UnbornTao

@integral This is not to say that one can't sometimes rightly establish some correlations between things (and also downright invent them out of thin, clean air), but this can easily become an extremely sloppy process in so many ways. This is why science exists. I'm sure you know of people who make self-assessments of their condition. How many times do they get it right? Often, it's a way to soothe oneself by having some plausible cause to attribute to what ails them.

https://linuxiac.com/france-launches-government-linux-desktop-plan-as-windows-exit-begins/ Oh la lá

I get it. Personally it's not my cup of tea. The good thing about valid studies is that they are often less subject to distortion than our subjective assessments and "feelings" about seeming correlations.

People do all the time, so yeah.

What significance do our notions have regarding this subject? Treat them as notions and as inherently misleading - due to their nature as notions. As you allude to, it seems that some people might believe that mental conditions are the same as this business. Why would one think that? By the way, I am from Uranus, too!

I removed the picture as there could be some validity to what you say, even though sometimes you seem to take it a bit too far with this stuff, in my opinion. Where do you draw the line between functional concern and paranoia? Isn't using a smartphone messing up your brain, sight, etc? It's likely, too, that something less than ideal could be found out about the clothes we use. Etc, etc.

@Joseph Maynor Thanks.

"To find pleasing, to love, to have faith in." To find pleasing. Consider: What is your criterion for choosing to believe one thing over another?

Fair.

Heresy. I'm sure there are, even if they aren't strictly or formally framed as 'epistemological' works. Gotta take a look at Being and Time and The Critique of Pure Reason.

Why do so many people pay attention to this kind of stuff?

Exactly.

Correction, it's Sextus Empiricus's account. Sex + empiricism woohoo

Okay.

Square One: The Foundations of Knowledge is on my to-read list.

In my view, it is about the underlying principle of rigorous openness, and what we can learn from it. The foundation is worth breaking - or at least dissecting - and this might well be the goal of Pyrrhonism. Have nowhere to go. Maybe that's the end goal of openness. From that state, we can question things more powerfully.

Nothing against them

Damned if you believe? To use an example: both atheism and theism - even agnosticism and similar stances - are essentially conjecture-based. At their base they're the same activity. Disbelieving is more of the same. The direction here is recognizing and removing them, not believing the opposite of an established view.

OK then, thanks. Surrendering one's fantasies is sobering, albeit a bit discouraging in the short term, too. That's the direction being pointed at.

Cats are superior beings.

I still think there's some resistance to acknowledging your experience as it is, but that's fine. Consider: Is that something you've heard and then adopted as true?

Yes. "Representing" is the key term here. Even if valid and accurate, that is what believing is about.

That could be the case. Is it entirely accurate, though? What is thinking? What is emotion?