How is this definition of "belief"?

@Fil Albuquerque,

I don't care what you focus on. Words have specific meanings. According to the meaning of the words in that sentence, my interpretation is valid.
Your wanting to exclude that particular part of the meaning to suit your needs is not an approach that promotes clarity.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Excuse me Cyr but you are wrong.

It doesn't matter WHAT we know about IT...assumes IT a priori it gives for granted IT (Reality is there) on WHAT it is, it says nothing about it except it doesn't matter, IT is granted in the claim itself...and claiming grants a subject as implicit. (but says nothing about subject building reality either it only hints at claiming requiring subjects)

...and by the way its not what I focus, is WHAT the SENTENCE focus !!! (I focus the all sentence)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You don't get it. Your statement is fundamentally unprovable because proving it would require us to observe "reality not being observed". That makes it fundamentally unknowable.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

My statement says nothing about reality not being observed...rather when confronted with guessing (which you did) it observes that an epistemic doubt about reality itself must require a reality...but it doesn't require that you can describe it any better...the WHAT is not needed to claim a reality is there once wanting to doubt reality is proof of reality per se.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

My statement says nothing about reality not being observed...

...NO MATTER WHAT we can know about it. That's what you said.
That includes the event that we know nothing.
If we know nothing of any state of affairs, is there still a state of affairs? We Can Not Know.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

no no no..."no matter what we can know about it" refers to a thing within a thing...it concerns the description from the thing it grants a priori...so the claimant when it says There is a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it grants we can know about it by claiming itself, just not, that we know what it is implying, is relevant to grant IT, because "it" is granted already !!!

In fact what it implicitly ends up stating is that we are "observing" already because we are claiming something...no further description is needed.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You make a connection between reality and our capacity to experience it. That's fine.
But when you say "no matter what", you state that our capacity to experience reality is not a criteria for there being a reality at all. But as I've said many times, that is not something we can know.

If you had asserted that "there is a state of affairs", and said it's a fact, there would be no problem.

If you had admitted that the assertion you actually did make is an assumption there would also be no problem.

And just so we are clear. I believe that there is indeed a state of affairs no matter what we can know about it. But I am aware that this is a belief. That's the only point want to make, and the only point that is relevant to the thread.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Hammering the question any longer wont prove you right you got to take the sentence and show just where the mistake is done in a clear way...

I leave it as it is as all the relevant arguments I could have done are done, I would recommend everyone following the thread to read back my previous answers in this particular matter...it is sufficiently clarified !

Thank you Cyracuz for the thread and for your commitment to debate !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Indeed it is sufficiently clarified.
You are welcome.

0 Replies

There is X
That there is X is enough for we to know X is being.
Thus it doesn't matter what we can know about X for X be being because we already know that X is being.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

There is X
That there is X is enough for we to know X is being.
Thus it doesn't matter what we can know about X for X be being because we already know that X is being.

You would have been way ahead if you had stopped one post earlier! Wink

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I thought you said it was sufficiently clarified.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

This post is not for Cyr in specific is just a more generic way of going about it for someone who comes up n wants a resume ! Its totally lamed down I guess the way it is written is clear as water...
(For the 2 premiss I can think of only 1 example on which it applies, Reality...)

Simple form:

There is X
That there is X is enough for we to know X is being.
Thus it doesn't matter what we can know about X.

Happy now Frank ? Wink

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

You know, the graceful thing to do would have been to admit your mistake three pages ago...

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyr please don't be provocative we all know by now your stance...its clear as water as is your understanding of the matter !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

This post is not for Cyr in specific is just a more generic way of going about it for someone who comes up n wants a resume ! Its totally lamed down I guess the way it is written is clear as water...
(For the 2 premiss I can think of only 1 example on which it applies, Reality...)

Simple form:

There is X
That there is X is enough for we to know X is being.
Thus it doesn't matter what we can know about X.

Happy now Frank ?

I'm almost always happy, Fil. I'm just a content kinda guy.

Tell ya what.

Clip those three lines and start a new question thread.

Ask, "Does this make sense?"

The reaction of the family here should be interesting!

Here's what I think on the issue:

If something IS...it IS whether we humans know it is or are completely oblivious to it being. Our knowing about it or understanding it...has absolutely nothing to do with it being...even if the thing that IS...is that we must be involved in its being.

If "the thing that exists" is that "we must be involved in its being"...then that is what IS...even if we do not understand or realize that we are involved.

The thing that IS...IS. It is a fact regardless of anything about us.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

It is not a matter of stances.
You made an assertion, and then called it a fact.
I have demonstrated conclusively why your assertion is not a fact.
Since then you have been trying to mindfuck me into believing that your assertion is a fact. But it is only an assumption.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Our knowing about it or understanding it...has absolutely nothing to do with it being...

I hope you realize that you cannot know this. I realize that you haven't claimed to be able to know it. I'm just making sure.

Quote:

If "the thing that exists" is that "we must be involved in its being"...then that is what IS...even if we do not understand or realize that we are involved.

Fair enough. But then Fil's assertion that reality is "no matter what we might know about it" is an assumption, and a wrong one at that.

We simply cannot prove that reality will occur without us, for the simple reason that doing so would require us not to exist.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

But that is not the point Frank...the point is that Reality is immediately know for what it is once any agent inside reality needs reality to question whatever about reality...in fact the only thing he cannot question is reality itself as not being the realm of events where he himself is questioning whatever he wants...

I agree with what you said about what is being independent but I could not prove that so I settled for what can be proven...I think I have done a good job at it. And that was the point. As for the example I provided I see no fault with it, specially in the simple form, I am glad for someone to jump in n prove me wrong !

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

We simply cannot prove that reality will occur without us, for the simple reason that doing so would require us not to exist.

I can see you still didn't get it...I have not claimed any such thing !

1 Reply

How is this definition of "belief"?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know