Why do people care about absolute certainty?

But that's where epistemological certainty comes in, right?

But that's where epistemological certainty comes in, right?

Could you try and explain what you mean by "epistemological certainty"?

You did not read what I wrote about the significance of THE ACT of addition of the word absolutely. If you were not so indolent I would suggest you read Searle on "speech acts" with respect to semantics. But as you have refused to read anything for the past 10 years I would be wasting my time.

Well, the OP was absolute certainty not absolutely. I consider, as I said, the OP to be a functional redundancy. Both words imply the absolute in some conversations.

You have often talked about your skepticism in the use of either word and I tend to agree. But the word epistemological implies the study and theory of things known. That is why I refer to it as a limiting factor. So, epistemological certainty, IMO, is defined as limited.

Of course, as you know, Frank, one can never be certain.

And, I'm sorry to have referred to you as uncle. It was a well intentioned poke.

I wrote:

But that's where epistemological certainty comes in, right?

Olivier5 wrote:

Could you try and explain what you mean by "epistemological certainty"?

The word epistemological implies the study and theory of things known. That is why I refer to it as a limiting factor. So, epistemological certainty, IMO, is defined as limited.

I could be wrong, of course.

See ya later, Uncle Neo.

Okay. Since you insist on frequenting philosophy threads with your lay mantras, name something that you have read that others agree to be of philosophical significance, and explain why you have rejected it to such an extent that unlike other interested parties you have completely failed to be affected by it.

I get no "jollies" by calling you philosophically indolent when you are out of your depth and do nothing about it.

And since you claim to have a former training in philosophy, your latter day descent into usage of the term "philosophical babble", is surely the epitome of pathos.

Thank you for verifying your indolence by refusing to "jump through hoops".

While you continue to bore us all to death with your lay platitudes you can expect to be called out by myself and others who are conscious of the A2K mission statement about offering "expert opinion" on philosophy threads. For that reason alone, we are technically not wasting our time.

Socrates describes the purgative effect of reducing someone to aporia: it shows someone who merely thought he knew something that he does not in fact know it and instills in him a desire to investigate it.

Read what I wrote Frank just like you exhort others to do. The "wasting time with you" (the indolent one) serves to emphasize the importance of my reference for others (the less indolent) who might be following the thread.

I counter your superficial chat with suggestions of potential philosophical depth.

Ever heard of Hegel's dialectic....thesis/antithesis....or Derrida's aporia? They are somewhat more useful structural models than your abortive attempt at an appeal to "consistency" !

The word epistemological implies the study and theory of things known. That is why I refer to it as a limiting factor. So, epistemological certainty, IMO, is defined as limited.

I could be wrong, of course.

In any case, I still don't get it. Limited by what?