Philosophy Discussion Forums

Meleagar wrote

I have been entirely consistent in maintaining the difference between a communicated truth as correpsondence to experience, and a truth believed in as a model that attempts to explain aspects of one's experience.

What I and what I believe others are trying to do is argue against your proposition that it's possible to live as if explanations(narratives) can be lived without. Your personal experience is not sufficient to explain the whole of your personal psychology, because unless you are some alien being you need explanations like the rest of us do and as humans always have done according to the records of ancient mythology and modern psychology.

Belinda wrote: What I and what I believe others are trying to do is argue against your proposition that it's possible to live as if explanations(narratives) can be lived without.

I didn't say narratives can be lived without. I said I choose or invent what narratives I wish to apply in any given situation.

Meleagar wrote:

Belinda wrote: I said I choose or invent what narratives I wish to apply in any given situation.

That is called "living in denial" and also does not constitute genuine belief.

James S Saint wrote: That is called "living in denial" and also does not constitute genuine belief.

What am I living in denial of?

Meleagar wrote:

James S Saint wrote: That is called "living in denial" and also does not constitute genuine belief.

What am I living in denial of?

What you must believe instead of what you wish to believe.

James S Saint wrote:
What you must believe instead of what you wish to believe.

How can I deny what I "must" believe?

Meleagar wrote:

James S Saint wrote:
What you must believe instead of what you wish to believe.

How can I deny what I "must" believe?

You are the one saying that you do it. I have told you that in reality, you do not, but can only fool yourself and/or others, for a while anyway.

James S Saint wrote:You are the one saying that you do it. I have told you that in reality, you do not, but can only fool yourself and/or others, for a while anyway.

What do you mean "fool myself"?

Isn't my opinion that I can hold any opinion I wish an opinion I must hold? How am I fooling myself when, if what you assert is true, I am incapable of choosing to hold any other opinion than the one that I am professing here?

Meleagar wrote:

James S Saint wrote:You are the one saying that you do it. I have told you that in reality, you do not, but can only fool yourself and/or others, for a while anyway.

What do you mean "fool myself"?

Isn't my opinion that I can hold any opinion I wish an opinion I must hold? How am I fooling myself when, if what you assert is true, I am incapable of choosing to hold any other opinion than the one that I am professing here?

Fooling yourself is a process of using what you MUST believe in order to cause your "self" to believe in what isn't true. How to accomplish it is the subject of greatly detailed understanding developed over thousands of years because it is essential in persuasion and manipulation of populations. But in layman's terms, you accomplish it merely by carefully insisting on a fact that you really have no reason to believe and possibly have evidence to not believe. Basically, you exercise your will against reality, against "God".

James S Saint wrote: Fooling yourself is a process of using what you MUST believe in order to cause your "self" to believe in what isn't true.

You have said that all our opinions and beliefs are held because we must hold them, and that we all hold them for the same exact reasons.

You now seem to introducing a free will agency where some "I", as a free will agent, can intervene in the "must believe" process and surreptitiously "use" those "must beliefs" to generate something other than a "must belief".

This seems like an ad hoc element you're invoking as some interfering agent in order to distinguish between your "must" beliefs and mine.

You have said that we all believe what we must for the exact same reasons, so does this mean that you and others are using some free will, interfering agency to intervene and guide "what you must believe"? You seem to be contradicting yourself here; either we believe what we must believe, and must have the opinions we must, or we can somehow "choose" to adopt opinions in contradiction to those we otherwise "must" hold.

You can't have it both ways; either my opinion that I can choose my opinions is an opinion I must have for the same reasons you must have your opinions, or else there is some free element involved where I am freely choosing to ignore what I must believe in favor of things I would rather believe.

Basically, you exercise your will against reality, against "God".

How do I accomplish this task if me, or my "will", is part of reality and does only what it must? How can any part of reality go "against" reality unless it is somehow free of that reality?

Meleagar wrote:

James S Saint wrote: Fooling yourself is a process of using what you MUST believe in order to cause your "self" to believe in what isn't true.

You have said that all our opinions and beliefs are held because we must hold them, and that we all hold them for the same exact reasons.

That is NOT what I said. I said that all people come to believe what they believe by the same method or reasons/causes. Those causes for their beliefs are interdependent and thus cause a complex array of end results, but the actual fundamental process being used is the same for everyone and everything thing.

Some people experience what is required that eventually causes them to use the process toward self deceit.

How do I accomplish this task if me, or my "will", is part of reality and does only what it must? How can any part of reality go "against" reality unless it is somehow free of that reality?

The Devil is never actually free. He only insists on trying to be, as do you.

Contemplate why anyone would say to himself, "Don't look into that room."

In post #173, I said:

Meleagar wrote:So, is the reason that you "must" accept an opinion or a belief categorically different from the reasons that others must accept their opinions or beliefs?

In post #174, you quoted the above and replied:

James S. Saint wrote:No. They are exactly identical. The difference between us is merely our physical/mental abilities and our particular evidences from experiences.

In post #175, I began my agrument from your statements by attempting to paraphrase you:

Meleagar wrote:You and I must hold the views we have by identical causations. I assume you extend that to all people; that everyone holds the views that they must have for the same ultimate causation.

To which you responded in post #176:

James S Saint wrote:No. For the same reasons. The particular causes are different for everyone.

I'm not even going to read the rest since you got the premise wrong.

You were making a distinction there that the reasons are exactly the same, but the causes are different for everyone.

Apparently, however, you are retracting this distinction that was so important before that you wouldn't even respond to my post because now, in post #191, you state:

That is NOT what I said. I said that all people come to believe what they believe by the same method or reasons/causes.

You've just contradicted yoursef.

It seems now that you are faced with an intractible problem of explaining how my "must-held" beliefs are significantly different from your "must-held" beliefs, you wish to pose a third, ad hoc "explanation" for this distinction between "must"-held beliefs, which appeals to some very complex process:

James S Saint wrote:Those causes for their beliefs are interdependent and thus cause a complex array of end results, but the actual fundamental process being used is the same for everyone and everything thing.

So now you are claiming a "fundamental process", but this is simply moving the essential problem to a new place or term and not solving it.

Examining your argument, we know that this fundamental process can produce both true and false beliefs and opinions; we know that this fundamental process can (and has) produced both your opinion that everyone holds opinions they must hold, and my opinion that I, at least, can hold any opinion I wish.

You have claimed that my opinion is somehow a self-deceit or a lie, but have yet to explain how I should know that or act on it, since I must hold the erroneous opinion that you claim is a lie. How can I be "lying" when I believe I am expressing a true statement? Doesn't lying require knowledge that one is passing an untruth?

The problem with James' explanation is that he has not asnwered the following:

How am I supposed to not hold an opinion I must hold, James? How can I be deceiving anyone when I am honestly expressing an opinion I not only actually hold, but one I apparently must hold, whether it is actually true or not?

Frustrating isn't it.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

James S Saint wrote:Frustrating isn't it.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I'm sorry you find our debate frustrating. I find it extremely enjoyable.

Meleagar wrote:

James S Saint wrote:Frustrating isn't it.

Don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I'm sorry you find our debate frustrating. I find it extremely enjoyable.

Well then do proceed.