Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Charlemagne]

How can we be certain of our being certain?

Since we can be certain of almost nothing, the question doesn't really arise, does it?

As to the subordinate clause, can you be certain of that? What, exactly, does "almost nothing" mean?

[Charlemagne]

How can we be certain of our being certain?

Since we can be certain of almost nothing, the question doesn't really arise, does it?

As to the subordinate clause, can you be certain of that? And what, exactly, does "almost nothing" mean?

[Phil222]

Everything is constantly changing and adapts to its environment. If we werent so stubborn as to not forget the past and change with the future to the likeness of our own and others pursuits one would become apart of that change to adapt the constant paradigm. And death would become a mere conception of time . change is an absolute truth

[heracleitos]

There is "universal" truth, i.e. facts that are true in this universe, but that is still not "absolute" truth because there is no reason to believe that this universe would be the only one.

A single, categorical universe would require the theory of the universe NOT to contain Robinson's fragment Q of arithmetic theory. Furthermore, in that case, Godelian facts such as free will cannot possibly exist either. The universe would not be chaotic but entirely predictable.

[heracleitos]

In fact, "multiversal" truth is possible, i.e. truth across all universes that interpret the same theory. According to the completeness theorem, these "multiversal" truths would even be provable. However, these things are still not absolute truths because what about universes that interpret another theory?

[Pattern-chaser]

How can we be certain of our being certain?

Since we can be certain of almost nothing, the question doesn't really arise, does it?

And what, exactly, does "almost nothing" mean?

It means, er, "almost nothing". Philosophically, and strictly/rigorously, the only thing we can be certain of is that Objective Reality exists. We can suspect all kinds of things, and imagine many more, but we cannot knowingly possess certain knowledge other than OR's existence. Hence: "almost nothing".

[Charlemagne]

How can we be certain of our being certain?

Since we can be certain of almost nothing, the question doesn't really arise, does it?

And what, exactly, does "almost nothing" mean?

It means, er, "almost nothing". Philosophically, and strictly/rigorously, the only thing we can be certain of is that Objective Reality exists. We can suspect all kinds of things, and imagine many more, but we cannot knowingly possess certain knowledge other than OR's existence. Hence: "almost nothing".

But if you can possess certain knowledge of OR's existence, why do we have to stop there?

[Pattern-chaser]

...

And what, exactly, does "almost nothing" mean?

It means, er, "almost nothing". Philosophically, and strictly/rigorously, the only thing we can be certain of is that Objective Reality exists. We can suspect all kinds of things, and imagine many more, but we cannot knowingly possess certain knowledge other than OR's existence. Hence: "almost nothing".

But if you can possess certain knowledge of OR's existence, why do we have to stop there?

Because we have no means to proceed further. We have no senses, or equivalents attributes, that would/will allow us to perceive reality as it actually is. And so we guess, of course, and pretend to certainty...

[Fanman]

Hi Pattern-chaser,

Because we have no means to proceed further. We have no senses, or equivalents attributes, that would/will allow us to perceive reality as it actually is. And so we guess, of course, and pretend to certainty...

Arguably, the senses that we do have are adequate for the observation and recording of Objective Reality. The issue I see is that we do not (or do not yet) have the advancements in technology (or means) that allow us to do so. Therefore I don’t see it being a problem of intrinsic incapability on our part. Rather, that progress in the fields required to do so is slow. With each stage of human development, we become more knowledgeable in regard to OR. I mean, consider and compare the “cave man’s” knowledge with the knowledge that we possess today. Clearly, there have been advancements in our ability to understand or even know, OR. There are of course religious doctrines that make claims about it, and I’m not saying that any of them are right, but the way you close the door, I think shows an underestimation of what people are capable of.

[Pattern-chaser]

Hi Pattern-chaser,

Because we have no means to proceed further. We have no senses, or equivalents attributes, that would/will allow us to perceive reality as it actually is. And so we guess, of course, and pretend to certainty...

Arguably, the senses that we do have are adequate for the observation and recording of Objective Reality. The issue I see is that we do not (or do not yet) have the advancements in technology (or means) that allow us to do so. Therefore I don’t see it being a problem of intrinsic incapability on our part. Rather, that progress in the fields required to do so is slow. With each stage of human development, we become more knowledgeable in regard to OR. I mean, consider and compare the “cave man’s” knowledge with the knowledge that we possess today. Clearly, there have been advancements in our ability to understand or even know, OR. There are of course religious doctrines that make claims about it, and I’m not saying that any of them are right, but the way you close the door, I think shows an underestimation of what people are capable of.

The issue is whether we have senses that can knowingly detect what actually is, as opposed to what appears to be...

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

The issue is whether we have senses that can knowingly detect what actually is, as opposed to what appears to be...

I would argue that we do that every day. The example I would use is our response to external stimuli. When considering these types of questions, we often do so in the sense of “looking out” rather than thinking about it in the reverse aspect. We have methods of measuring temperature and one could argue that those methods only measure what appears to be heat or cold. But the response, not just from people but from the observable world shows that it is responding to something - apparently heat or cold. Therefore, if what we observe (the stimuli) is met with or causes a response, we have justifiable causes to claim that what we are observing with our senses or the things that our senses create, is in fact Objective Reality. Beyond being justifiable, I don’t know where the argument would go.

[Pattern-chaser]

The issue is whether we have senses that can knowingly detect what actually is, as opposed to what appears to be...

I would argue that we do that every day. The example I would use is our response to external stimuli. When considering these types of questions, we often do so in the sense of “looking out” rather than thinking about it in the reverse aspect. We have methods of measuring temperature and one could argue that those methods only measure what appears to be heat or cold. But the response, not just from people but from the observable world shows that it is responding to something - apparently heat or cold. Therefore, if what we observe (the stimuli) is met with or causes a response, we have justifiable causes to claim that what we are observing with our senses or the things that our senses create, is in fact Objective Reality. Beyond being justifiable, I don’t know where the argument would go.

If, by "Objective", you simply mean something that we have tried really hard not to be emotional about, then I accept your points and withdraw from this little side-discussion. But if you mean by "Objective", 'knowing and mind-independent correspondence with that which actually is', then I would ask you for evidence to back up your claims. [I don't believe any such evidence can or does exist.]

[Pattern-chaser]

P.S. You seem to be suggesting that we should use the same standard of truth that law courts use: 'true beyond reasonable doubt'. I suggest that Objectivity is much more than that. It is the ultimate standard of truth, beyond doubt or challenge.

[Charlemagne]

...

And what, exactly, does "almost nothing" mean?

It means, er, "almost nothing". Philosophically, and strictly/rigorously, the only thing we can be certain of is that Objective Reality exists. We can suspect all kinds of things, and imagine many more, but we cannot knowingly possess certain knowledge other than OR's existence. Hence: "almost nothing".

But if you can possess certain knowledge of OR's existence, why do we have to stop there?

Because we have no means to proceed further. We have no senses, or equivalents attributes, that would/will allow us to perceive reality as it actually is. And so we guess, of course, and pretend to certainty...

I think certainty of "almost nothing" is still not plausible. Are you certain or uncertain that you are certain of almost nothing? On what grounds? We might be certain of a great many things, as well as uncertain of others. I am certain that the universe is much more vast than we used to think it is. I am certain that deliberately corrupting or murdering children is quite evil. I am certain that I am going to send you this post. I am uncertain that you will reply.

[Pattern-chaser]

And what, exactly, does "almost nothing" mean?

It means, er, "almost nothing". Philosophically, and strictly/rigorously, the only thing we can be certain of is that Objective Reality exists. We can suspect all kinds of things, and imagine many more, but we cannot knowingly possess certain knowledge other than OR's existence. Hence: "almost nothing".

But if you can possess certain knowledge of OR's existence, why do we have to stop there?

Because we have no means to proceed further. We have no senses, or equivalents attributes, that would/will allow us to perceive reality as it actually is. And so we guess, of course, and pretend to certainty...

I think certainty of "almost nothing" is still not plausible. Are you certain or uncertain that you are certain of almost nothing? On what grounds? We might be certain of a great many things, as well as uncertain of others. I am certain that the universe is much more vast than we used to think it is. I am certain that deliberately corrupting or murdering children is quite evil. I am certain that I am going to send you this post. I am uncertain that you will reply.

As I read your words, it seems to me that when you say "certain", you mean confident. You seem to mean that certainty is being 'sure enough' for your own purposes. That's a reasonable everyday use of the word "certain", but it isn't as meaningful or useful as it might be in a philosophy discussion. You even express certainty on moral issues...

Here, in this discussion, I use "certain" to mean 'undoubtedly certain'. In an everyday conversation, I would, like everyone else, accept a more dilute definition of 'certain'. But here, in this topic? No, I don't think that would be helpful.



P.S. you ask "on what grounds", when my preceding post describes these grounds:

Because we have no means to proceed further. We have no senses, or equivalent attributes, that would/will allow us to perceive reality as it actually is. And so we guess, of course, and pretend to certainty...