I see you are uncomfortable answering my questions.
It is my view that a person doesn’t know what he believes if direct questions make him uneasy.
Anyway, if you won’t answer questions about your thought, I can’t dialogue with you.
And, yes, it leaves the question unanswered, at least for me.
I am not hearing a regular, English-speaking person in your posts.
Thank you for finally agreeing with me that JTB belongs only in the lab.
It only took us a few months!
That is only what is apparent to you but is wrong. I am not at all uncomfortable answering your questions, but that does not mean that I will address what I take to be frivolous, pointless questions, such as the possibility of being deceived by a god.
Is it possible that you are a ventriloquist’s dummy? That he moves your mouth and fingers? That it is only an illusion that you think when in fact what you believe to be your thoughts are just things he puts in your head? How can you tell?
Once again you do exactly what you accuse me of doing, reading my mind. In most cases I do have some idea of what I believe, but if I am unable to decide I say so, and in no case have your questions made me uneasy.
I have answered several of your questions, but apparently you do not know that.
You fail to see the problem addressed in my answer, which has to do with your claims about what is only apparent. You say:
and draw conclusions from that. If I tell you the truth, which is that I am “a regular, English-speaking person”, what then? Do you stick with something else that is apparent to you? Or do you believe the truth? And if you believe the truth do you revert to something else that is apparent to you but is in truth false, such as I don’t understand you or have not read enough neuroscience to agree with you? Again, in both cases these things are, in truth, false.
Well, all of your questions and your comments are frivolous and pointless.
So I guess we are done.
I am not a psychiatrist but the inability to distinguish what is real from what is not real is the definition of psychosis.
Your black and silent cave is not a place where a healthy human being would live. That you imagine that all of us live in a cave is disconcerting.
Perhaps you are only pushing a line of argument. I truly hope that is all it is.
Failure to commit.
“There is an apparent reality outside of me” already makes so many presumptions: That there is an “I”, that there is a dichotomy of inside and outside, that something can be called “reality”, that something can stand in the relation of “appearing”, that apparent reality is outside the speaker, that the speaker can identify that relation…
The grammar of the sentence manufactures the philosophical problems.
If you had any idea what I am talking about in my OP, I might feel some little concern.
But I am pretty relaxed right now.
Right. I will not commit to being an actual prophet of God.
It just feels too icky.
If you ever feel ready to engage the issue–rather than preaching these marvelous sermons from the sidelines–let me know.
I will be gentle, I swear.
I suggest you take a look at the SEP article on Truth; there may be more going on here than that of which you are aware.
That is nice, but sooner or later you might face up to the problem. In any case I wish you well.
The certainty that one can know what is real—no matter what anyone else brings to the table—is a defining feature of delusion.
Which many consider to be madness.
I wish you well, too… even as I worry that sooner or later, you might have to face up to the problem.
I will be happy to provide you with some of my writings.
All the answers you seek are covered there.
There is no good excuse for anyone to be confused, in light of the explanations I’ve laid out.
And yet
Keep reading and thinking. There’s more here.
I cover all of that in My Writings.
I have confidence that if you’ll only dig deeper into my work, things will begin to clear up for you.
Meanwhile, we find ourselves in a philosophy forum. Any chance you’ll–you know–actually engage debate with me?
I’m here. Go on.
Apparently you are not yet done.
For the most part it is not about certainty or uncertainty or what is real and what is an apparition or only apparently real. They do not enter the picture. I walk across the floor, I sit on the couch, I open a book and read.
This is a significant modification of your original position. Whether I heed the warning depends on whether what they bring to the table is a good reason for me to question whether what I see is really a bus. That it might be an hallucination is not a good reason.
There’s a difference between being certain and being true that seems to have gone missing in Guess’s account. A statement can be true, yet we are uncertain about it, or we might be certain bout it, although it is false. Guess seems to think a sentence can only be true if one is certain that it is true. Odd.
And we can then parse “true for” as a particular ape using “true” to indicate its belief verbally.
—The coffee is shit here.
—True. I’m never coming back.