What is Critisism? Critic vs Heckler

[Thanatos13]

It’s like the belief that the ground won’t cave in on me when I take a step. I have evidence based on the numberous times that it didn’t before. Therefor I am justified in that belief. 

Things like other people not being P zombies and having minds and feelings is a leap of faith however. Even their very existence is merely having faith in it, since there isn’t really anything pointing to their existence or not in either direction. 

 

There is even a dispute as to the existence of the mind. 

[Thanatos13]

1 minute ago, Mighty Mouse said:

How is any belief justified if everything starts with an assumption taken on faith?

It’s the ugly and unsatisfactory truth that any claim must do, no matter what it is. It all starts on faith. The existence of an external world, that materialism is false, that other minds exist. It’s the only way to build a philosophy and practice. Science is merely the study of the interactions of the world we live in. It doesn’t claim certainty, that’s why they have theories and even the strongest ones are ready to be abandoned at a change in evidence. It’s something I’m willing to trust based on the success it has had.

[Thanatos13]

1 minute ago, Mighty Mouse said:

It is self-referential and groundless. The existence of A can never be anything more than an assumption taken on faith.

 

Practically speaking, yes. But the implied context of that belief is consensus reality, which can only be taken on faith. None of it speaks to the truth of existence.

 

Now we're talking

The existence of anything can be disputed even awareness. But all the Trilema states is that nothing can be said with absolute certainty. All we have is probability. 

 

Again, I’m willing to bet money on science. Because in the end all we have are our senses.

[Thanatos13]

2 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

There's your bait & switch.

Justifying air castles by sweeping the foundational lie under the rug in the name of philosophy and practice.

That may be justified for any other purpose, except truth.

Truth is a prickly term. 

I’m not the person to debate this with. I’m sure I’m missing some of the terminology and nuance. I’m sticking with what has worked for me so far. Leave me out of “ultimate nature and truth”. 

 

 

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

The existence of anything can be disputed, but not the existence of everything. Something must exist. That is absolute certain knowledge for you right there.

The only question is what.

"Absolute certain knowledge" is a conceptual category.  Keep that in mind.  

Edited January 20, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Thanatos13]

2 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

The existence of anything can be disputed, but not the existence of everything. Something must exist. That is absolute certain knowledge for you right there.

The only question is what.

Actually even that something must exist is debatable.

But for my daily life, such questions don’t matter. Just like the creation of the universe. I don’t care what the answer is, I am here now.

[Thanatos13]

3 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

"Absolute certain knowledge" is a conceptual category.  Keep that in mind.  

Same thing as nonduality, which is a self refuting term. 

[Joseph Maynor]

2 minutes ago, Thanatos13 said:

Same thing as nonduality, which is a self refuting term. 

That's why clinging tightly to belief is antithetical to Enlightenment. 

Edited January 20, 2018 by Joseph Maynor

[Thanatos13]

2 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

Okidoki, but then don't make any claims about nonduality when by your own admission you don't really know what it is. It's comical

I know what it is. 

What I am referring to is how the munchausen trilemna hasn’t stopped science, or how ancient skepticism (or pyrrhonism) was defeated. That requires more philosophical knowledge than I have a level of interest to study. 

But I know enough to sow doubt.

[Thanatos13]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

That's why clinging tightly to belief is antithetical to Enlightenment. 

Assuming enlightenment exists or that one knows what it is. You can’t escape belief, not even through “enlightenment”. They say “you’ll know when it happens” but really that’s still just belief.

[Thanatos13]

2 minutes ago, Mighty Mouse said:

The munchausen trilemma hasn't stopped religion either.

What if you sow some doubt into what you think you know...

And yes dogmatism quite reliably defeats radical skepticism every time. That's why I'm not betting on an "enlightened humanity" any time soon (or ever, if you understand the parameters of "reality").

Religion operates on somewhat different rules. 

But it’s not a matter of dogmatism. Radical skepticism is just not true, and also rather impractical. Without beliefs we would never do anything. Even radical skepticism a form of belief.

I have already sowed doubt into my own things. But they actually stand the test, unlike more spiritual concepts. 

[Joseph Maynor]

Ya'll should watch this video.  It's on point and I think it's one of Leo's best:

 

[Thanatos13]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Ya'll should watch this video.  It's on point and I think it's one of Leo's best:

 

That is actually one of his worst offenders since it shows how little he knows of philosophy and pyrrhonism. The entire video is just one large contradiction and self refutation. He applies skepticism to everything but the spiritual and his own beliefs. 

The title itself refutes the video, apart from being a personal judgment. 

[Thanatos13]

1 minute ago, Mighty Mouse said:

Quite different, I agree. But not entirely different. Remember how you introduced (and defended) faith into this conversation.

 

Arguments against practicality are not necessarily arguments against truth, those are two different considerations. And me being a truth nut, I wouldn't dream of electing any proxy for truth, when it's truth that I'm after. If you're after practicality, that's fine, but then we're be at cross purposes here.

Radical skepticism to me is just about finding out what's true by rigorously pitting it all against the absolute standard of truth for truth's sake. Practicality doesn't even enter into it.

 

They stand the test to the extent that you're interested in it, that's what you said. By your own admission you never put them to the "ultimate truth" test. Just sayin'...

No need if you don't want to, of course.

Because it isn’t practical to do so. Radical skepticism is really a quest for the practical, that’s what Pyrrho was after. It’s not looking for truth but rather abstaining from looking for it. 

 

The problem with with it is that it sets a standard that can never be reached, which is absolute certainty. If that’s what you’re looking for, your search will never end. You will be paralyzed. 

 

Pyrrho was more of an advocate of the ordinary life, just accepting things because that’s what others say, but not assenting to them. I would say it’s like being a robot. 

[Thanatos13]

Well then I think the is the end of our little tet a te. It was certainly more fun than I expected it to be. 

I bid you adieu

[SOUL]

14 hours ago, Thanatos13 said:

That’s incorrect. It’s nothing to do with duality but rather with challenging ideas to make us think about what we says.

I appreciate your reply, you perfectly illustrate and prove my point by saying 'that's incorrect' expressing it from a binary view, right and wrong.

Criticism is expressing disapproval because of perceived flaws, not necessarily actual flaws, but perceived and this is exactly what you did in the very way I suggested happens, from a dualism mindset. The expressing of disapproval is rooted in the right/wrong, good/bad dichotomy, is difficult to break that perspective but it's possible.

Critical thinking is an analyzing which isn't limited to a binary view, it encompasses examining in a range of ways to gain a better understanding. It is the genuine expression of 'challenging ideas' and is not synonymous with criticism, it appears you don't know the difference between them.

I think you are also confusing me with someone else because most of your post doesn't address any of the two points I made, um...."indefensible"?

[Epiphany_Inspired]

Thanks @Joseph Maynor @I really appreciate the video links   @star ark @SOUL @Mighty Mouse @Thanatos13 thanks so much for helping me to understand heckling, the role of judgement, etc... when I saw there were 56 replies I had a WTF/ holy shit moment...I was really unsure of what I may find, but I was super curious too...lol...a lot of what was said seemed to be in the form of debates... I'm not going to jump into any of those, but I appreciate the different perspectives and reviewed them all with an inquisitively-open-mind  

I am still somewhat confused about the emotional ties to criticism (how to ease up on critiquing, without repressing emotions)... and if criticism encompasses "dislike" too/ is dislike of another's actions automatically finding "fault"/"mistake"?