The agnostic, the idealist, and the realist

Why not check out the 1001 other threads on that same topic strewn all over this forum?

That'd take too much time. Plus I have better things to do.

Philosophy is as vast as humans. People often engaged against formal Philosophy are doing it without being aware of it. In fact if this Universe is done in such a way that it cannot be know fully, and that seams to be the case, this is not even something Philosophers say exclusively but fringe top names in Science think also, then its Science that will be dead long before humans have stopped existing and speculating through reason. Philosophy will keep going for as long humans exist. Its very ironic to come to that sobering conclusion among the Science drunken folly going on right now in our time.
"Children" are rebel by their intrinsic nature while growing....eventually life and experience tamed them.

I think everybody is a scientist, too, in a way. We rely on inductive reasoning so much.

...fully agree. It is natural thinking reasoning beings make use of a good method where it can be applied. I know I do. Moreover there is not many freaking Science debates, conferences, or documentaries, that I miss. I love it ! None of it will prevent me to place the right dots where they belong.

We're all philosophers in a way, scientists in a way, and all full of **** in a way, I say.

I fully endorse that also. The difference is some of us care to admit it and thus get away from formal places where bullshit runs deep...being slave into a career, a current of thought, and a name, is no good path for productive philosophy. Many can't afford to change their minds when they invested they all life into a corner...I rather have open spaces. I don't fall for shiny stuff. They didn't trapped me.

There's something to that that I'm often guilty of overlooking, namely, the fact that one big reason more people don't listen to evidence and reason is that they've already invested so much time and effort into a belief system. Reversing a faith-based lifestyle is to admit to having wasted a large portion of their lives. Pretty unpleasant prospect.

...in all fairness we all are guilty of doing it one way or another...but some of us try to be very wary of ways to avoiding it as much as it is humanly possible.
My posture has strong convictions...if I am deluded in some way in my reasoning at least I am fully believing whatever I mean to convey to others. I don't sell stuff I don't believe in...I don't have the stomach for that...
If I change my mind and I did often in the past, I do it with without many regrets...it sinks in, I sober up, and then I look at a new open field ahead of me. I love exploring.

PS - When you are allowed to change your mind it pays to be wrong. The experience it is informative.

Changing one's mind easily in the face of compelling evidence and reason a good habit, I think, and a skill worth developing. As new research comes in regarding, for example, the neurolinguistics of second/foreign language acquisition, I sometimes have to change my lectures to contradict something that I'd been teaching in the past. Since my students are going to be English teachers after they graduage, I'm upfront about it and encourage them to do the same. Stay near the cutting edge and don't become a fossil.

I praise flexibility. I am far more interested in opinions coming from people that changed their minds then from people that always stand on the same ground. And I do this independently of agreeing or disagreeing. I simply give more weight to arguments coming from flexible people. In the least they tend to be fresh. Even when they are "wrong" from my standing pov they often have more interesting reasons in their argumentation. I end up learning more on how and why they got to certain outcomes in their belief systems. That alone gets me a more solid understanding on my own arguments.

I like flexibility myself, Fil...and I especially like the ability to acknowledge being wrong when one is wrong.

A couple of people here have claimed that I am inflexible...and unable to acknowledge that I am wrong. I suggested that to be completely unjustified...and that I was probably the individual here in A2K most likely to acknowledge being wrong...something I see so very few others do.

So I set out to document as many instances of my acknowledging I am wrong over the years.

I have now found 41 instances where I have said absolutely that I was WRONG...and gave an apology for being wrong.

I suspect there are others here who could not find even one instance of acknowledging a mistake or misstatement.

And while reading over old posts in that quest, I found that my opinions have changed on some things...at times significantly.

I'm pleased with myself for that.

The agnostic, the idealist, the realist: aren't we all of those things? Life has a way of making everything true, right?

I guess it really does suck knowing that everything anyone argues about is already known-philosophy 101

No...agnosticism, idealism, and realism are theoretical positions. Their roles are not necessarily conflicting, and their resolution or agreement does not equate to an end to philosophical enquiry.

Also, we will always find new things to fight about, and we'll never give up on those old conflicts, so phi-101 represents a relatively stable curriculum requirement.



Nope, i don't think so...care to support that argument?

Everything can't be true. Truth isn't subjective. Just because you believe something to be true, doesn't make it true.

My point has been that every person lives life as:
A.) An idealist- we "create" our own thoughts in the mind- daydreaming and wants which motivates us. We idealize our Subjectivism. Ex: art, music, government, law, our jobs: the "human world" as Kant would say
B.) A realist- as in a human knows that driving a car into a tree at 100 mph will probably kill us or cause bodily harm. AKA: Physical reality and physical self being AFFECTS A HUMAN objectively. Phenomena as Kant would say
C.) An agnostic- ALL humans question the idealistic and realistic truths we all know. We know only what we know which ultimately is nothing as we ALL ABSOLUETLY KNOW we are all mortal and could never know everything thanks to our imminent deaths. As in we all question ourselves AND our beliefs one way or another due to our own limits.

We live our lives as all three. Trying to break existence down into sub catagories (philosophy) will only bring mass confusion which is why the world is the way it is. Common sense would say we exist in a very real objective reality in which HUMANS (and only humans) can idealize their "being" (whatever it may be) based on a guess that only exists due to our mortality.