Then you are irrational. Checking your facts is how you know they are facts.
You can check them as many times as you like. Whatever you consider to be fact at that point will be to you. Facts however, are items stored in minds. Therefore, the fact will be that you think you have facts and your facts won't won't exist to someone else. IMO, this means you can only claim facts as your own - though they may well apply well enough if you relate them to someone else. Strictly speaking, IMO no one can rationally claim to know more than how things seem to them. I think it ethically wrong to claim otherwise as it's a fundamental truth in the relationship of a perspective to its environment.
The honest answer is to truthfully say I know when the reasonable requirements for knowing have been met and to be open to verification and correction as needed. Saying "this seems to be a cup and it seems to be on what seems to be a desk" is stupid and annoying, not honest.
It's implicit, but ignored in general (which is okay for almost every conversation, ever). Saying it is stupid or annoying has no bearing on its validity. I don't mind it being implicit, in fact I much prefer it because in practice it's generally a useless revelation. I think however in modelling the universe, it's imperative not to forget it - lest the uber-smug douchebaggery set in.
I don't deal in absolutes. Reasonably certainty is sufficient.
The words you use imply absoluteness. Reasonably certain is entirely the point. It's exactly sufficient because it has to be.
You sure seem to care.
That I think you attacked me is enough. That's reasonably certain. Whether or not it's "really real" can't really be addressed, but again it's irrelevant. That I'm reasonably certain (or utterly convinced) is all that one base their shit on.
Fallibility is not a problem.
? fail -> evidence of problem, initiates re-evaluation or abortion.
That's why I stay in shape. But really you should expect getting smacked about taking this tact with either Buddhists or pragmatists. Anybody can talk a load of doubt. Show me doubt when there is a fist headed for your face.
Lol, do you really think you're talking to a child? I smell smug, and you're not really trying to understand what's being said.
Your complaints are really that our ability to capture things linguistically is limited ... well sure. But by those same limits you can't draw the conclusions you are drawing either if thing are as bad as you claim.
Yet I do, and reasonably... perhaps based upon what I've said you could derive a means by which rationality is maintained. Perhaps you don't care to try.
So I simply am offering the direct and traditional Zen test to see if your language and reality are reasonably matching. We could go with the pragmatist test, can you make better beer?, except I don't drink.
Lol, and yet people drink that nasty piss. Obviously they can make it better with their minds.
I thought that was my line?
Of course you did.
Almost all thinking happens after the fact. Thinking is really slow and most of it is just backfill to make you feel good about what already happened. Also you might consider that plants navigate reality just fine.
Agreed. It's nice that we often share opinions. Perhaps we should go bicker with the crazy bum who says plants are god or something. We can gang-outsmart him. Maybe we should just completely discount his perspective instead.
Milk comes solely from mammals.
Very knowledgeable, but wholly lacking in imagination. Do you have kids? Have you considered their perspective? They know milk comes from a cow once you tell them. While it came from the same place before that, how would it have been to them? Would you argue with them about it, especially when they don't understand what you're saying yet? Would it be better to not let them have any milk until you can take them to a farm and show them how it's made?
"Necessarily from perspectives which are necessarily subjective[/i ]" doesn't necessairly mean erroneous. Objective descriptions can be checked and known to be true or not.
Didn't say they were necessarily erroneous. They're just not absolute. More than one finding the same thing gives you popularity, not necessarily objectivity. Ether.
If I hand you a dead cat, its being dead is not just a subjective opinion.
What other kind of opinion is there, really?
That is what you are talking about. I'm talking about shaving off superfluous equvocation.
Of course you are, but I'm arguing that just because it annoys you only renders it superfluous in your understanding of reality. It doesn't mean it actually is, eh? Or does it? It seem you argue the latter. Your razor doesn't slice away the doubt you readily admit, and that doubt has philosophical consequences as I see it - leading to broader realizations. It annoys you though so you slice it. Much like your bashing fantasies, hmm.
Understanding is understanding of something.
Brilliant.
