13
   

Why do people care about absolute certainty?

 
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 06:51 am
@neologist,
Quote:
But that's where epistemological certainty comes in, right?

Could you try and explain what you mean by "epistemological certainty"?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 08:26 am
@Frank Apisa,
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.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 10:02 am
@Frank Apisa,
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.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 10:05 am
@Olivier5,
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.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 10:10 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

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.



I have read lots of books...on lots of different subjects during the last ten years. For you to suggest otherwise indicates what I suspected...you simply enjoy disparaging me.

Fine.

I am having a conversation (over several years) with a person I consider intelligent...you. You, on the other hand, seem to be pursuing a conversation with someone you consider very damaged intellectual goods...me.

Think about that, Fresco!

While you are at it...think about the fact that you continue to frequent A2K...where almost no one engages in the kind of philosophical babble you find so compelling...and where the standard fare involves questions from kids wanting to tell their Mom that they want to screw her.

In any case, I am not wasting my time...but apparently you are correct that you are.

Why are you doing it?

Why would any sane person want to waste his/her time like that?

Do you get your jollies from telling people who are not as intelligent as you that they are not as intelligent as you?

How pathetic is that!
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 10:18 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

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 agree.

Obviously, Neo, in casual conversation, using the qualifier (assuming what we suppose to be real is real rather than an illusion)...many things can be "known."

Paris is the capital of France; King Henry XIII did marry more than once; the color of the sky appears blue; Earth is approximately 93 million miles from Sol; there are many stars in the galaxy of which we are a part; I am typing at my keyboard in my den...and such.

I have...with the qualifier...certainty about those things. Any philosophical judgement about that "certainty" should not be built around the notion that I am not absolutely certain.

I think you essentially agree with me that the idea there is a difference between "certainty" and "absolute certainty" is an absurdity.

See ya later, Uncle Neo.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 10:19 am
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

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.


Sounds to me as though it is a variation on the "qualifier" that I talked about.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 10:26 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
See ya later, Uncle Neo.
My daughter is older than her aunt, so I guess I could be older than you, you old geezer. Especially since you look so much like my brother.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 10:37 am
@Frank Apisa,
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.


Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 10:53 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

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.


You want someone to jump through hoops for you, Fresco...you picked the wrong person.

I majored in philosophy in college...and enjoy reading philosophical papers and essays.

But like I said, if you want someone to jump through hoops for you...choose someone else.



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


Sure you do...which is probably why you just did it again.

You are a funny guy, Fresco.



Quote:
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.





Really!

You acknowledge you are "wasting your time" dealing with people like me...but you continue to do it. And it is fairly obvious it is because you do get your jollies from telling people who are not as intelligent as you that they are not as intelligent as you.

Like I said: HOW PATHETIC IS THAT!


fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 11:16 am
@Frank Apisa,
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.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 11:27 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

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


Thank you for verifying that you get your jollies with those kinds of insults, Fresco.

How pathetic coming from such a scholarly person.


Quote:

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.



YOU were the one saying you were wasting your time, Fresco...not I.

Did you forget that?

Try to build some consistency. You look foolish being inconsistent like this...and the last thing I want is for you to look foolish in any way.

I want to consider you a great adversary.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 11:47 am
@Frank Apisa,
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? Wink They are somewhat more useful structural models than your abortive attempt at an appeal to "consistency" !

BTW With respect to your role model Socrates
Quote:
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.

Looks like Socrates got it wrong in your case Frank !
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 12:03 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

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.


So...you are wasting time...so that you can teach others...to what??? To waste time.

You're not making any sense, Fresco. Have you been drinking?
Drunk



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


You spew words using as many as possible to say as little as you can. And you use the appeal to authority like no one else with whom I've ever chatted.

But you do get your jollies by digging at me...and that...I love. I get a kick out of it. Perhaps you could even say that I get my jollies watching you try to get your jollies.

But I am an intellectual loser...it is expected of people like me. But you are a learned scholar...teaching the people at A2K great lessons! When you do it, you look like a clown.
Wink



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


Are they?

Wow.

How about that!

Are either Hegel or Derrida going to join this conversation? If not...why are they here?

Oh, wait a minute. I see...another appeal to authority.

Aha...I get it.



http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/humour-blague/clown-jonglerie/vil2_joker3.gif
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Jun, 2014 12:04 pm
@fresco,
Whatever you do...do not stop digging.

The hole is not nearly deep enough, Fresco.
Wink
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 01:01 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
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.

Not sure the term "wrong" apply here; it sounds like you have forged a concept, and concepts are not right or wrong. They can be useful of not, but not "wrong", I think.

In any case, I still don't get it. Limited by what?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 01:04 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
In any case, I still don't get it. Limited by what?
Few things known are permanent
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 01:09 pm
@neologist,
Ok. I guess it's the same idea than the OP exposed, no? I call it "good enough certainty". The kind of certainty that is enough to bet one's life on it.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 01:45 pm
@neologist,
Your "limit of epistemology point" seems to be covered by extrapolation from Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Jun, 2014 02:08 pm
Why all this argumentation? Is it the urge to conquer others? I participate in order to share what I consider of value and to hear what others have to offer or share. Sometimes I see (probably not as often as I should) that my ideas are limited and at other times I conclude that the offerings of others are valuable, but when utterances are merely rhetorical I feel I am wasting my time. And I certainly do not want to waste my time trying to make others feel bad about themselves. Image how you would feel if you learned that a rival felt bad about himself based on your aggressive criticisms. I hope for your sake that you would feel bad.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 11:38:07