Becoming the Right Person vs. Doing Right for Right Reasons

[Charles]

Charles, it doesn't matter. Possible consequences does not change the fact that you are no better off, if I can't assume reality neither can you. We are all in the same boat. And you have offered absolutely nothing to build a logical case that we are actually experiencing reality.

So it does not matter that you cannot even establish as a fact that you believe that you assume that reality exists? And you even cannot provide a reason for doing so. Offering that and offering and insight to self refutation is offering a lot more than you do. Your statements have fallen apart but you keep repeating them even though it follows from your own statements that they are wrong.

I am not in your boat by the way. You cannot even make that claim either. Hard to make statements based on too much skepticism. I realise it is frustrating when it hits your own statements. But feel free to believe that you assume reality exist without any reason for doing so and without knowing if it is all just a false idea imposed on you. Starting to see the point?

[seer]

So it does not matter that you cannot even establish as a fact that you believe that you assume that reality exists? And you even cannot provide a reason for doing so. Offering that and offering and insight to self refutation is offering a lot more than you do. Your statements have fallen apart but you keep repeating them even though it follows from your own statements that they are wrong.

So are you offering this self refutation from a dream world or reality? Please demonstrate how you know which one it is.

[Charles]

So are you offering this self refutation from a dream world or reality? Please demonstrate how you know which one it is.

Seer, your line of thinking has failed completely. You can establish no certainty and more importantly you cannot even establish any knowledge about what you assume you believe or believe you assume. Even the idea that you assume reality could be fake in your line of reasoning.

I have repeatedly stated that actually going for the scenarious suggested as possible by their very own logic is self refuting. That is just one reason why I do not regard them as serious challenges. As you prove quite well it undermines rationality to the degree that language loses its meaning and thus you cannot support the theory or make statements with any meaning at all. Not even about what you believe. I think your statenents made during this discussion are good examples of how statements one would usually find meaningfull and challenging fall apart completely by the logic they themselves imply. That is often forgotten.

[JimL]

I would simply assume it until had had good evidence otherwise. It can be no more than assumption Jim. Faith if you will. And remember, I don't begin with sense perception, necessarily, but with Creator who is by nature trustworthy, who would not deceive us. And since both situations are logically possible Jim, why would you choose a mind independent reality over a mind dependent reality - or do you?

I believe in a mind independent reality because that is the world of my experience and I have no reason to assume it to be an illusion, even if it should turn out to be one.

[Tassman]

But of course Charles, as a Christian, I do believe my premises are true. And they get to a universe that is not a deception and generally reliable cognitive abilities. What have you offered?

No this premise does NOT "get to a universe that is not a deception and generally reliable", because the god premise itself cannot be shown to be true. We DO have good reason to believe we possess "generally reliable cognitive abilities", but this is based upon our life-experience, NOT a hypothetical deity.

[seer]

I believe in a mind independent reality because that is the world of my experience and I have no reason to assume it to be an illusion, even if it should turn out to be one.

Exactly Jim, like I said earlier, I will take reality as self evident until there is a defeater. It is just not something we can prove.

[seer]

Seer, your line of thinking has failed completely. You can establish no certainty and more importantly you cannot even establish any knowledge about what you assume you believe or believe you assume. Even the idea that you assume reality could be fake in your line of reasoning.

And Charles you have established exactly nothing, you have not even attempted to make a positive case, because well, you know that you can't. You can not offer anything but assumption. You can not demonstrate, with any certainty, that what goes on in your head corresponds with reality. There is no logical way to remove doubt.

I have repeatedly stated that actually going for the scenarious suggested as possible by their very own logic is self refuting. That is just one reason why I do not regard them as serious challenges. As you prove quite well it undermines rationality to the degree that language loses its meaning and thus you cannot support the theory or make statements with any meaning at all. Not even about what you believe. I think your statenents made during this discussion are good examples of how statements one would usually find meaningfull and challenging fall apart completely by the logic they themselves imply. That is often forgotten.

Nonsense, so how about an honest answer. If everything you experience is experienced in a dream how would that be an internally self refuting condition? Please be specific.

[Charles]

And Charles you have established exactly nothing, you have not even attempted to make a positive case, because well, you know that you can't. You can not offer anything but assumption. You can not demonstrate, with any certainty, that what goes on in your head corresponds with reality. There is no logical way to remove doubt.



Nonsense, so how about an honest answer. If everything you experience is experienced in a dream how would that be an internally self refuting condition? Please be specific.

Seer, your kingdom of confusion has fallen completely apart.

You return to your assumption but you do not even know if you have got that assumption. Or if you believe you have got it. There is not even knowledge enough to establish doubt as a fact. It is a language belonging in the world of personal faith. In fact even that is being too positive since you do not even know if you believe it or if the belief is imposed. Not an easy situation.

So the logic of your view does not even allow you to assume you assume anything.

The skepticism you wanted to apply undermined itself. That is a rather positive case, don't you think? Of course you still claim I have got no such case, but it is a good and positive case once you realise you were wrong. And everything you said fell apart. And that goes even if you repeat it.

[Charles]

Exactly Jim, like I said earlier, I will take reality as self evident until there is a defeater. It is just not something we can prove.

Seer, you cannot even establish as a fact that you assume reality. Or that you believe that you assume it. You can not make a statement regarding how long you will hold a view since you find it possible that a new assumption could be imposed on you. Your statements are not consistent with the claimed possibility of deceivment.

So I have proven the self underminig reality of this. You say that is nothing. At least I do not have to see my own statements fall apart one by one in a civil war between my own self undermining claims.

[seer]

Seer, your kingdom of confusion has fallen completely apart.

You return to your assumption but you do not even know if you have got that assumption. Or if you believe you have got it. There is not even knowledge enough to establish doubt as a fact. It is a language belonging in the world of personal faith. In fact even that is being too positive since you do not even know if you believe it or if the belief is imposed. Not an easy situation.

So the logic of your view does not even allow you to assume you assume anything.

The skepticism you wanted to apply undermined itself. That is a rather positive case, don't you think? Of course you still claim I have got no such case, but it is a good and positive case once you realise you were wrong. And everything you said fell apart. And that goes even if you repeat it.

See Charles, you did not give a direct answer:

If everything you experience is experienced in a dream how would that be an internally self refuting condition? Please be specific.

Because you know that is not self-refuting, so that argument is out the window. And in all this debate you have offered nothing that takes our view of reality out of the realm of speculation. You have failed even to try and mount a deductive case. Even if we are wrong about everything, even what we assume - that does not build a positive case. And without that deductive case you too can not but assume to assume, or not. There is nothing else.

[seer]

Seer, you cannot even establish as a fact that you assume reality.

And neither can you.

So I have proven the self underminig reality of this. You say that is nothing. At least I do not have to see my own statements fall apart one by one in a civil war between my own self undermining claims.

If that is the case then you have undermined any case that you may have for assuming reality. The knife cuts both ways Charles without a positive argument.

[Charles]

And neither can you.



If that is the case then you have undermined any case that you may have for assuming reality. The knife cuts both ways Charles without a positive argument.

You are slowly realising that the knife cuts both ways but rather late in the proces. I do not suffer from the consequences of self undermining statements because I don't make them. You do and thus you have to admit that we need not take you seriously because you could be decieved and you don't even know if you believe you assume reality.

I do not need to show a contradiction cannot be possible. If you do not want to adjust when logic proves you cannot make specific claims without undermining yourself there is nothing I can do about that. It is not a challenge to my view. It is not something philosophy can do anything about.

[seer]

You are slowly realising that the knife cuts both ways but rather late in the proces. I do not suffer from the consequences of self undermining statements because I don't make them. You do and thus you have to admit that we need not take you seriously because you could be decieved and you don't even know if you believe you assume reality.

Nonsense Charles, what you fail to realize is that what ever hole you dig for me you dig for yourself. If you don't assume that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality, then what do you do? You already made clear that you can not make a positive deductive case - so what exactly do you have?

I do not need to show a contradiction cannot be possible. If you do not want to adjust when logic proves you cannot make specific claims without undermining yourself there is nothing I can do about that. It is not a challenge to my view. It is not something philosophy can do anything about.

A challenge to your view? What view, you have presented no positive case and you know it. It doesn't matter if you dig us both down to Solipsism you have not built a latter to get us out. Not even close.

[Charles]

Nonsense Charles, what you fail to realize is that what ever hole you dig for me you dig for yourself. If you don't assume that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality, then what do you do? You already made clear that you can not make a positive deductive case - so what exactly do you have?



A challenge to your view? What view, you have presented no positive case and you know it. It doesn't matter if you dig us both down to Solipsism you have not built a latter to get us out. Not even close.

It seems I have to repeat that you are the only one holding a self refuting view.

I do not. So I am not in your boat, hole or cut by the knife that you intended to use to kill certainty but then it ended up killing the certainty in uncertainty that you claimed we all needed to have. I mean, seer, even your statement about assumption is obviously wrong on your own premisses. Just admit that. It has all fallen apart.

I said your question was based on a misunderstanding. I think it is time for you to seriously reconsider and admit there was something to that. Right now you are in the position of not even knowing your own doubt or belief. And yet you make so many statements as if you still do not realise completely that you are trapped in solopsism and self refuting statements.

[seer]

It seems I have to repeat that you are the only one holding a self refuting view.

But Charles, you have not offered a view - why why do you believe that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality. Why don't you give a straight answer?

I do not. So I am not in your boat, hole or cut by the knife that you intended to use to kill certainty but then it ended up killing the certainty in uncertainty that you claimed we all needed to have. I mean, seer, even your statement about assumption is obviously wrong on your own premisses. Just admit that. It has all fallen apart.

Actually, assuming reality is not self-refuting. How is that assumption self-refuting? But if it is, what do you offer that is more than assumption? Stop being dishonest Charles - if I killed certainty show me certainty lies? Where is this certainty Charles? You are in essence saying that certainty must exist because we can't live with uncertainty. That assumption is not acceptable, but you offer nothing more logically valid.