Ah…let’s see. You were chiming in with Solon, who was being funny in his response to me. The quotes he used referencing my comments on certainty used words like “Stupider and surrender to ignorance” were according to you quite hillarious.
”Ignorance has done more to harm humans than to benefit them.” I am not 100% “certain what you are implying here but it appears that you are suggesting that I would promote ignorance by having people comply with autocratic thinking. NOT
”Perhaps seeing the truth is a bit painful. However, I'm willing to suffer a bit to see the truth. I recommend it… “ Interesting comment, one that I would stand on my self. I have had pain in my life for standing against bull shit and for the truth. My legal name actually means “Slave of Truth” in English. This doesn’t imply that I know the truth, as in, “All Knowing,” It does mean that I am bound to stand against deceipt and for honesty and to always seek truth in all paths of life. You seem to think “truth” is only available through scientific enquiry of physics. As such you are bound to relative truths based on theory and which are subject to disproof over time. I agree that scientific enquiry is useful and necessary, but I am not a worshipper of it.
Now I gave you a few specific statements, by no means a theological treatise on my beliefs on certainty. You don’t have to deal with those if you don’t want to. I certainly will not be justifying the attributions you make to groups who do evil things because they claim some sort of certainty in doing so.
Any way here is a statement you made in response to my posts on certainty which brought the “belief” element into the discussion.
”They are always reasons a belief should be subject to question.”
” I was judging using the word certainty (again as an abstract notion representing a type of philosophical orientation, not even mentioning you per se).”
Ah, but you were wading into the middle of a conversation on certainty. One that I had declared and in which the word was not being used in that context.
”Since my only contact with you is through a keyboard and monitor, I'm not certain you are alive yet I deem it probable. You could be a 'bot, but I doubt it.”
See, here is one of those instances. This is totally out of context, because you are responding to my statement of certainty in which I said I am certain that I am alive. That statement did not require agreement from any one out side of my self to hold true for me.
”How do people like me protect themselves from people who are certain that their behavior generates some unprovable greater good?”
If their behavior is a threat to you and in your judgement they are simply self serving in their claims, then you should do what ever you need to do to remove the threat. This is really a wide open unfair use of the term “certain” as I have applied it and does not diminish the existence of certainty. I, like you, would have them on my suspect list.
”Or certain that people are making judgements when they are questioning the notion of certainty itself?” I don’t get this, what is it that you need to protect?
”Surely we should exclude religious beliefs that are claimed to be held as "certain", because, as I pointed out to Neo, they aren't transferable to others.” I see your point but you are making the common mistake here of throwing out the baby with the bath wash. The certainties that I proclaimed in my post could of course be applied to any of the major religions of the world and fond to be common religious doctrine. On the other hand they would likely be assumed as good on principle by most of the rest of the world’s population. You say no beliefs what so ever then…are you sure you want to draw that line for the rest of the world? |
