The logical impossibility of skepticism.

[sprinkles]

What's the point of this?

Nobody here thinks that way, and if they did, they're not going to listen to you anyway. This is why you irritate me.

Are you having fun knocking down your plastic men? I'd say straw men but technically it isn't since you're being very particular. You're not misrepresenting a position that somebody holds in order to attack it, you're accurately representing a position that almost nobody holds and are attacking it instead. So it's almost the opposite, and serves even less purpose except validating your whims apparently.

 

[LucyJr]

Firstly, if we are talking “truth claims” then you should acknowledge that the skeptics could be correct.

The "easy" skepticism yes, but I think the "hard" type of skepticism is ultimately based on faith, not on truth.

Perhaps this universe and life we lead is all just an illusion?

But how could we grasp the difference between illusion and reality? If absolute illusion would be true, we would never realise it, and say "Hey, maybe its everything a illusion!"...if we know the difference between illusion and reality, it means we know what reality and illusion is, because we have experience of both. So rather to assert or pose the possibility of illusion is a illusion.
One can not know he is awake unless he does not sleep...only when he is awaken does he know that he was sleeping and now he is awake. If everything would be a illusion (sleep), one logicaly should never realise this, because all his existence has been a sleep, a illusion.

Or a hologram as recent quantum physics suggests?

Perhaps, I have no argument against this.

Perhaps this world is an elaborate “computer simulation” by technology so advanced the artificial consciousness that is “ourselves” cannot fathom it?

This again sounds to me that something small, a program, a computer simulation...gets out of the program parameters, and realises "he" is a program.

Skepticism is a good thing in my own opinion to hold on to…not to dwell on, because when we dwell on something without over committing forever then we are stagnate and move nowhere in our own evolution as people.
So I agree with you on that degree…what would you define as “absurdly skeptic”?

By "absurdly skeptic" I think i meant the skeptic that is stuborn to no end, except toward his own skepticism.

 

[LucyJr]

I thought you "can't see me", and you have me "blocked", sprinkles. Or its maybe voluntary?


Whatever, I have no problem. You can say whatever you want to.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

What's the point of this?

Nobody here thinks that way, and if they did, they're not going to listen to you anyway. This is why you irritate me.

Are you having fun knocking down your plastic men? I'd say straw men but technically it isn't since you're being very particular. You're not misrepresenting a position that somebody holds in order to attack it, you're accurately representing a position that almost nobody holds and are attacking it instead. So it's almost the opposite, and serves even less purpose except validating your whims apparently.

This is true. No matter how much someone may advocate skepticism, possibly to counteract absolute, unexamined truth claims, no one holds purely skeptical views about all knowledge.

Perhaps the point of this thread is not to attack the plastic man, but to develop and refine thinking about subjects of truth and our ability to know it. Perhaps agreement/objection does nothing for @LucyJr , except to help coalesce his ideas. Perhaps questions may also do the same.

@LucyJr If we had no skepticism about what we thought to be true, then how would we ever develop new ideas?

 

[the]

Don't tell me truth hurts little girl, cause it hurts like hell.

 

[sprinkles]

This is true. No matter how much someone may advocate skepticism, possibly to counteract absolute, unexamined truth claims, no one holds purely skeptical views about all knowledge.

Perhaps the point of this thread is not to attack the plastic man, but to develop and refine thinking about subjects of truth and our ability to know it. Perhaps agreement/objection does nothing for @LucyJr , except to help coalesce his ideas. Perhaps questions may also do the same.

@LucyJr If we had no skepticism about what we thought to be true, then how would we ever develop new ideas?

I thought maybe that too. Which is why I apologized to him several times. Dedicated music to him several times. Had myself locked out of this subforum for two months because I felt bad for ruining threads because I don't get along with him. Nearly had myself retired completely. Now I see him through quotes by other people and I still want to fight him. I'm tired of apologizing and feeling bad for it and beating myself up for not being more considerate to him when he just keeps being him.

So my view is currently that either he is really unproductive, or I really suck at this and can't handle myself. Considering my ability to discuss other issues with other people, I feel it is mostly the former and maybe some of the latter.

 

[LucyJr]

This is true. No matter how much someone may advocate skepticism, possibly to counteract absolute, unexamined truth claims, no one holds purely skeptical views about all knowledge.

Agnosticism???

Perhaps the point of this thread is not to attack the plastic man, but to develop and refine thinking about subjects of truth and our ability to know it. Perhaps agreement/objection does nothing for [MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] , except to help coalesce his ideas. Perhaps questions may also do the same.

I made the thread to see what other people say about this, to expose my view to some criticism, which it seems I finaly got.
It has nothing with "plastic man". I just thought it would be interesting to open this discussion, which was quite a few time back from now.
But you are right, it was mostly for discussion.


[QUOTE [MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION] If we had no skepticism about what we thought to be true, then how would we ever develop new ideas?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I already said I think skepticism is good in healthy doses. I myself am a strong skeptic, but I don't remain at that position.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I thought maybe that too. Which is why I apologized to him several times. Dedicated music to him several times. Had myself locked out of this subforum for two months because I felt bad for ruining threads because I don't get along with him. Nearly had myself retired completely. Now I see him through quotes by other people and I still want to fight him. I'm tired of apologizing and feeling bad for it and beating myself up for not being more considerate to him when he just keeps being him.

So my view is currently that either he is really unproductive, or I really suck at this and can't handle myself. Considering my ability to discuss other issues with other people, I feel it is mostly the former and maybe some of the latter.

I don't think transferring your beating up of LucyJr to yourself is going to make for a sweet outcome.

I think there may be some truth (pun) in the principle that those who irritate us the most can teach us the most about ourselves and become an opportunity to overcome: either them, or something in us. Perhaps it's just about knowing one's limitations, as Clint Eastwood stated in Dirty Harry.

 

[sprinkles]

I don't think transferring your beating up of LucyJr to yourself is going to make for a sweet outcome.

I think there may be some truth (pun) in the principle that those who irritate us the most can teach us the most about ourselves and become an opportunity to overcome: either them, or something in us. Perhaps it's just about knowing one's limitations, as Clint Eastwood stated in Dirty Harry.

Yes it teaches me quite a lot about myself and I don't really like what I'm learning. Ultimately it's my fault and that pisses me off.

 

[LucyJr]

Al right, I have to answer this:

I thought maybe that too. Which is why I apologized to him several times.

I think you apologised because many times you were stating ilogical absurdities as big as New York, and I refuted all these.

Naturaly you didn't liked that. I think is so because you are a very proud person, and you can not accept when you are wrong.
You even had me accused of hating the whole scientist community and you yourself as a person...was it just a little drama or you were really thinking I hated you? because I didn't, and I don't, and hopefuly, I would not hate you. I hope this helps you.


Even when you did (accept that you are wrong), I could always sense behind you posts a passive agressive behaviour, proof that your dignity was really hurt and you couldn't pass over it.
And by this I don't imply a lack of intelligence on your part at all...like I already said, I do know you are more intelligent than I am, but I think you are making logical mistakes because you are not careful.

Had myself locked out of this subforum for two months because I felt bad for ruining threads because I don't get along with him. Nearly had myself retired completely.

I am so sory for that. I wasn't even aware that you were absent in that period because of me. I remember I even asked you about that.
I now realise this forum is kind of more than a simple community, and things can get serious. In other forums, things like this don't happen. (I think...)

Now I see him through quotes by other people and I still want to fight him. I'm tired of apologizing and feeling bad for it and beating myself up for not being more considerate to him when he just keeps being him.

I'm really sory for this.

So my view is currently that either he is really unproductive,

What do you mean by unproductive, in what sense?

or I really suck at this and can't handle myself. Considering my ability to discuss other issues with other people, I feel it is mostly the former and maybe some of the latter.

Maybe, which is why I recommend honestly that you should leave me alone, with my business. Not because I really want this, but because it seems it would be the best solution.

 

[Elis]

[MENTION=9401]LucyJr[/MENTION]

its not a belief...its a statement that holds a pretention of truth.

How do you know that this is not a belief of what is the truth?

I'm saying it can be disproved.

Has anyone ever proven that?

 

[Dohavior]

I think skeptics and the assertive are good for each other.

The assertive are skeptical about skepticism and skeptics are assertive about dangers of assertion. Round and round they go - but insight somehow comes out of the spin.

As in the metaphor "My way or the highway" these two positions you have dubbed "skeptic" and "assertive" are two different templates of the same key problem? Sort of like that Jungian notion that there are those whom treat only symptoms of problems and those whom create new problems, but the key fact is they both pass the buck and don't get shit done around here.

For example some people give promises they can't keep and others take what is not theirs to take. well I'm sure you can fill in the rest.