How can we be sure?

@JLNobody,

...that last commentary is just sidetracking JL, and you know it...obviously "you" are an integrate part of what is witnessed...but there was no need to complicate it down further since what has been put forward was sufficient enough for you to not understand it...the "obscurity effect" is a mater of proximity in between communicators, a matter of "gravitational closeness"...it can be a bad sign but it also can be a very good one...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...the point was that there is an itself objective or real, as real can be inductively questioned, "witnessing" phenomena going on...and not that such witnessing was itself excluded from it...even so you missed it.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

To be fair, Fil, you are just taking what JL already told you and feeding it back to him in worse English. The obscurity effect? Apt...
Do you not see that in light of what JL said it becomes apparent that the problem of being is part of the same as the problem of knowing, and vice versa?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Not really, what did he said that is not already known regarding the "you" effect ? his observation is a banality... "real" essentially is an experience which cannot be denied...reckoning the phenomena going on is not the same as fully organizing the phenomena...relative measurement, absolute in itself, its not all the extension of all the possible measurement...the frontiers of "you" in here don´t need to be established...how often did I said it ? How many times did I explain that terms like "exterior" or "interior" are irrelevant for the truthfulness of it, less alone the establishment of where does the "you" starts or ends...it is an effect of the world itself that can focus itself in one point and retract itself backwards from one point into the world...effects are as real as their causes, or their correlations or whatever you want to call them...not knowing how to fully explain a mirage or anything else with certainty does not ad or subtract an inch to the ontological realness of every experience...

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

...expressions like "obscurity effect" or "gravitational closeness" turn out to be brilliant English to some...evidently not to you...(this is not to deny my difficulty´s with the language but get it right !)

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Raishu-tensho wrote:

How can we be sure?
You can't. Just accept it and move on.

Is it a paradox if in order to say 'You can't' you have be SURE you can't?

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Is it a paradox if in order to say 'You can't' you have be SURE you can't?

No.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:
Is it a paradox if in order to say 'You can't' you have be SURE you can't?

No.

Is it a joke? Smile

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I was referring to your way of obscuring meanings behind an overly complex use of language, creating a sort of obscurity effect.. Wink

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:
Is it a paradox if in order to say 'You can't' you have be SURE you can't?

No.

Is it a joke?

No.

I can be certain that empirical knowledge isn't certain because we're dealing with two different kinds of certainty. My certainty about empirical knowledge is based on deduction, not on induction. One can always be sure of logical truths.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:
Is it a paradox if in order to say 'You can't' you have be SURE you can't?

No.

Is it a joke?

No.

I can be certain that empirical knowledge isn't certain because we're dealing with two different kinds of certainty. My certainty about empirical knowledge is based on deduction, not on induction. One can always be sure of logical truths.

Firstly, you can't be sure there is an 'I' an 'ego' a self to know anything. A logical truth is only a 'truth' if it satisfies those who are asked to accept its definition of what truth is. Logical truth is limited to the framework that contains it. So we can't be sure there is someone to know a truth and we can't be sure that the truth shown by logic is really a truth that satisfies all definitions of truth. We can't be sure.

2 Replies

@igm,

...you can believe whatever you feel like believing...believing does not require knowing with certainty.
I suppose you were trying to ask if you can be sure that you can´t be sure, was it ? that would be a paradox.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

how come ? is it not true that you can know something which is true without knowing that you know it ?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

...well forget it...I was not paying attention. Knowing obviously does not imply the need for certainty...still there is a paradox.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:
Is it a paradox if in order to say 'You can't' you have be SURE you can't?

No.

Is it a joke?

No.

I can be certain that empirical knowledge isn't certain because we're dealing with two different kinds of certainty. My certainty about empirical knowledge is based on deduction, not on induction. One can always be sure of logical truths.

Firstly, you can't be sure there is an 'I' an 'ego' a self to know anything. A logical truth is only a 'truth' if it satisfies those who are asked to accept its definition of what truth is. Logical truth is limited to the framework that contains it. So we can't be sure there is someone to know a truth and we can't be sure that the truth shown by logic is really a truth that satisfies all definitions of truth. We can't be sure.

It does n´t matter how you define the "I" in order for the "I" to be true...its not a question of correspondence on what you can know about the "I" and what is the "I"...

The "I" being what it is, is sufficient for the ontological status of a inner or outer world..."you" don´t need to be certain on the direction of it...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

...even if so...lets ponder on that shall we ? Do you think I do it out of playing smart ? look carefully and you will see a genuine interest on pushing the boundaries often against my interest, once risking being a fool...how easy would it be just to go along with mainstream on one side or another, how easy to replicate established knowledge...in order to produce a decent innovating post, probably 1 out of 10, how much complex bullshit do I have similarly to produce...at least I try, I go for it...I truly love Philosophy, and yes I detest anarchy...I want something at the very least well organized and justified not poetry....(and mind yourself that I like poetry)

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

Firstly, you can't be sure there is an 'I' an 'ego' a self to know anything.

Why not?

igm wrote:

A logical truth is only a 'truth' if it satisfies those who are asked to accept its definition of what truth is.

Why is that?

igm wrote:

Logical truth is limited to the framework that contains it. So we can't be sure there is someone to know a truth and we can't be sure that the truth shown by logic is really a truth that satisfies all definitions of truth. We can't be sure.

Are you sure?

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

[It doesn’t matter how you define the "I" in order for the "I" to be true...its not a question of correspondence on what you can know about the "I" and what is the "I"...

The "I" being what it is, is sufficient for the ontological status of a inner or outer world..."you" don´t need to be certain on the direction of it...

I'm just saying for you to know, there has to be a 'you' to know. You can't be sure there is a 'you' so you can't be sure you know. Keeping to the topic: 'How can we be sure'.

Some say the notion of a self is a fiction. If the self is an illusion then there is nobody to know anything it’s just an illusion. We can't possibly know there is a self, we can't be SURE so we carry on unsure with our dualistic view which may not be dualistic at all.

1 Reply

@igm,

From the "I" to the "world", or from the "world" to the "I" the phenomena stays true !

What does it matter if the relation to world is internal or external for the "world" to be true ? How is the world less truthful because of that ? The "world" is a phenomena valid in itself...just like the "you" who judges it, is...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

From the "I" to the "world", or from the "world" to the "I" the phenomena stays true !

What does it matter if the relation to world is internal or external for the "world" to be true ? How is the world less truthful because of that ? The "world" is a phenomena valid in itself...just like the "you" who judges it, is...

There could just be phenomena. Non-dualistic. If this was the case 'phenomena' would be just a sound with no meaning.

2 Replies

How can we be sure?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know