Pragmatic Surrealism.
Mags
William James says that we have two options:
1. to choose whether we believe or not
or
2. to be a skeptic
the latter is the advisable one, for as Clifford says "It is wrong always,
everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient
evidence."
How can I believe anything now? How can I believe James and Clifford
even?
This makes me confused, mad, and sad, and want to eat disgusting amount of
chocolate.
Mags
Elephants are not camels.
el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net
Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> William James says that we have two options:
> 1. to choose whether we believe or not
> or
> 2. to be a skeptic
"Believe" can mean several things (abstracted from Mirriam-Webster):
1 : to have a firm religious faith.
2 : to accept as true, genuine, or real.
3 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability
of something.
4 : to hold an opinion.
> the latter is the advisable one, for as Clifford says "It is wrong always,
> everywhere, and for everyone, to believe anything upon insufficient
> evidence."
>
> How can I believe anything now? How can I believe James and Clifford
> even?
Ah, love was out to get to me
Now, that's the way it seemed
Disappointment haunted all my dreams
...Then I saw her face
Now I'm a believer
Not a trace
Of doubt in my mind
Now, I'm a believer
I'm in love
I'm a believer
I couldnt leave her if I try
_
Nikolaus Maack
>William James says that we have two options:
>1. to choose whether we believe or not
>or
>2. to be a skeptic
To me, the key is the phrase "to choose". Remember that whatever it
is you decide you believe in, you chose to believe it or not. If what
you are believing in doesn't work for you, choose something else.
In my mind, a skeptic is choosing to believe in something as well.
They believe that everyone else is wrong.
Or, more poetically, atheists worship a god-shaped hole in the sky.
Nik
---
PSST! Wanna buy a postcard?
Original hand painted art, for cheap. See:
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Mags
is to choose to either "believe or not" or "be a skeptic". At least
that's what William James says. Wanna read my 4 page
I-am-trying-to-sound-cool essay on it?
Mags
Elephants are not camels.
Nikolaus Maack
>In my mind, skepticism means suspending premature judgement. Believing
>everyone else is wrong wouldn't fall within the curriculum unless there
>was sufficient proof to support the belief that everyone is wrong.
Have you ever run into a full time skeptic? They're out there. The
sorts of people who seem to have no beliefs of their own, but sure
like telling you that your beliefs are wrong. The quote Mags gave us
-- your choice is to believe, or to be a skeptic -- is a somewhat
ironic one. There is no real choice in this statement.
If you're a skeptic full time, constantly questioning everything and
everyone, then you'll never believe in anything. No one can live in
such a state, permanently. So it would be safe to conclude that
there's no such thing as a full time skeptic.
Even those who declare themselves to be a full time skeptic MUST
believe in something. They just don't like to talk about it, for fear
that some other skeptic will come along and critique their beliefs.
They remain full time skeptics because in times of intellectual war
it's a much stronger position to attack, than defend. The defender
builds a wall of thought. The attacker just has to find one loose
brick to pull it down.
Nikolaus Maack
Sure thing. You wanna post it to the newsgroup, or email it to me?
If you post it, it might make for some interesting discussion.
Mags
now does not have the copy+paste option and I don't feel like writing it
all up. Expect it soon!
Mags
On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Nikolaus Maack wrote:
Elephants are not camels.
Mags
That's what James says: Avoiding believing is his belief.
Brandon J. Freels
Maack wrote on Mags post:
> > If you're a skeptic full time, constantly questioning everything and
> > everyone, then you'll never believe in anything. No one can live in
> > such a state, permanently. So it would be safe to conclude that
> > there's no such thing as a full time skeptic.
Wait a minute. You stated before that you believe EVERYTHING IS TRUE, which
is counter-skepticism. If you truly take this position "full time" then you
will be constantly arguing that you believe in everything and everyone,
causing you to never believe that anything is untrue. No one can live in
such a state. So it would be safe to conclude that there's no such thing as
an individual such as yourself that believes EVERYTHING IS TRUE. Even those
such as yourself who declare themselves to believe that EVERYTHING IS TRUE
must lack belief in something. You just don't like to talk about it, for
fear that someone else will come along and critique their beliefs, like I am
doing.
el...@dialin34.ottawa.globalserve.net
>
>that's the point. To choose is not to choose to believe or not, to choose
>is to choose to either "believe or not" or "be a skeptic". At least
>I-am-trying-to-sound-cool essay on it?
I don't feel like I have a choice,
There is no more undoubting belief left for me.
There are those who need to believe,
they have no choice either.
If you can't choose,
then you too have already chosen.
_
john adams
Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote:
>William James says that we have two options:
>1. to choose whether we believe or not
>or
>2. to be a skepticTo me, the key is the phrase "to choose". Remember that whatever it
is you decide you believe in, you chose to believe it or not. If what
you are believing in doesn't work for you, choose something else.In my mind, a skeptic is choosing to believe in something as well.
They believe that everyone else is wrong.Or, more poetically, atheists worship a god-shaped hole in the sky.
john adams
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Nikolaus Maack wrote:
>
> > john adams <gala...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >In my mind, skepticism means suspending premature judgement. Believing
> > >everyone else is wrong wouldn't fall within the curriculum unless there
> > >was sufficient proof to support the belief that everyone is wrong.
> >
> > Have you ever run into a full time skeptic? They're out there. The
> > sorts of people who seem to have no beliefs of their own, but sure
> > like telling you that your beliefs are wrong. The quote Mags gave us
> > -- your choice is to believe, or to be a skeptic -- is a somewhat
> > ironic one. There is no real choice in this statement.
> >
> > If you're a skeptic full time, constantly questioning everything and
> > everyone, then you'll never believe in anything. No one can live in
> > such a state, permanently. So it would be safe to conclude that
> > there's no such thing as a full time skeptic.
> >
> > Even those who declare themselves to be a full time skeptic MUST
> > believe in something. They just don't like to talk about it, for fear
> > that some other skeptic will come along and critique their beliefs.
> > They remain full time skeptics because in times of intellectual war
> > it's a much stronger position to attack, than defend. The defender
> > builds a wall of thought. The attacker just has to find one loose
> > brick to pull it down.
> >
> > Nik
>
>
If there are no full-time skeptics, how then can those remain full-time
skeptics?
Remaining skeptical during periods of uncertainty (regarding objects in
question) appears the only logical stance to me. Believing in nothing (which
includes believing in full-time skepticism) or believing in everything is
closer to impossibility for normal operating humans. Skepticism in the sense i
described it is an attitude one could adopt for most situations requiring
critical judgements.
I do catch your drift, however. And the person who chooses only to critique
others while building a protective shell around himself is the only
disadvantaged one for it.
john "i'm not wearing underpants" adams
p.s. anytime Mags
Kristina
news:3834B515...@aol.com...
>
>
> > Mags <mk...@is9.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > >William James says that we have two options:
> > >1. to choose whether we believe or not
> > >or
> > >2. to be a skeptic
> >
> > To me, the key is the phrase "to choose". Remember that whatever it
> > is you decide you believe in, you chose to believe it or not. If what
> > you are believing in doesn't work for you, choose something else.
> >
> > In my mind, a skeptic is choosing to believe in something as well.
> > They believe that everyone else is wrong.
> >
> > Or, more poetically, atheists worship a god-shaped hole in the sky.
> >
> > Nik
>John wrote:
> In my mind, skepticism means suspending premature judgement. Believing
> everyone else is wrong wouldn't fall within the curriculum unless there
> was sufficient proof to support the belief that everyone is wrong.
Yes, John has a good point here, I'd like to add further on the 'art' of
practical scepticism...
When I'm skeptical of something I usually crease my brow and think deeply
preferably with a big pen in my mouth...rather thoughtful. One must always
maintain complete composure in this state, and rub the forehead nonchalantly
without looking too self absorbed. The trick is in the subtlety and the
reality of skepticism is just that. It is a state of questioning, not about
formed opinions or conclusions.
(there was more to this, but it got too graphic for descriptions).
P.S. A book on the subject: "Practising Healthy Scepticism With Visual
Step By Step Instruction Manual"
is a worthy read for those wanting to know more on the subject of...holes.
Kristina.
Nikolaus Maack
>You just don't like to talk about it, for
>fear that someone else will come along and critique their beliefs, like I am
>doing.
I don't like talking about my beliefs? I do it all the time. That's
almost all I post.
But hey, I'm in your killfile. Even if I talk about your critiques,
you can't hear me. Hell, even when I'm NOT in your killfile, you
can't hear me.