Destroy My Belief System, Please!

Yes, it takes at least two to entangle.

I don't read 90% of y0ur bull shyt; it saves me a lot of time. LOL There's no law against peeking in once-in-awhile to check if you've learned anything, but you never do.

If there's any law against peeking in on Ignore posters, please let me know.

Your intelligence is no longer in question; you have proven you are not capable of knowing anything about your own contradictions.

You don't know about reality, but you are damn sure about your position on almost every forum you post on.

You also insult most of the people who dare to question your opinion.

You are a damn fool.

Hey Frank, I looked up your "qualifier", and I don't see how it helps you reconcile your knowing persona with your unknowing one.

That's because he's not sure of reality, but knows quite a few things even if they are guesses most of the time.

I see you guys are still wrestling !

Look....think about the subject of the OP..."belief system".

There are 3 levels to this.
1. Take the meaning of the word "reality" to be an agreed concept and evaluate "beliefs" against it
2. Take the meaning of the word "reality" to be up for grabs in which case you are argue about comparative beliefs in what it is...with little chance of resolution because you have no agreed test criterion.
3. Take the meaning of "reality" to be a function of the context of its usage. (This is not "a belief" in itself but an established tenet of pragmatism). This level tends to eliminate metaphysical discussion of "the nature of reality" and looks at everyday usage such as "She believes she can cook but in reality she has no idea"


I suggest that the wrestling is due to confusion between these levels.

If you honestly want to discuss this part of the problem...just point out what you see as inconsistent and contradictory in the two statements you offered as contradictory and we can discuss it.

Quote:

If you honestly want to discuss this part of the problem...just point out what you see as inconsistent and contradictory in the two statements you offered as contradictory and we can discuss it.

Been there, done that, it didn't work. You didn't see them, remember? When you honestly want to see them, go back to that post of mine.

I just thought I'd tell you you "qualifier" does not qualify much and won't help you reconcile your two halves. It's just a fig leaf for your contradictions. You have failed to articulate a coherent view of knowledge. I suspect you don;t really care anyway. You're pulling all this out of your behind as you go along. Fair enough: you're all about pretending that you can think.

Anyway, I trust I answered your questions about my ability to know things to your satisfaction. I know stuff because I accept a number of "mind axioms" that allow one to build a conventional but operational philosophy. Included in those axioms are a belief in logic, time, the world, our senses, and the mind.

Your philosophy is not operational. It's only useful to wank off on A2K, but apart from that, what else can you do with it? I guess you can't even talk to
your wife about it; she'd thought you are crazy. Which of course you are in the sense that your worldview about knowledge is schizophrenic. No big deal. You're too old to die of it.

Glad this is all cleared up now.

I have done so already... Don't forget to do the same!

I say I am interested in what you have to say...and I want the discussion to continue.

Quote:

I say I am interested in what you have to say...and I want the discussion to continue.

By all means, keep talking. I have described my position clearly and unambiguously, which is more than you can say. You got catch up to do, boy!