seem to stay on topic?
The text I quoted suggests otherwise.
> > > > The issue was people being unable to coexist together for their dear life.
"I am not claiming that all knowledge must have absolute empirical evidence prior to acceptance. That premise would be so inefficient for anyone involved that they would be frozen in a recursive cycle of defining definitions before they can make a single decision."
Are we in the same thread?
> > > > It's fine to even guess the earth is flat. Just don't make that belief part of your identity or something, so much so that you are going to reject thousands of years of evidence with a loud fart.
This seems like sound advice.
mirh t1_iu2f7pa wrote
> The text I quoted suggests otherwise.
He replied to a dude suggesting that with a high enough bar for asserting knowledge, then everything becomes dogma.
> Are we in the same thread?
Yes. And nobody was claiming any absolute (whatever the word may even mean in the context). Except the example where somehow "having different experiences" is supposed to be a good reason not to trust others (and not in the simple sense that you are "unsure" about what to believe, but specifically that you decide to dismiss them because they aren't you and fuck them).
iiioiia t1_iu2frvf wrote
I quoted the text to which I replied, that you claim does not exist. I don't mind if you pretend as if I did not, it's even more fun that way!
mirh t1_iu3nf5w wrote
... you understand every sentence has to be interpreted, right?
iiioiia t1_iu41es5 wrote
I do, yes.
mirh t1_iu41qiu wrote
Then I don't know why you think I denied the existence of the words themselves.
iiioiia t1_iu43a17 wrote
Because I quoted physical text that contains content that does not require non-common interpretation to illustrate that your claim is incorrect:
> > This was not what they were talking about, why can't you seem to stay on topic? > > > > The issue was people being unable to coexist together for their dear life.
From earlier in the thread:
> >>I am not claiming that all knowledge must have absolute empirical evidence prior to acceptance. That premise would be so inefficient for anyone involved that they would be frozen in a recursive cycle of defining definitions before they can make a single decision.
> Luckily, evolution found a solution: belief.
NotABotttttttttttttt t1_itzmai4 wrote
>identified as "agnostic"
I'm talking about before identity comes into play. Identity is one of the three laws of logic/thought. I'm talking about a meta-analysis (such as "three laws of logic" that acknowledge identity within an identity already made).
In the meta-analysis, identity is contingent and unknown but follows certain principles (eg, correlation, verificationism, correspondence theory of truth). You've already gone through this. I'm just re-stating it because we agree in a lot.
>they hold sacred are very likely already proficient in epistemology.
I'm not saying they may be aware of their own agnosticism. Rather, agnosticism is something they implicitly accept by continuing their association in such a community. They may not know this is what it's called. For example, New York in the early 20th century. A lot of different cultures congregating and maintaining their own identity while collectively giving New York an identity of its own. This identity wasn't entirely defined but it didn't need to be to be.
>What I am saying is that I empirically have black hair. I have personally measured this and so have many other people who have informally seen me. I may tell you in this thread that I have black hair, and you most likely will accept my claim without further investigation. You don't accept the blackness of my hair because I'm some arbiter of truth. You accept that I have black hair because you have experienced having hair and seeing black hair. You've experienced both ideas empirically. There is no need to scrutinize simple observations which we relate to in reality because many are already shared experiences.
I don't disagree entirely while wishing to highlight the part where there is a continuous, perpetual construction of truth that is justified by its pragmatic value. As we walk down these philosophical halls together, we see the door marked "Utilitarianism" but we leave it closed for now.
The importance of acknowledging the pragmatic aspect is where we get stuck. And I think you alluded to this. We get stuck in analysis paralysis, neuroticism, an ouroboros, a mobius loop.
But getting stuck is not all bad. Sometimes it's validly pragmatic to get stuck. Like an art gallery where there is an open basis for analysis. Where various analyses, maybe even some that contradict each other, may be pragmatic. Or using Rorshack tests for therapy. Or again art but the kind of art that is banned in certain contexts because it threatens the authority.
Or the current political climate of "wokeness" where previously subjugated people gained a platform (internet) where they could gather and unionize against the bourgeoisie, who were and continue to be the arbiters of many "truths." Your hair being black or someone's skin being red become more that just mere, unquestionable correlation (pigmentation tied with color palettes). They potentially become political. An Aryan ideal of blondness, a football team's name become offensive. Truth becomes propaganda. Or rather, truth sheds its outer layer to reveal that it was always propaganda to some degree.
>"other forms of knowing" is just a blanket term with nothing defined, because there is no other form of actually reliably knowing without empiricism.
I'm not in disagreement with your stance thus far. Ironically, my contention started with the above quote (that I may have read wrong). "Nothing defined" is significant, non-trivial, politically relevant.
mirh t1_iu25l2f wrote
> I don't disagree entirely while wishing to highlight the part where there is a continuous, perpetual construction of truth that is justified by its pragmatic value.
If you'd rather walk out from a room (or worse), than be able to settle your difference with some other presumably educated people, than this "pragmatic" value sounds like very arguable.
> Like an art gallery where there is an open basis for analysis.
People aren't killing themselves over the different interpretations of quantum mechanics. Or the best music, or the best tastes of ice cream.
But over us vs them straw men dressed up as "values" by wicked individuals.
> An Aryan ideal of blondness, a football team's name become offensive.
Criminalizing "being" (let alone somehow having to discard objective reality in name of any moral consideration) sounds a lot like dogma you know.
Just like whatever use of the W-word.
> "Nothing defined" is significant, non-trivial, politically relevant.
They aren't talking about the concept of "not knowing". Like, I don't have an opinion on rocket science, so whatever NASA should do in the next decade is undefined from my pov. And I thus shut up.
They are talking about handwaving. You build your argument through a crescendo of negative rhetoric.. and then you just move on when instead you should explain the way it actually would not be possible for the original idea to make sense.
NotABotttttttttttttt t1_iu4d5jd wrote
> If you'd rather walk out from a room (or worse), than be able to settle your difference with some other presumably educated people, than this "pragmatic" value sounds like very arguable.
You're talking about ideals. I mean pragmatic in a sense that regardless of opinion, wants, idealization, "reality" has certain characteristic that are apathetic but work and all that matters is that they work. You're a few steps ahead of me if you're already filtering out human beings based on education level or mental capacity.
I'm not sympathizing with world leaders but world leaders walk out the room and room walks out with them. Example, the scientists screaming about climate change and people ignoring them.
>People aren't killing themselves over the different interpretations of quantum mechanics. Or the best music, or the best tastes of ice cream.
>But over us vs them straw men dressed up as "values" by wicked individuals.
It's complicated and it's all tied together. There are principles at play that we must reflect on but must be careful to act on. It's like looking at a mirror. As soon as you try to get closer or move away, whatever you're looking at also changes. This ties to the correlation/correspondence found in theories of truth.
There's truth to saying that life is nasty, brutish, short. An inescapable quality of living.
>Criminalizing "being" (let alone somehow having to discard objective reality in name of any moral consideration) sounds a lot like dogma you know.
In the sense I'm saying it, being has consequences to others. It's not criminalizing being. It's criminalizing taking meaning for granted and instead encouraging sympathizing with others and what meaning means to them. As long as this sympathizing makes for a better community (defined as less suffering, etc).
>They aren't talking about the concept of "not knowing". Like, I don't have an opinion on rocket science, so whatever NASA should do in the next decade is undefined from my pov. And I thus shut up.
>They are talking about handwaving. You build your argument through a crescendo of negative rhetoric.. and then you just move on when instead you should explain the way it actually would not be possible for the original idea to make sense.
Knowing and not knowing are intimately tied. We must have ideals and expectation of what righteous ignorance is (eg, you deciding to stay silent during certain interchanges) and what kind of other ignorance is there. The handwaving is relevant to making the greater concept of "knowing" more impactful. Again the example of climate scientists. Climate scientists are handwaving because the audience is not receptive to their legitimate claim to the kingdom of climate epistemology. The audience is not righteously ignorant. The question is how do we make/encourage better audiences that know when to stay silent.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments