Episode
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 ก.ย. 2024
- Philosophize This! Clips: / @philosophizethisclips
Get more:
Website: www.philosophi...
Patreon: / philosophizethis
Find the podcast:
Apple: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
RSS: www.philosophiz...
Be social:
Twitter: / iamstephenwest
Instagram: / philosophizethispodcast
TikTok: / philosophizethispodcast
Facebook: / philosophizethisshow
Thank you for making the show possible. 🙂
As an introduction to the debate of rationally justifying beliefs, I highly recommend Clifford's 'Ethics of Belief', and the counter-argument presented by James in his 'The Will to Believe'
Listening to this in 2019. "Annabelle comes home" has just been released in the cinema. I still don't believe in ghosts. 🤣
"Philosophy is the great engine of hypothesis." Love it.
I've been thinking about this lately. I would think that we would want to base our beliefs on reason. But why believe our reason? To justify reason with reason is circular. To attack reason with reason is self defeating. So our belief in our reason is a blind leap of faith.
I'll wager that you play some good banjo.
"Enigma of Reason" - you're not the only one.
Thanks for the book recommendations! :)
You cannot question your faith on everything, for you must always have some grounds upon which to question it. For example, even supposing you were completely rational -- say, like a Vulcan -- then your faith would be in reason. That is to say, there is no belief-system built upon reason that is not first and foremost a faith in reason itself !
Believe in yourself personally! In being your true authtiec self!
To challenge the claim of things not existing is just like the way we cannot disprove undisprovable supernatural claims. It is so because to ask if every part of existence does not exist is violating the limits of language, where usually to ask if something exists is to propose a relative claim defined by a contrast of one quality among two groups. However, in this case, to question all of reality is to challenge a quality shared among all things (think Spinoza), so that this relativistic claim dissolves not providing another object-claim to contrast it with. It only outwardly appears to be a concrete proposition.
I have tried to explain this idea of belief to my empiricist/atheist friends but they don't get it.
The psychological theory for how any belief has arisen is no argument against that belief, but rather a presupposition (or a leap of faith!) that the belief can simply be explained away !
29:20 -29:59 that's a great argument for believing what he does, because it gives him comfort from death and makes living better. 30:09 you think it's faulty? It's a faulty justification? According to you? It's not enough for you?
33:08 A state of doubt is depressing for most people because we use ideas to live, and because we are all taught that ignorance is bad, and because the people around us destroy us, leave us with nothing to believe, imply they know better and that certainty impossible, when that's not true. Most people don't know that being ignorant is acceptable like Erasmus said.
I really don't have to say why self-doubt is extremely bad and damaging for a person.
Pragmatic justifications in general strike me as being extremely vulnerable and might have to be evaluated case by case At some point reality intrudes.
You are not fighting a losing battle against society, but rather against humanity itself. Human nature is not nearly as rational as Aristotle and his fellow ancient Greek philosophers pretended. In fact, ironically, this is what Socrates proved -- the IRRATIONALITY OF MAN. That is, reason is always the slave of human passion, never its master. This is why people become upset when you dare to question their impassioned beliefs, for then the slave is in open revolt against its master !
Your skepticism is no butterfly, and neither was Voltaire ! It's interesting how your skepticism appears to reach only to your own shore, but goes no further inland. What you should remember about philosophy is that they call it the love of wisdom -- not the truth of wisdom, much less the love of truth !
5:34, one of the commonest, most absurd, problems of philosophy. It's all semantics. "the world exists" is a lingual construct, and it's meaning can be said to include my and our experience of the existence of the worlds, including some uncertainties about the limits of the validity of this experience. If so, within this definition, by definition, the world exists. What else is new?
My consciousness by definition can't be an illusion but it's relation to a reality outside (if there is one) is what's unknowable.
Is belief a doubt...? Because you cannot believe something and know it...(Not my words)
Let’s put it this way: belief must always come along with doubt, or else that belief would be certain knowledge, and not actual belief. Those who claim to have certain knowledge just have very strong beliefs and are merely convinced that they have certain knowledge, since certain knowledge about anything is impossible. Now, there might be some really good reasons for those beliefs, but they are still beliefs at the end of the day.
It is important that our beliefs are reasonable. Reasonable beliefs are the bedrock of any society.
Note that all of this is what I strongly believe, of course, since I cannot know for certain whether or not it is true. Maybe we can have certain knowledge. But it really doesn’t seem like it.
This shit is great! :D
Which is better : believing in things for which many of them turns out to be false, or not believing, just in a few things, for which many of them turns out to be right?
This choice doesn't have any consequence
I could believe X things, 80% of which are false, or I could not believe Y things out of which 80% are true.
The 20% of X could, for all I know, be greater than the 80% of Y.
Also, Y implies there are other things I believe in, and speaks nothing of how many they are and if they are true. Maybe the 80% of Y is true, but insignificant compared to everything else.
what if everything is both true and false. every single thing. i just invented paradoxism
And there’s two parrelell worlds exploring both options as the main “truth”
That already exists and it's called dialetheism.
Well, obviously people don't like to have the values they build their lives upon challenged -- just ask Socrates, or Jesus, or MLK ! NOBODY derives their values by reason, because it would be necessary to value truth above all else -- above their God, their families, their nation, their wealth, their pleasure, their fun, their happiness... themselves ! Why do you think Nietzsche stood before the Sphinx, and why do you think Socrates declared human wisdom to be worth little or nothing?
0 dislikes