Richard Feynman Quotes
“I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. ... I don't have to know an answer.”
dimosthenis9October 21, 2021 at 07:46#6098290 likes
I was wondering what are the thoughts of the community about this, let me know:)
It's hard to know what the question means exactly so I guess I'll answer this as if you are asking: "Can a person hold beliefs which they doubt?"
Yes. Doesn't everyone except fundamentalists and crack pots?
Jack CumminsOctober 21, 2021 at 09:12#6098460 likes
Reply to Lea
Living with doubt may involve some mental anguish. However, in some ways it may be the most honest and authentic way. To try to force thinking beyond doubt may force prematurely or inadequate answers, which is just about trying to struggle with doubt, as if it an enemy. Why not embrace doubt instead?
Perhaps, but have you noticed that it depends upon what belief you are doubting? No one is traumatised by the notion that they doubt if the platypus is a mammal. Generally anxiety takes place if you are conditioned into thinking that certainty is possible and specifically that it is possible about 'supernatural' beliefs - for instance life after death and god stuff. The other belief that seems to preoccupy certain people is whether we are living in a simulation or not or if what we call reality is a fancy cover for some heavy duty idealism.
Perhaps, but have you noticed that it depends upon what belief you are doubting? No one is traumatised by the notion that they doubt if the platypus is a mammal. Generally anxiety takes place if you are conditioned into thinking that certainty is possible and specifically that it is possible about 'supernatural' beliefs - for instance life after death and god stuff. The other belief that seems to preoccupy certain people is whether we are living in a simulation or not or if what we call reality is a fancy cover for some heavy duty idealism.
I think people worry about all sorts of doubts, like whether the surgery will work, whether the job will remain, whether the relationship will continue, whether the team will win, etc.
Srap TasmanerOctober 21, 2021 at 13:12#6098740 likes
Better a question that can't be answered than an answer that can't be questioned.
(I think that was Feynman.)
James RileyOctober 21, 2021 at 15:06#6098990 likes
Doubt does not preclude action.
Embrace the doubt, then ignore it.
You just have to know when and where to subordinate it to the point where it does not get in the way. Until then, argue with people that are smarter than you.
"Doubt is an uneasy and dissatisfied state from which we struggle to free ourselves and pass into the state of belief; while the latter is a calm and satisfactory state which we do not wish to avoid, or to change to a belief in anything else. On the contrary, we cling tenaciously, not merely to believing, but to believing just what we do believe. Thus, both doubt and belief have positive effects upon us, though very different ones. Belief does not make us act at once, but puts us into such a condition that we shall behave in some certain way, when the occasion arises. Doubt has not the least effect of this sort, but stimulates us to action until it is destroyed."
Obviously much more to this. But if all we had were doubts, we couldn't even more at all.
James RileyOctober 21, 2021 at 16:17#6099120 likes
Doesn't everyone except fundamentalists and crack pots?
:up: True, but only because no one brings doubt into their lives. That can be done, but one has to first quit doubting, and then make them doubt. If they refuse, well, do unto them what they would do unto you.
I was wondering what are the thoughts of the community about this, let me know:)
I'm an engineer. When we design a structure, we calculate all the loads on it - gravity, wind, seismic, snow. Then we estimate material properties - steel, soil, wood, bolts.... Then we increase the calculated and estimated values by what we call a factor of safety. Then we run calculations to see if the structure will stand up.
The factor of safety is the engineering way of dealing with doubt.
Alkis PiskasOctober 21, 2021 at 17:14#6099300 likes
Reply to Lea
By "live" I assume that you mean on a constant basis, persistently. (Otherwise, it's not a big deal, right?)l
We all live in doubt, about certain things. The question is if these things are just a few, a lot or most of them! The last case can be of course characterized as a severe mental condition. It also matters how important in our life these doubts are.
Doubt means uncertainly and conflict. Conflict can exist "on the surface", i.e. on an intellectual basis, rationally or "deeply" on an emotional basis, pathologically. The first case is normal and sometimes or necessary, e.g. you doubt about a person's intentions, if something that is said is actually true etc. But is shouldn't last forever about the same things, otherwise it might develop to an obsession and possibly to a mental condition. You cannot doubt for too long, that is "live with the doubt" of whether your partner (wife, husband, associate, etc.) cheats on you or not. You should better find out soon and get out of that doubt.
On the other hand, when a conflict takes emotional dimensions and is very important for the individual, i.e. if one's life is worth living, it even lead to suicide.
I think people worry about all sorts of doubts, like whether the surgery will work, whether the job will remain, whether the relationship will continue, whether the team will win, etc.
I agree. But I guess I don't put those into the category of doubt so much as undifferentiated anxieties of living. But what you've highlighted is just how fast and sprawling the question is and how it would benefit from some specificity. I took it as being about ontological dread. Perhaps wrongly.
How so? Doubting about existential questions (death, purpose of life, God etc). Doubting about yourself. Who you actually are. What will happen even in your everyday routine (work, marriage, family, friends etc). All these are overrated??
Doubt is inherited in human nature. And for me, goes hand by hand with our natural curiosity. And these are what drives humanity as to find answers and the Absolute Truth. What fuels us.Doubt played a key role in our great humanity achievements.
So no it isn't overrated at all for me. In fact,it's the exact opposite .It's underrated!
Doubting about existential questions (death, purpose of life, God etc).
Can you doubt your death or your purpose in life without presuposing your life? Each act of doubt rests on something that is undoubted.
That's part of the logical structure of doubt.
The habit in philosophy has been to focus on doubt, with the result that most philosophical discussion - especially amongst dilettantes - is excessively cynical. The result is malformed notions such as idealism and solipsism.
So take the notion you used: "absolute truth". What that is remains obscure. Like Douglas Adams ultimate question of life the universe and everything, folk don't take the time to work out what it is they are looking for. The result is they jump to absurdity, perhaps god, perhaps nihilism.
SO if you really want to doubt, try doubting that you understand "absolute truth". Do some conceptual analysis, see if you can work out what you mean.
dimosthenis9October 21, 2021 at 21:43#6100030 likes
Each act of doubt rests on something that is undoubted.
So what? That doesn't say anything about the doubt itself. Life is undoubted yes, but that doesn't help at all to find out our purpose of life. Doubt is still there!
SO if you really want to doubt, try doubting that you understand "absolute truth".
Understand it? How could I ever understand something that is still unknown? A total mystery?
What I mean with Absolute Truth is simply the ultimate explanation of how everything works! How universe works and its purpose (if actual there is one). And yes, that Truth must be one and Absolute indeed.
I always distinguish it from Human Truth, which is by nature limited.And nothing to do with it.
It's one of the rare things in fact that I don't doubt about.
Can you doubt your death or your purpose in life without presuposing your life? Each act of doubt rests on something that is undoubted.
That's part of the logical structure of doubt.
The habit in philosophy has been to focus on doubt, with the result that most philosophical discussion - especially amongst dilettantes - is excessively cynical. The result is malformed notions such as idealism and solipsism.
So take the notion you used: "absolute truth". What that is remains obscure. Like Douglas Adams ultimate question of life the universe and everything, folk don't take the time to work out what it is they are looking for. The result is they jump to absurdity, perhaps god, perhaps nihilism.
SO if you really want to doubt, try doubting that you understand "absolute truth". Do some conceptual analysis, see if you can work out what you mean.
Reply to Banno I've come to see that. I've certainly been guilty in my time for holding absolute certainty that there is no absolute certainty and other neophyte conceptual gaffes.
dimosthenis9October 21, 2021 at 22:11#6100150 likes
I m not following you. What exactly sense to doubt about? That there must be an explanation of Universe and how it works? That this explanation (truth) must be one and only? That human truth like (good, evil, death etc etc) has nothing to do with universal truth?
If that's what you want me to doubt about,well no thanks. Doubt yourself.
Only about the nature of the doubt.Its origin. But so what? It doesn't make it vanish or solve it. So for me at least it isn't much helpful.
Take the analysis further. Doubt and certainty are propositional attitudes; they are ways of thinking about this or that statement. You doubt that the Earth is flat, or are certain that this is a hand.
SO if it is important to you, you can go ahead and accept whatever you like as certain. Or you can doubt whatever you like. SO if what you are after is just to "make it vanish or solve it" nothing could be easier.
But it might serve you well to consider the consequences of each doubt or certainty.
Well, there's a whole lot of other philosophical tools one might pull out, but folk keep asking questions for which Wittgenstein's approach is particularly suited.
We could take on Popper instead, and say that doubt is how we sort the good stories from the bad; the ones we can doubt being the better. Woudl that be better?
We can all live with doubt. The more you doubt the less susceptible you are being manipulated and be taken advantage of. Scam artists and many types of fraudsters prey on gullible peoole who never learned to doubt. Skepticism (which is a form doubt) is essential for doing science.
I more curious about folks who manage their adult lives believing whatever authority figures say without hestitation.
The more you doubt the less susceptible you are being manipulated and be taken advantage of.
Would that this were true.
While doubt (and certainty) are inherent aspects of our lives, turning doubt into a fetish is a sure way to set yourself up for manipulation. Science deniers see themselves as bastions of rational discourse, doubting the authority of the men in white coats.
The middle path, doubting here and being certain there, is the only viable approach. The issue it, what is here and which is there.
dimosthenis9October 21, 2021 at 22:56#6100360 likes
Doubt and certainty are propositional attitudes; they are ways of thinking about this or that statement. You doubt that the Earth is flat, or are certain that this is a hand.
So what? What all of what you mention here proves?? That doubt and certainty are connected?They might be yes. So?? That makes doubt less important??Or meaningless?? Or that doesn't exist??
The argument you stated was "doubt is overrated" and that's what I responded. All these you mention where exactly support your initial argument? In fact they make it even more weak. Since at half of your posts you urge me to "doubt"!
you can go ahead and accept whatever you like as certain. Or you can doubt whatever
What are you talking about? There are things that science made us not to doubt anymore. Except if someone doesn't accept science. So no you can't accept everything you like as certainty!
At the past people were doubting about the shape of earth. Science came and prove it's not flat. Of course there might be lunatics who would reject that. But so what? That past human doubt was solved by science! As many others!And guess what? It was solved cause initially someone doubted that it is flat indeed!!
While doubt (and certainty) are inherent aspects of our lives, turning doubt into a fetish is a sure way to set yourself up for manipulation. Science deniers see themselves as bastions of rational discourse, doubting the authority of the men in white coats.
Thats just examples of nasty people misusing doubt in ways of looking out for their own interests. It is well known that the Russian goverment manufacured doubt to encourage distrust in respected institutions. My advice is to ignore such idiots and continue doubting as you normally would.
The more you doubt the less susceptible you are being manipulated and be taken advantage of. Scam artists and many types of fraudsters prey on gullible peoole who never learned to doubt.
Doubting about existential questions (death, purpose of life, God etc). Doubting about yourself. Who you actually are. What will happen even in your everyday routine (work, marriage, family, friends etc).
That's not doubt, though. It's worry, uncertainty, indecision, that feeling of unease.
You appear to be unavailable for conversation. Cheers.
You appear to have being trapped by your own statements.And you seem clever enough to understand it.
So getting away like that, seems like a "good" strategy. Making a fancy "exit" out of the conversation as not to "lose face". Using an ad home argument as a getaway vehicle.Anyway whatever suits you better.
Cheers.
dimosthenis9October 21, 2021 at 23:16#6100480 likes
That was not the case.The point is that you mention things that you can't support. Like that doubt is overrated and that someone can be certain for whatever he wants.
In my mind they are the same. Aren't worries, uncertainties etc the roots of doubts? Sure they are for me.
Doubt is a verbally expressible, informed, justified wavering between two options. When you doubt, you waver between A and B, and you know your reasons for doing so.
Worries, uncertainties, anxiety are more general, often not even verbally expressed/expressible.
Reply to baker The only reason to be cautious in the first place is because you are in doubt, or at least when you are judging a dishonest person. Hence being cautious is related to doubt.
Reply to Wheatley That's strange. One is cautious because one cares about oneself, about one's wellbeing. Related to that, cares about the wellbeing of those who are important to one.
That's strange. One is cautious because one cares about oneself, about one's wellbeing. Related to that, cares about the wellbeing of those who are important to one.
There will always be mysteries but little doubt. For example the Trinity. It is beyond the comprehension of our finite minds - but that is OK. Faith and reason.
Reply to Tom Storm it’s an assignment and i’m new to philosophy so it would really help me if you would give me direction on were to start, i was thinking on doing rewriting the question to is it normal to have doubt in life and doing an axe on yes it is and no it isn’t but i seems a little bit too easy
If you had to write an essay about this question what would your axes be?
I think the best way is to take examples as axes and not some "formal systems" of doubt, eventhough philosophers love formal systems. Which could be a first example of doubt. Doubting the formal systems.
dimosthenis9October 22, 2021 at 06:50#6101850 likes
Doubt is a verbally expressible, informed, justified wavering between two options. When you doubt, you waver between A and B, and you know your reasons for doing so.
Worries, uncertainties, anxiety are more general, often not even verbally expressed/expressible.
I don't think it's necessary doubt to be always about only two options.
Worries, anxieties, uncertainties etc just plant the seed for doubt.
As to correct my previous post, they aren't exactly the same but surely they are extremely connected and in most cases doubt involves them.
I don't think it's necessary doubt to be always about only two options.
At the level of decision making, it is. Before one can decide for a particular option, one has to whittle down the multitude of options until only two remain.
Worries, anxieties, uncertainties etc just plant the seed for doubt.
As to correct my previous post, they aren't exactly the same but surely they are extremely connected and in most cases doubt involves them.
This seems to be the popular view. But I think doubt is ethically motivated, it's a matter of being conscientious. As opposed to worries or anxieties which are much more general, vague.
Cabbage FarmerOctober 23, 2021 at 16:18#6107280 likes
Let the people suppose that knowledge means knowing things entirely; the philosopher must say to himself: "When I analyze the process that is expressed in this sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions that would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove—for example, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and, finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking—that I know what thinking is.
I think that's what @Banno is getting at. It's a bit of a rabbit hole, and might not be that productive when taken seriously.
It appears that this is a language issue. This thing that we're engaged in, doing, as we have this conversation has been labelled an action, an act viz. thinking from which follows the neccesity of a doer, a thinker [Cogito ergo sum]. Are we really doing anything while we're thinking?
the affirmation of strifeOctober 25, 2021 at 06:29#6114700 likes
Yeah, it's a bit of a language issue. I agree we usually define "thinking" as involving a "doer", and that is probably the most practical way. As for your question, Nietzsche remarks later in the same book that he considers thoughts as something that happen to you, rather than actions per se. He presents the observation (purely anecdotal) that often we think something before we realise that we are thinking (or something to that effect). But that's probably for a different post :)
As for the topic of doubt, I think that doubt is healthy in moderation (like most things... all things?) but we should not fail to consider the extremes. Can we "live in doubt", well, the imprecisions of language are evident here again... We can live with doubt, certainly, I would say it is even necessary. But sometimes enough is enough, we will never have perfect information all the time and too much doubt is, like you say about suffering[1], incapacitating.
[1] Despite my response in the other thread, I don't completely disagree about that either...
Yeah, it's a bit of a language issue. I agree we usually define "thinking" as involving a "doer", and that is probably the most practical way. As for your question, Nietzsche remarks later in the same book that he considers thoughts as something that happen to you, rather than actions per se. He presents the observation (purely anecdotal) that often we think something before we realise that we are thinking (or something to that effect). But that's probably for a different post :)
Here's the problem: Before one can talk about action, the actor must already exist.
[quote=René Descartes]I think, therefore I am[/quote]
Descartes has it backwards. To think (act) is to presuppose a thinker (actor). Circulus in probando.
As for the topic of doubt, I think that doubt is healthy in moderation (like most things... all things?) but we should not fail to consider the extremes. Can we "live in doubt", well, the imprecisions of language are evident here again... We can live with doubt, certainly, I would say it is even necessary. But sometimes enough is enough, we will never have perfect information all the time and too much doubt is, like you say about suffering[1], incapacitating.
[1] Despite my response in the other thread, I don't completely disagree about that either...
We can doubt anything and eveeything. That's how it is I'm afraid.
the affirmation of strifeOctober 25, 2021 at 08:33#6114900 likes
Reply to Lea "Can we live in doubt?" It depends on what you mean by "...live in doubt?" I'm going to repeat some of what @Banno said, because we are largely in agreement, with some minor disagreement.
First, I believe Wittgenstein worked much of this out in his final notes called On Certainty. If you want to understand the concepts of knowing and doubting, there is no better work, as far as I know. My whole framework of what it means to know and doubt is built on W. final notes.
These two concepts work hand-in-hand, i.e., they must be seen as working together. Both are built on a framework of arational beliefs, so both knowing and doubting arise from a place beyond knowing and doubting, which is why I'm saying that they are built on a framework that's arational. The framework is much of the reality that surrounds us. A lot of work needs to be done in terms of what that framework is, and how it can change, but we have a good idea as to what some of these arational beliefs are. The classic examples are, "I have hands," "There are objects," "I live on Earth," "There are minds," etc. These beliefs form the backdrop of the reality that we find ourselves in. Think of these beliefs, as those that can't normally be doubted, there are exceptions, but generally they are foundational arational beliefs that form the substrata of our talk about knowing and doubting. Which means, that they arise out of the reality we find ourselves in. We can't make sense of these concepts apart from this reality. This means that there are limits to what can be known and doubted, given the limits of language. Although the limits of language is not static, i.e., it's not a set boundary (I'm not claiming this is all based on Wittgenstein, some of it is, some of it isn't, but I think it follows from much of what W. said.).
So, again, you have to think of language as the soil (Language itself, grows out of the basic beliefs that form the reality that surrounds us.) that gives birth to the concept of doubting. Without that soil there would be no doubting, period, end of story. So, doubting is a linguistic phenomena (primarily), and as such, it takes place in a language-game (If you aren't familiar with language-games, there are plenty of threads that talk about it. More importantly, read the PI.). The language-game of doubting is very similar to the language-game of knowing. One of the primary drivers of these language-games (knowing and doubting) is justification, viz., do you have the proper justification for your knowledge, and do you have the proper justification for your doubts? Descartes missed the mark completely, that's all I'll say about that here.
So, to partly answer your question, "Can you live in doubt?" If you mean perpetual doubt, no. But, there are rational doubts, and this is a healthy thing. However, sometimes people doubt, where there is no justification for the doubt, and it's here that confusion about doubting happens. There are also areas where it's not so clear, in terms of whether its rational to doubt or not, so this is not always black and white. The same is true of what we know.
If you want to learn more, read On Certainty, and what spawned On Certainty.
Sure, but I read the OP as questioning how much we should doubt. Maybe that's too much interpretation.
A good point. Nevertheless, once we're reduced to attempts at finding out how much doubt is acceptable, we've already conceded that there's a problem viz. that everything and anything is doubtable. I regard the enterprise of moderating skepticism as only to sugar coat the bitter pill that we must all swallow.
Reply to Lea Probably not just doubt. You'd get into all these recursions and never do anything. But one can certainly doubt, amongt other reactions/actions/processes and live. One can even doubt everything, for some period of time. Then you'll need a meal and probably some confidence it's in the fridge or can be ordered by phone.
It's tricky to mount a skeptical argument about everything, since you won't be doubting certain things when you mount that argument.
But one could sort of sit in a stunned doubting state, without making arguments and doubt away at everything. But this would tend to reduce your chances of survival (and would likely lead to depression) if done too often/too much
Doubt is merely a waste-data filtering function, you do not necessarily want to doubt, but need to. If doubt was unavailable, I couldn't discover the truth of a false claim, half the time...
Detection is a normal mental function, we lose faith in the detector if there is doubt.
Is there anyone out there? [short period of silence] No. Move on.
Metaphorically, a object going off a radar. To be linked with: an idea going out of bounds of our internal logistics; to which then it falls to doubt to help us determine.
Is there reason to suggest that doubting here is wrong?
Comments (79)
“I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. ... I don't have to know an answer.”
In fact, we live only in doubt.
It's hard to know what the question means exactly so I guess I'll answer this as if you are asking: "Can a person hold beliefs which they doubt?"
Yes. Doesn't everyone except fundamentalists and crack pots?
Living with doubt may involve some mental anguish. However, in some ways it may be the most honest and authentic way. To try to force thinking beyond doubt may force prematurely or inadequate answers, which is just about trying to struggle with doubt, as if it an enemy. Why not embrace doubt instead?
Perhaps, but have you noticed that it depends upon what belief you are doubting? No one is traumatised by the notion that they doubt if the platypus is a mammal. Generally anxiety takes place if you are conditioned into thinking that certainty is possible and specifically that it is possible about 'supernatural' beliefs - for instance life after death and god stuff. The other belief that seems to preoccupy certain people is whether we are living in a simulation or not or if what we call reality is a fancy cover for some heavy duty idealism.
I think people worry about all sorts of doubts, like whether the surgery will work, whether the job will remain, whether the relationship will continue, whether the team will win, etc.
Better a question that can't be answered than an answer that can't be questioned.
(I think that was Feynman.)
Embrace the doubt, then ignore it.
You just have to know when and where to subordinate it to the point where it does not get in the way. Until then, argue with people that are smarter than you.
Peirce speaks about this quite interestingly.
"Doubt is an uneasy and dissatisfied state from which we struggle to free ourselves and pass into the state of belief; while the latter is a calm and satisfactory state which we do not wish to avoid, or to change to a belief in anything else. On the contrary, we cling tenaciously, not merely to believing, but to believing just what we do believe. Thus, both doubt and belief have positive effects upon us, though very different ones. Belief does not make us act at once, but puts us into such a condition that we shall behave in some certain way, when the occasion arises. Doubt has not the least effect of this sort, but stimulates us to action until it is destroyed."
Obviously much more to this. But if all we had were doubts, we couldn't even more at all.
:up: True, but only because no one brings doubt into their lives. That can be done, but one has to first quit doubting, and then make them doubt. If they refuse, well, do unto them what they would do unto you.
I'm an engineer. When we design a structure, we calculate all the loads on it - gravity, wind, seismic, snow. Then we estimate material properties - steel, soil, wood, bolts.... Then we increase the calculated and estimated values by what we call a factor of safety. Then we run calculations to see if the structure will stand up.
The factor of safety is the engineering way of dealing with doubt.
By "live" I assume that you mean on a constant basis, persistently. (Otherwise, it's not a big deal, right?)l
We all live in doubt, about certain things. The question is if these things are just a few, a lot or most of them! The last case can be of course characterized as a severe mental condition. It also matters how important in our life these doubts are.
Doubt means uncertainly and conflict. Conflict can exist "on the surface", i.e. on an intellectual basis, rationally or "deeply" on an emotional basis, pathologically. The first case is normal and sometimes or necessary, e.g. you doubt about a person's intentions, if something that is said is actually true etc. But is shouldn't last forever about the same things, otherwise it might develop to an obsession and possibly to a mental condition. You cannot doubt for too long, that is "live with the doubt" of whether your partner (wife, husband, associate, etc.) cheats on you or not. You should better find out soon and get out of that doubt.
On the other hand, when a conflict takes emotional dimensions and is very important for the individual, i.e. if one's life is worth living, it even lead to suicide.
I agree. But I guess I don't put those into the category of doubt so much as undifferentiated anxieties of living. But what you've highlighted is just how fast and sprawling the question is and how it would benefit from some specificity. I took it as being about ontological dread. Perhaps wrongly.
In doubt of what?
"To live in doubt of X" would mean to be able to stay focused on X for all of one's waking hours. That doesn't seem realistic.
If there are times of day when one doesn't "live in doubt of X", then, clearly, it is possible to live without doubt in X.
You can only doubt against an indubitable background. You might doubt anything, if you like, but you can't doubt everything.
How so? Doubting about existential questions (death, purpose of life, God etc). Doubting about yourself. Who you actually are. What will happen even in your everyday routine (work, marriage, family, friends etc). All these are overrated??
Doubt is inherited in human nature. And for me, goes hand by hand with our natural curiosity. And these are what drives humanity as to find answers and the Absolute Truth. What fuels us.Doubt played a key role in our great humanity achievements.
So no it isn't overrated at all for me. In fact,it's the exact opposite .It's underrated!
Can you doubt your death or your purpose in life without presuposing your life? Each act of doubt rests on something that is undoubted.
That's part of the logical structure of doubt.
The habit in philosophy has been to focus on doubt, with the result that most philosophical discussion - especially amongst dilettantes - is excessively cynical. The result is malformed notions such as idealism and solipsism.
So take the notion you used: "absolute truth". What that is remains obscure. Like Douglas Adams ultimate question of life the universe and everything, folk don't take the time to work out what it is they are looking for. The result is they jump to absurdity, perhaps god, perhaps nihilism.
SO if you really want to doubt, try doubting that you understand "absolute truth". Do some conceptual analysis, see if you can work out what you mean.
So what? That doesn't say anything about the doubt itself. Life is undoubted yes, but that doesn't help at all to find out our purpose of life. Doubt is still there!
Quoting Banno
Solipsism yeah, but idealism? Idealism offered and still offers great services to philosophy!
Quoting Banno
Understand it? How could I ever understand something that is still unknown? A total mystery?
What I mean with Absolute Truth is simply the ultimate explanation of how everything works! How universe works and its purpose (if actual there is one). And yes, that Truth must be one and Absolute indeed.
I always distinguish it from Human Truth, which is by nature limited.And nothing to do with it.
It's one of the rare things in fact that I don't doubt about.
SO you are claiming: that doubt is dependent on certainty says nothin about doubt.
Hmm. That's a bit contrary.
And you set up "absolute truth" by distinguishing it from "human truth", with which it has nothing to do. That'll work.
It's still the ultimate question fo life, the universe and everything. Doubt the sense of that.
42.
I don't see how you are doing anything useful here. Quoting dimosthenis9
You sure about that?
Nicely put. Crystal clear.
Cheers. I thought so, too.
Pearls before swine, it seems.
It comes back to the notion that philosophy consists in conceptual analysis. Working out what is meant as opposed to making shit up.
Only about the nature of the doubt.Its origin. But so what? It doesn't make it vanish or solve it. So for me at least it isn't much helpful.
Quoting Banno
How so?
Quoting Banno
I m not following you. What exactly sense to doubt about? That there must be an explanation of Universe and how it works? That this explanation (truth) must be one and only? That human truth like (good, evil, death etc etc) has nothing to do with universal truth?
If that's what you want me to doubt about,well no thanks. Doubt yourself.
Quoting Banno
Let me correct it a little. We mostly live in doubt. And for that yeah I m sure.
Kant wouldn't be very happy reading that.
Wittgenstein again - On Certainty.
Take the analysis further. Doubt and certainty are propositional attitudes; they are ways of thinking about this or that statement. You doubt that the Earth is flat, or are certain that this is a hand.
SO if it is important to you, you can go ahead and accept whatever you like as certain. Or you can doubt whatever you like. SO if what you are after is just to "make it vanish or solve it" nothing could be easier.
But it might serve you well to consider the consequences of each doubt or certainty.
What do you think?
Well, there's a whole lot of other philosophical tools one might pull out, but folk keep asking questions for which Wittgenstein's approach is particularly suited.
We could take on Popper instead, and say that doubt is how we sort the good stories from the bad; the ones we can doubt being the better. Woudl that be better?
I more curious about folks who manage their adult lives believing whatever authority figures say without hestitation.
Would that this were true.
While doubt (and certainty) are inherent aspects of our lives, turning doubt into a fetish is a sure way to set yourself up for manipulation. Science deniers see themselves as bastions of rational discourse, doubting the authority of the men in white coats.
The middle path, doubting here and being certain there, is the only viable approach. The issue it, what is here and which is there.
So what? What all of what you mention here proves?? That doubt and certainty are connected?They might be yes. So?? That makes doubt less important??Or meaningless?? Or that doesn't exist??
The argument you stated was "doubt is overrated" and that's what I responded. All these you mention where exactly support your initial argument? In fact they make it even more weak. Since at half of your posts you urge me to "doubt"!
Quoting Banno
What are you talking about? There are things that science made us not to doubt anymore. Except if someone doesn't accept science. So no you can't accept everything you like as certainty!
At the past people were doubting about the shape of earth. Science came and prove it's not flat. Of course there might be lunatics who would reject that. But so what? That past human doubt was solved by science! As many others!And guess what? It was solved cause initially someone doubted that it is flat indeed!!
Quoting Banno
That it isn't at all.
Thats just examples of nasty people misusing doubt in ways of looking out for their own interests. It is well known that the Russian goverment manufacured doubt to encourage distrust in respected institutions. My advice is to ignore such idiots and continue doubting as you normally would.
Quoting Banno
No middle path.
You appear to be unavailable for conversation. Cheers.
Yep. Easy to do when doubt becomes a fetish.
That's the first time I have ever heard that. :brow:
That's not doubt, that's caution.
- - -
Quoting dimosthenis9
That's not doubt, though. It's worry, uncertainty, indecision, that feeling of unease.
In my mind they are closely related.
You appear to have being trapped by your own statements.And you seem clever enough to understand it.
So getting away like that, seems like a "good" strategy. Making a fancy "exit" out of the conversation as not to "lose face". Using an ad home argument as a getaway vehicle.Anyway whatever suits you better.
Cheers.
In my mind they are the same. Aren't worries, uncertainties etc the roots of doubts? Sure they are for me.
You appear to have not understood what was said. SO there's little point in saying more.
For example:
Quoting dimosthenis9
That was not the case.The point is that you mention things that you can't support. Like that doubt is overrated and that someone can be certain for whatever he wants.
Quoting Banno
Just showing you where you are answering to yourself.
Quoting Banno
And that shows that I m easily manipulated then by your weird approach.
Sorry but it's just another ad home argument and nothing more.
Doubt is our fuel as humanity as to expand our limited truth and get closer to the absolute truth, either you like it or not.
Doubt is not a pleasant emotion. :grimace:
Neither necessarily unpleasant.
I rather not go around doubting everything. Just a personal preference. :up:
Respected.
Doubt is a verbally expressible, informed, justified wavering between two options. When you doubt, you waver between A and B, and you know your reasons for doing so.
Worries, uncertainties, anxiety are more general, often not even verbally expressed/expressible.
How?
Okay, that's fine, have it your way.
There will always be mysteries but little doubt. For example the Trinity. It is beyond the comprehension of our finite minds - but that is OK. Faith and reason.
When is your essay due? Any comments yet about all the responses to your question or are you just raiding the place for paragraphs?
[quote=Descartes]Cogito ergo sum.[/quote]
1. The belief generating engine - logic
2. The input to that belief generating machine - propositions
I doubt both 1 and 2. Thus, I doubt everything including what I just said.
I think the best way is to take examples as axes and not some "formal systems" of doubt, eventhough philosophers love formal systems. Which could be a first example of doubt. Doubting the formal systems.
I don't think it's necessary doubt to be always about only two options.
Worries, anxieties, uncertainties etc just plant the seed for doubt.
As to correct my previous post, they aren't exactly the same but surely they are extremely connected and in most cases doubt involves them.
At the level of decision making, it is. Before one can decide for a particular option, one has to whittle down the multitude of options until only two remain.
This seems to be the popular view. But I think doubt is ethically motivated, it's a matter of being conscientious. As opposed to worries or anxieties which are much more general, vague.
Absolutely. We can and do live in doubt. Doubt is not denial. Doubt is the negative form of wonder. Doubt is compatible with belief.
Would you say there's some reason to suppose otherwise?
Quoting TheMadFool
There's no extant text from Pyrrho. Read the Outlines of Pyrrhonism (aka the Outlines of Skepticism in a recent translation) by Sextus Empiricus.
Arigato!
De nada.
Again Nietzsche (BGE, 16), I couldn't resist:
I think that's what @Banno is getting at. It's a bit of a rabbit hole, and might not be that productive when taken seriously.
It appears that this is a language issue. This thing that we're engaged in, doing, as we have this conversation has been labelled an action, an act viz. thinking from which follows the neccesity of a doer, a thinker [Cogito ergo sum]. Are we really doing anything while we're thinking?
Yeah, it's a bit of a language issue. I agree we usually define "thinking" as involving a "doer", and that is probably the most practical way. As for your question, Nietzsche remarks later in the same book that he considers thoughts as something that happen to you, rather than actions per se. He presents the observation (purely anecdotal) that often we think something before we realise that we are thinking (or something to that effect). But that's probably for a different post :)
As for the topic of doubt, I think that doubt is healthy in moderation (like most things... all things?) but we should not fail to consider the extremes. Can we "live in doubt", well, the imprecisions of language are evident here again... We can live with doubt, certainly, I would say it is even necessary. But sometimes enough is enough, we will never have perfect information all the time and too much doubt is, like you say about suffering[1], incapacitating.
[1] Despite my response in the other thread, I don't completely disagree about that either...
Here's the problem: Before one can talk about action, the actor must already exist.
[quote=René Descartes]I think, therefore I am[/quote]
Descartes has it backwards. To think (act) is to presuppose a thinker (actor). Circulus in probando.
Quoting the affirmation of strife
We can doubt anything and eveeything. That's how it is I'm afraid.
Sure, but I read the OP as questioning how much we should doubt. Maybe that's too much interpretation.
First, I believe Wittgenstein worked much of this out in his final notes called On Certainty. If you want to understand the concepts of knowing and doubting, there is no better work, as far as I know. My whole framework of what it means to know and doubt is built on W. final notes.
These two concepts work hand-in-hand, i.e., they must be seen as working together. Both are built on a framework of arational beliefs, so both knowing and doubting arise from a place beyond knowing and doubting, which is why I'm saying that they are built on a framework that's arational. The framework is much of the reality that surrounds us. A lot of work needs to be done in terms of what that framework is, and how it can change, but we have a good idea as to what some of these arational beliefs are. The classic examples are, "I have hands," "There are objects," "I live on Earth," "There are minds," etc. These beliefs form the backdrop of the reality that we find ourselves in. Think of these beliefs, as those that can't normally be doubted, there are exceptions, but generally they are foundational arational beliefs that form the substrata of our talk about knowing and doubting. Which means, that they arise out of the reality we find ourselves in. We can't make sense of these concepts apart from this reality. This means that there are limits to what can be known and doubted, given the limits of language. Although the limits of language is not static, i.e., it's not a set boundary (I'm not claiming this is all based on Wittgenstein, some of it is, some of it isn't, but I think it follows from much of what W. said.).
So, again, you have to think of language as the soil (Language itself, grows out of the basic beliefs that form the reality that surrounds us.) that gives birth to the concept of doubting. Without that soil there would be no doubting, period, end of story. So, doubting is a linguistic phenomena (primarily), and as such, it takes place in a language-game (If you aren't familiar with language-games, there are plenty of threads that talk about it. More importantly, read the PI.). The language-game of doubting is very similar to the language-game of knowing. One of the primary drivers of these language-games (knowing and doubting) is justification, viz., do you have the proper justification for your knowledge, and do you have the proper justification for your doubts? Descartes missed the mark completely, that's all I'll say about that here.
So, to partly answer your question, "Can you live in doubt?" If you mean perpetual doubt, no. But, there are rational doubts, and this is a healthy thing. However, sometimes people doubt, where there is no justification for the doubt, and it's here that confusion about doubting happens. There are also areas where it's not so clear, in terms of whether its rational to doubt or not, so this is not always black and white. The same is true of what we know.
If you want to learn more, read On Certainty, and what spawned On Certainty.
A good point. Nevertheless, once we're reduced to attempts at finding out how much doubt is acceptable, we've already conceded that there's a problem viz. that everything and anything is doubtable. I regard the enterprise of moderating skepticism as only to sugar coat the bitter pill that we must all swallow.
It's tricky to mount a skeptical argument about everything, since you won't be doubting certain things when you mount that argument.
But one could sort of sit in a stunned doubting state, without making arguments and doubt away at everything. But this would tend to reduce your chances of survival (and would likely lead to depression) if done too often/too much
Detection is a normal mental function, we lose faith in the detector if there is doubt.
Is there anyone out there? [short period of silence] No. Move on.
Metaphorically, a object going off a radar. To be linked with: an idea going out of bounds of our internal logistics; to which then it falls to doubt to help us determine.
Is there reason to suggest that doubting here is wrong?
There is no such thing as reasonable doubt.