How do we know we know?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Threads like this strengthen my native distaste for, and distrust of, philosophy.

[wildfire_emissary]

Your inability to prove it may not mean it is false. But you can't expect a prudent man to believe that it is true. Because if the case for truth means not being able to prove that it is false, then I can claim that Chuck Norris created the universe. I cannot prove it, but my inability doesn't make it false, so just believe it.

[Tank]

Threads like this strengthen my native distaste for, and distrust of, philosophy.

You and I both. Some tools of philosophical argument are useful but I have this abiding feeling that philosophical thought for thoughts sake is just an act of intellectual masturbation, i.e. only of interest to the person doing it.

[The Black Jester]

Threads like this strengthen my native distaste for, and distrust of, philosophy.

You and I both. Some tools of philosophical argument are useful but I have this abiding feeling that philosophical thought for thoughts sake is just an act of intellectual masturbation, i.e. only of interest to the person doing it.

Crap.  I love Philosophy.  Although I also love to masturbate, so...I suppose it is no surprise that the interests are related.

Wait, can we make a syllogism (heh...I said "gism"...) out of that?

I love to masturbate
I love philosophy

Ergo Philosophy = masturbation?  

Nope, sorry.  While I agree bad philosophy is pointless masturbation, like so many other "bad"  activities, when it's good, it's SOOOOOOOO good....

[Tank]

Threads like this strengthen my native distaste for, and distrust of, philosophy.

You and I both. Some tools of philosophical argument are useful but I have this abiding feeling that philosophical thought for thoughts sake is just an act of intellectual masturbation, i.e. only of interest to the person doing it.

Crap.  I love Philosophy.  Although I also love to masturbate, so...I suppose it is no surprise that the interests are related.

Wait, can we make a syllogism (heh...I said "gism"...) out of that?

I love to masturbate
I love philosophy

Ergo Philosophy = masturbation?  

Nope, sorry.  While I agree bad philosophy is pointless masturbation, like so many other "bad"  activities, when it's good, it's SOOOOOOOO good....

I think you just proved our point

[The Black Jester]

Threads like this strengthen my native distaste for, and distrust of, philosophy.

You and I both. Some tools of philosophical argument are useful but I have this abiding feeling that philosophical thought for thoughts sake is just an act of intellectual masturbation, i.e. only of interest to the person doing it.

Crap. I love Philosophy. Although I also love to masturbate, so...I suppose it is no surprise that the interests are related.

Wait, can we make a syllogism (heh...I said "gism"...) out of that?

I love to masturbate
I love philosophy

Ergo Philosophy = masturbation?

Nope, sorry. While I agree bad philosophy is pointless masturbation, like so many other "bad" activities, when it's good, it's SOOOOOOOO good....

I think you just proved our point

I know. You're welcome.  Just so you recognize that it took Philosophy to prove that Philosophy is pointless...

[Tank]

The ultimate question.

[spoiler:u520art9]Philosophy, why?[/spoiler:u520art9]

[Davin]

How is "species survival" an emotion?

Good question.  Individual survival is actually an action motivated by fear of death or harm.  Species survival is motivated by love of offspring, siblings, parents, tribe, etc., coupled with fear of death or harm to loved ones.  We should probably add empathy, sympathy and compassion to the mix.

Then why place it in your dichotomy along with fear?

How does not caring about this shadow of yours mean that one wants to live according to the judgments of others?  (Cue haughty response.)

lol... My  resentful mother  judged my physical and emotional wants and needs unworthy of her attention.  I accepted her judgment and believed it mine, hiding my needs and desires from her and eventually from myself. But as I said earlier, it was a separation, not a divorce, and my denied self lives on in the shadow of my constructed public self.  When this Shadow Judgment rules my relationships it creates a lopsided synergy that can be counterproductive, even destructive.

Jung declared that all of us have Shadow Selves.  I think he’s right.

I’ve tagged my Shadow a time or two, but he’s still here with me, so I agree with pc:

...Since you've assumed from the get go that Davin is (consciously or unconsciously) being dishonest, I think it's only fair that you be put in the same position.

I’ve more examples of shadow tag, but propensity will not sway you.  Our shadow personality is like the Matrix - “...no one can be told what the Matrix is, you have to experience it for yourself.” ~ Morpheus.

Which is why

...the argument (is) baseless.

and why I’m not trying to prove it.  I'm just a guy who found something valuable he’d like to share.

Then share what you found, otherwise I'm left to assume that you found nothing because you can produce nothing.

Also, please explain ... how everyone's preferences are related to emotions. ...

You continue to insist I prove something I’ve told you I cannot.  After all,

I can tell you MY reasons all day long, but I can’t tell you your reasons...

and if I can’t tell you your reasons, then I certainly can’t prove your reasons.  That fact alone derails any argument.

You made a claim about something then argued for weeks about it, now you admit there is no evidence for it, so stop claiming it. Also, don't claim that I'm being dishonest, that I've stopped questioning and/or that I do everything for emotions unless you're going to support it.

Idiot - what exactly has anyone said that has been shallow or defensive?  ...You seem pretty fond of making sweeping, slightly insulting generalizations without providing examples.

Theses statements were my examples:

There is no explanation for why people don't like the taste of things or why people like the taste of things. I don't do things for emotional needs or desires. I don't have emotional needs...

And we should add his avoidance of dictionary definitions for the word “like” - stating that his personal colloquial definition was adequate, diluting the meaning of the word to avoid any reference to emotion.  (Isn’t “personal colloquial” an oxymoron?)  Our Shadows were birthed in pain and fear, they always defend themselves...  I’m not exempt, so I see no insult.  Do you feel insulted Davin?

There is a difference between feeling an insult and knowing what an insult is. One can recognize an insult without feeling it. So the answer is no, I feel no insult, however I did recognize insulting and condescending language. And from someone who has admitted to not have any evidence to support their claims.

...deciding Davin can't possibly be telling you the same level of truth you've been telling.

Level of truth...  Interesting.  I’m confident that Davin, like me, is speaking all the truth he knows.  When it comes to the Shadow realm, I’ve experienced things he hasn’t. So I know things he doesn’t.  Davin, on the other hand, has experience things I haven’t.  So he knows things I don’t.  Ignorance is the common state of man...  I prefer “arena of understanding”.

Meaningless drivel.

...you might 'grow wary of this tack' at any time and try to steer the conversation in a new direction

I didn’t grow wary, I grew weary.  And I don’t see how changing tack is changing direction, I simply hoped a new approach would help us reach an understanding.  Have I changed the subject?  (Think OP)

I can't reach an understanding from a point of view that doesn't provide evidence for the claims they make.

...once questions are posed to you that you can't answer without conceding that not every action has an emotional reason behind it.

I already stated I cannot not prove this, but does my inability to prove the statement make it false?

Absence of evidence, of a thing that is claimed to be common and plentiful, everywhere that humanity is able to search, is, for all practical purposes, evidence of absence.

And if this post is

...9 pages of ridiculous conversation...

why are you still here?

Monty Python is completely ridiculous as well, however it entertains many people.

[idiotsavant]

You made a claim about something then argued for weeks about it, now you admit there is no evidence for it, so stop claiming it. Also, don't claim that I'm being dishonest, that I've stopped questioning and/or that I do everything for emotions unless you're going to support it.

You dishonest? No.  Stopped asking questions?  Only when you hit your assumption barriers.  Everything for  emotions?  We’d know if we could just get past that assumption barrier....  â€œA man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true. ~ Demosthenes

Meaningless drivel.

... I too recognize insulting and condescending language.

I can't reach an understanding from a point of view that doesn't provide evidence for the claims they make.

You’re the one holding your evidence hostage.

Absence of evidence, of a thing that is claimed to be common and plentiful, everywhere that humanity is able to search, is, for all practical purposes, evidence of absence.

I didn’t say we have no evidence.  I said I couldn’t prove the statement (to you).  Does the shell game usually work for you?  

Tank and Black Joker understand logic’s (aka philosophy’s) inherent impotence - yet you trust it above all.  Take a walk on the wild side Davin.
 
And I’m not arguing, I’m just asking questions...

Peace - I/s

[Davin]

You made a claim about something then argued for weeks about it, now you admit there is no evidence for it, so stop claiming it. Also, don't claim that I'm being dishonest, that I've stopped questioning and/or that I do everything for emotions unless you're going to support it.

You dishonest? No.  Stopped asking questions?  Only when you hit your assumption barriers.  Everything for  emotions?  We’d know if we could just get past that assumption barrier....  â€œA man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true. ~ Demosthenes

No assumption barriers, just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean that they stopped asking questions. I don't wish anything to be true, the truth is just fine without my wishes.

Meaningless drivel.

... I too recognize insulting and condescending language.

Good.

I can't reach an understanding from a point of view that doesn't provide evidence for the claims they make.

You’re the one holding your evidence hostage.

I'm sure one who hasn't stopped questioning, such as yourself, has probably already thought: my evidence is that not all decisions are for the sake of an emotion.

Absence of evidence, of a thing that is claimed to be common and plentiful, everywhere that humanity is able to search, is, for all practical purposes, evidence of absence.

I didn’t say we have no evidence.  I said I couldn’t prove the statement (to you).  Does the shell game usually work for you?

You failed to provide evidence for your claim, so either provide evidence or submit that it's baseless speculation.

Tank and Black Joker understand logic’s (aka philosophy’s) inherent impotence - yet you trust it above all.  Take a walk on the wild side Davin.

There is nothing wrong with trusting logic, however many incorrect baseless assumptions derive from the absence of logic. Using logic is the best way to be sure that what one accepts as true is as close to reality as possible. If my goal weren't to have an understanding of reality that is as close to reality as possible, then sure logic wouldn't be very helpful. However I want to make sure that I only believe in things that are real. So I use logic to ensure that goal.

And I’m not arguing, I’m just asking questions...

Ok, then have fun.

[idiotsavant]

So intuition has never served you?

(You sound irritated...)

Peace - I/s

[The Black Jester]

Tank and Black Joker understand logic’s (aka philosophy’s) inherent impotence - yet you trust it above all. Take a walk on the wild side Davin.

Actually, I think you may have misunderstood.  Tank was making fun of Philosophy, not logic per se, and I was joking along with him (in truth, I love Philosophy, and don't give credence to the idea that it's entirely impotent).  While I would certainly claim Philosophy includes logic under its umbrella, I would, if I had to venture a guess, say that Tank is more of the opinion that logic is a tool employed by Philosophy, and so therefore not implicated in Philosophy's ills.  I highly doubt Tank would discredit the usefulness of logic itself, particularly as employed by the sciences.

“A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." ~ Demosthenes

I love this quote.  Of course, it can as easily apply to your assumptions as it can to Davin's.

So intuition has never served you?

I for one have had many intuitions - some of which did turn out to be correct.  Many of which did not.  The trick is determining when your intuition is telling you something useful, as opposed to something like offering you a conclusion that in truth is proceeding from your unconscious biases (as in having an intuition about another person's character). Logic and the experimental method are wonderful tools for checking the veracity of an intuition or other baseless assumption.  If it proves the intuition or assumption, the intuition or assumption is no longer on shaky ground and becomes (more genuine) knowledge.

By the way, just because intuition has served you once, or even several times, is no proof of its reliability.  Probability theory declares that intuitions will sometimes be correct, merely by chance. And many studies have shown our very human predilection for selection bias with regards to positive evidence for things like intuition - we remember the times that it happened to be correct, we don't tend to remember the numerous times it led us astray.

Having said that, many neurobiological studies are now beginning to investigate the unconscious processing that goes on behind the scenes, that may in fact underlie things like "intuition."  It will be interesting to see what those studies determine in terms of how we actually make decisions.

[Tank]

Actually, I think you may have misunderstood.  Tank was making fun of Philosophy, not logic per se, and I was joking along with him (in truth, I love Philosophy, and don't give credence to the idea that it's entirely impotent).  While I would certainly claim Philosophy includes logic under its umbrella, I would, if I had to venture a guess, say that Tank is more of the opinion that logic is a tool employed by Philosophy, and so therefore not implicated in Philosophy's ills.  I highly doubt Tank would discredit the usefulness of logic itself, particularly as employed by the sciences.

Spot on assessment  

Logic is a tool in the sense of a chisel, it should be used to cut away at the material until the 'truth' within is revealed. However if there is no 'truth' nor any material, logic is as useful as a chisel with no wood, you'll just play with it until you cut yourself.

[The Black Jester]

Actually, I think you may have misunderstood.  Tank was making fun of Philosophy, not logic per se, and I was joking along with him (in truth, I love Philosophy, and don't give credence to the idea that it's entirely impotent).  While I would certainly claim Philosophy includes logic under its umbrella, I would, if I had to venture a guess, say that Tank is more of the opinion that logic is a tool employed by Philosophy, and so therefore not implicated in Philosophy's ills.  I highly doubt Tank would discredit the usefulness of logic itself, particularly as employed by the sciences.

Spot on assessment  

Logic is a tool in the sense of a chisel, it should be used to cut away at the material until the 'truth' within is revealed. However if there is no 'truth' nor any material, logic is as useful as a chisel with no wood, you'll just play with it until you cut yourself.

True.  Philosophy is dangerous.  Always wear your safety goggles.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This hasn't assuaged my distrust of philosophy, but it has raised my opinion of [some of] its practitioners, for what it's worth.