On the question of why 'I' am right and 'you' are wrong.

[Moonbeam]

Several millennia ago Socrates brought to the attention of what would become the Western world that everybody thought they knew something making him the wisest man in the world because he knew one more thing than everybody else, that he knew he knew nothing. The obvious implication, one that equally obviously, goes completely unrecognized, is that you, the very you you call you, also knows nothing. In a political forum such as this one, where people are totally convinced of the rectitude of their own point of view, it strikes me as of some potential utility to point this out.

You know nothing and everything you believe to be the truth is just your own opinion. As opinion it has nothing whatsoever to do with truth. The truth is that you don't know anything.

It strikes me that in the coherent flow of ideas, therefore, the immediate question arises, then, as to what is the nature and property of knowing. Clearly, in the Socratic sense does it not also obviously follow that knowing is knowing you know nothing.

This certainly seems to suggest, therefore, that what people call knowing is something else, opinion disguised as knowing.

Well how could that happen and what does that imply?

This is, I think, a difficult question to deal with since it would seem, from what has gone before, that any answer we come to is clearly just opinion.

This might suggest, it seems to me, that what we need is some insight into the nature of our own opinion. How did you come to hold the opinion that you know something when the truth is that you know nothing at all.

But since we think we know, I guess the real question is, how is it that we can't really even seriously think about these questions because we instantly dismiss them as irrelevant in light of the fact that we know they are irrelevant, or are of that opinion.

 

[308nato]

I believe that seafaring philosopher of old, Popeye, said it best.

"I y'am what I y'am.........."

 

[XMan]

The obvious implication, one that equally obviously, goes completely unrecognized, is that you, the very you you call you, also knows nothing. In a political forum such as this one, where people are totally convinced of the rectitude of their own point of view, it strikes me as of some potential utility to point this out.

So are you saying that you are immune to that, then? Your stepping up to the podium on this particular issue would seemingly state that you feel you are above the rest of the proles.

 

[Czar]

good post

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: X-Man

The obvious implication, one that equally obviously, goes completely unrecognized, is that you, the very you you call you, also knows nothing. In a political forum such as this one, where people are totally convinced of the rectitude of their own point of view, it strikes me as of some potential utility to point this out.

So are you saying that you are immune to that, then? Your stepping up to the podium on this particular issue would seemingly state that you feel you are above the rest of the proles.

I don't know. What do you think?

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: X-Man

The obvious implication, one that equally obviously, goes completely unrecognized, is that you, the very you you call you, also knows nothing. In a political forum such as this one, where people are totally convinced of the rectitude of their own point of view, it strikes me as of some potential utility to point this out.

So are you saying that you are immune to that, then? Your stepping up to the podium on this particular issue would seemingly state that you feel you are above the rest of the proles.

I don't know. What do you think?

I think you're an intelligent person but you have a bad habit of "posting" down to other people.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: X-Man

I think you're an intelligent person but you have a bad habit of "posting" down to other people.

He's not the only one, there are quite a few in here that I'm sure need a box of kleenex next to their keyboards because they are so high up their nose bleeds every time they make a post.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: X-Man

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: X-Man

The obvious implication, one that equally obviously, goes completely unrecognized, is that you, the very you you call you, also knows nothing. In a political forum such as this one, where people are totally convinced of the rectitude of their own point of view, it strikes me as of some potential utility to point this out.

So are you saying that you are immune to that, then? Your stepping up to the podium on this particular issue would seemingly state that you feel you are above the rest of the proles.

I don't know. What do you think?

I think you're an intelligent person but you have a bad habit of "posting" down to other people.

One or both of us could be suffering from the following. I may have a need to feel superior out of my feelings of inferiority and or, you may may feel I'm acting superior because you have feelings of inferiority:


Handling Inferiority Complex
-Amanpreet Nayar
Related articles
Unleash the Power of Positive Thinking

Love Yourself

Coping with Loneliness
Article Archive


"You are brilliant, beautiful, intelligent, I am not. You draw attention, awe, admiration and I do not. I am inferior, stupid, ugly. I am nobody."

Have you met a person who says this? Are you the person who says and feels like this? Stop! You are just killing yourself. You need help as you may be suffering from an inferiority complex.

What is inferiority complex?
The term inferiority means that not only do you wish others to think well of you but you also want to think well of yourself. However, you also sense that you are not worthy of being admired. You might even be under-rating yourself. You constantly feel that others have something that you lack and you are perhaps not as good as others. Apart from your own thinking an inferiority complex may also arise if your superiors are always telling you that you are no good, you have failed and you don't do things the right way.

As a result of these mind distortions, you become aggressive, sensitive to criticism and many such maladjustments take over. In order to hide these deficiencies from others, you wear a cloak -- a sort of a smoke screen. As a result, it becomes difficult to judge people properly unless you have been with them for a long time. For example, a person having a scorn for rich people may be hiding his inability to make more money.

Reasons for inferiority complex
An inferiority complex usually takes birth out of frustration. When one is unwilling to accept the reality, when the gap between dreams and reality widens, many people try to cover it up by superficial behaviour. Such a person may look poised and may exude an air of self-assurance, but somewhere deep inside, as noted psychologist Alfred Adler once said: "He is not so much of a human being as a civil war."

Only we know who we are what we have intended to do and actually done, what we have thought and felt, and what we have hoped for. Our "self" is a lifelong accumulation of impressions. How we see and evaluate our "selves" and others' selves has a tremendous impact on self-acceptance, self-control, and acceptance of others.

How to get over your inferiority complex:
Know your limitations: Nobody is perfect. As human beings we all have faults and limitations but those who succeed accept and realize that they have limitations. These shortcomings may be due to hereditary factors, environmental reasons or there may be a third set of limitations that various experiences have imposed on you. It is in your hands to change these and grow out of them.


Share your feelings: By bottling your feelings, you are only harming yourself. Learn to share your thoughts. As mentioned above, nobody is perfect You are not a lesser being just because you did not give a great presentation. You do have your set of limitations and that is okay. All you have to is share it with a friend, allow people to get to know you and you will soon find that your friends will accept and respect you.


Accept yourself: Love yourself before you love somebody else. Similarly accept yourself before you expect others to do the same. Remember when you accept your obvious limitations, you break the chain of self pity, discouragement, and frustration.


Set clear goals: If you are confused about what it is that you want in life you are bound to feel low and depressed because you do not know where you are heading. Set clear achievable targets and strive for them. Be realistic about what you want. This means that you need to set both long term and short-term goals for yourself. Set your target and strive for the short-term goals. Every time you are able to achieve your goal, reward yourself. You will feel good and will have that enthusiasm to go ahead for the next. Generally what happens is that you set such high unrealistic goals for yourselves and when you are unable to achieve those you feel incompetent and depressed. Remember that immediate gratification is important for your self-esteem and ego.


Compare with only yourself: This is a mistake that we make very often. We want to compare ourselves to big personalities and high achievers that we often get disappointed. You need to be realistic. If you want to build an empire like Ratan Tata, or be the next Ambani in the making, it is good but make these your long-term targets. Don't expect to be a Tata or a Birla overnight. You are your best judge and critic. Compare yourself with only yourself, set your own targets. Just because your next-door neighbor has bought a new car does not make you any less intelligent. Believe in today, strive for excellence but take small and steady steps towards it.


Although feeling negative about yourself is an unpleasant situation, it isn't always entirely bad. Fears and feeling inferior may sometimes compel you to work hard to succeed. To get over your negativity, recognize your limitations and strengths, rather than getting discouraged or humiliated by them. Convert your limitations into strengths and overcome them. Accept and love yourself. It is important to feel comfortable and happy in your own company. The day you can do that you will overcome all your complexes and be confident and happy.




From here.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Coo Coo Ca Joob
(I am the Walrus)

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: X-Man

I think you're an intelligent person but you have a bad habit of "posting" down to other people.

He's not the only one, there are quite a few in here that I'm sure need a box of kleenex next to their keyboards because they are so high up their nose bleeds every time they make a post.

No nose bleeds, but as my father said, 'God gave me a beautiful face, but I picked my nose.'

 

[Kibbo]

Good thread moonbeam.

I don't know. What do you think?

Best. . . response. . .Evar!

 

[LunarRay]

Moonster,
If I know I know nothing then I don't know that either. To know anything is to know something, it seems to me.
But, you have chosen my favorite thinker in quoting Socrates. Plato and I would listen to him or at least read what he had to say and conclude that we knew nothing as a result. That Socrates knew nothing and that all we do is observe in some manner or another.

I take issue with one notion and that is that I don't know that I exist. It is not an opinion since to have an opinion I must exist. I know this because I know I know nothing else. I can't prove I exist to anyone else but, I can to myself. Everyone else may be a figment of my imagination but I have that imagination because I exist.

Must I rely on another to confirm my existence? Is self existence axiomatic? Do I know this to not only be true but know it is the only sure and real thing I know... including my presence somewhere... the first of the great unknowns.

 

[Kibbo]

Your assumption that your consciousness requires a physical manifestation in a "place" is based on inductive reasoning regarding the basic laws of exestence based on observation from your senses, which could be an illusion.

But this is getting off-topic.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Coo Coo Ca Joob
(I am the Walrus)

I've always preferred

koo-koo-kachu (mrs. Robinson)

 

[LunarRay]

Socrates actually didn't write anything. He believed that knowledge was a living, interactive thing more or less, I think.

Socrates used a method of philosophical inquiry which depended on the questioning of folks regarding the positions they held and working them through these questions into a contradiction. This sorta proved to them that their beliefs were wrong, that they knew nothing. Like Moonbeam does... hehehhee

Socrates never sided one way or another. "The Apology" indicates that Socrates said "I know nothing at all except that I know nothing". So, how could he take a position?

Socrates and Plato called this method of inquiry "elenchus", which is the same as cross-examination in the court room. To be able to defend a position become impossible given the opinion is not truth.
The Socratic "elenchus" evolved into the dialectic, I think. It is an idea that truth needs to be pursued by modifying one's position through inquiry or 'cross-examination and showing the conflict with opposing notions.

Truth being sought, rather than being discovered is what characterizes Socratic thought and maybe the current thinking process as well. IMO.
Our notion of the dialectic is somewhat Socratic in nature in that it is thought of as an ongoing process.

Even though Socrates in "The Apology" claims to have 'discovered' no other truth aside from his belief that he knows no truth, Plato's initial dialogs holds the opinion that truth is somehow attainable through the process of elenchus.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Your assumption that your consciousness requires a physical manifestation in a "place" is based on inductive reasoning regarding the basic laws of exestence based on observation from your senses, which could be an illusion.

But this is getting off-topic.

I don't think I assume that.. not at all. It is a question... not an assertion.
I exist. I know this. 'Where' is irrelevant to knowing that.

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Several millennia ago Socrates brought to the attention of what would become the Western world that everybody thought they knew something making him the wisest man in the world because he knew one more thing than everybody else, that he knew he knew nothing. The obvious implication, one that equally obviously, goes completely unrecognized, is that you, the very you you call you, also knows nothing. In a political forum such as this one, where people are totally convinced of the rectitude of their own point of view, it strikes me as of some potential utility to point this out.

You know nothing and everything you believe to be the truth is just your own opinion. As opinion it has nothing whatsoever to do with truth. The truth is that you don't know anything.

It strikes me that in the coherent flow of ideas, therefore, the immediate question arises, then, as to what is the nature and property of knowing. Clearly, in the Socratic sense does it not also obviously follow that knowing is knowing you know nothing.

This certainly seems to suggest, therefore, that what people call knowing is something else, opinion disguised as knowing.

Well how could that happen and what does that imply?

This is, I think, a difficult question to deal with since it would seem, from what has gone before, that any answer we come to is clearly just opinion.

This might suggest, it seems to me, that what we need is some insight into the nature of our own opinion. How did you come to hold the opinion that you know something when the truth is that you know nothing at all.

But since we think we know, I guess the real question is, how is it that we can't really even seriously think about these questions because we instantly dismiss them as irrelevant in light of the fact that we know they are irrelevant, or are of that opinion.

I'm glad to see this post. It is always a nice refresher to point the scope back at yourself every once in a while, and to try and understand why you hold the values that you do. This for me, usually comes late at night in bed when my thoughts run wild. It is also a time when I try to understand why others have thier opinions that do not coincide with mine, and realizing that neither are the truth. It's unsettling at the least to do this for me personally, but I do think it makes you wiser for doing it. I believe a lot of posts on this forum are emotionally driven, and when coupled with the non face to face forum setting, posts tend to get out of hand. I am no exception to this rule. I truly believe that talking face to face would be much more pleasant than what we have here at our disposal.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Your assumption that your consciousness requires a physical manifestation in a "place" is based on inductive reasoning regarding the basic laws of exestence based on observation from your senses, which could be an illusion.

But this is getting off-topic.

I don't think I assume that.. not at all. It is a question... not an assertion.
I exist. I know this. 'Where' is irrelevant to knowing that.[/q

I think we need to agree on what it might mean to know. I know my shirt is white but is that knowledge or knowing. Similarly I know I had toast for breakfast, but in knowing that or reflecting on that past event am I then in a state of being. There seems to be a problem with thinking. Thinking is always about the past, what is dead and gone and that isn't being. To think I am is not to be it seems to me because all it is is remembering I just was, or thought I was. Perhaps that is why the mystic says I am I am I am and why he is called a mystic and not a person of common sense, but a walrus or perhaps an egg man, no?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Piano Man

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Several millennia ago Socrates brought to the attention of what would become the Western world that everybody thought they knew something making him the wisest man in the world because he knew one more thing than everybody else, that he knew he knew nothing. The obvious implication, one that equally obviously, goes completely unrecognized, is that you, the very you you call you, also knows nothing. In a political forum such as this one, where people are totally convinced of the rectitude of their own point of view, it strikes me as of some potential utility to point this out.

You know nothing and everything you believe to be the truth is just your own opinion. As opinion it has nothing whatsoever to do with truth. The truth is that you don't know anything.

It strikes me that in the coherent flow of ideas, therefore, the immediate question arises, then, as to what is the nature and property of knowing. Clearly, in the Socratic sense does it not also obviously follow that knowing is knowing you know nothing.

This certainly seems to suggest, therefore, that what people call knowing is something else, opinion disguised as knowing.

Well how could that happen and what does that imply?

This is, I think, a difficult question to deal with since it would seem, from what has gone before, that any answer we come to is clearly just opinion.

This might suggest, it seems to me, that what we need is some insight into the nature of our own opinion. How did you come to hold the opinion that you know something when the truth is that you know nothing at all.

But since we think we know, I guess the real question is, how is it that we can't really even seriously think about these questions because we instantly dismiss them as irrelevant in light of the fact that we know they are irrelevant, or are of that opinion.

I'm glad to see this post. It is always a nice refresher to point the scope back at yourself every once in a while, and to try and understand why you hold the values that you do. This for me, usually comes late at night in bed when my thoughts run wild. It is also a time when I try to understand why others have thier opinions that do not coincide with mine, and realizing that neither are the truth. It's unsettling at the least to do this for me personally, but I do think it makes you wiser for doing it. I believe a lot of posts on this forum are emotionally driven, and when coupled with the non face to face forum setting, posts tend to get out of hand. I am no exception to this rule. I truly believe that talking face to face would be much more pleasant than what we have here at our disposal.

Regarding 'I believe a lot of posts on this forum are emotionally driven' I believe you are correct. I think what keeps from seeing that we don't know anything is our attachment to our emotions. I think there are two problems here. One is that we are in love with our feelings, convinced that we are justified in feeling what we feel, and secondly, that we have forgotten how we came to feel how we feel. The self justification of our feeling coupled with the inability to challenge their rationality, makes us akin to flies on fly paper it seems. I know I'm right, but I can't remember why. Hehe. If I were to see that I know nothing I would just die. At least I would die to the belief in the truth of my feelings and that would be as bad or worse.

Regarding the problems created by the non face to face aspect of the forum, I can only say that your very real post here has made you very real to me. You have given me a picture of yourself late at night, a fellow human being staring out at the night wondering what it all means. It is very touching to know that others share the trip. I think we are all the same. Thank you for your post.

 

[jackschmittusa]

While it is true that that there are many (if not all) things I do not know with certainty, there are many beliefs that serve me well in my everyday existance. I believe that if I do not eat, I will die. I believe that if I drop a bowling ball on my foot, it will hurt.

One of the great advantages of our species is that we can accept what others offer us as truths. I have never personally measured the distance from the Earth to the Sun, but I believe it is reasonable to believe it is approximately 93 million miles. Mankind has the incredable ability to collect, preserve, and distribute the "knowledge" of all its members. Opinions come from assembling bits of this collective knowledge and drawing conclusions. Opinions can always be debated on the basis of: whether the other has collected the appropriate bits, whether the bits were considered in a logical manner, whether past precedent shows a future path, etc..

It is naught but human nature to constantly assemble these bits of presumed knowledge, find patterns, and make predictions of the future. Whether we believe the bits to be absolute truth is immaterial. Only the devoutly religious believe in absolute truths anyway, and they never enter a discussion with opposing views expecting to be further enlightened.

I shall be very happy to continue to bumble about for the rest of my time, never absolutely certain I am right, but satisfied that I have discovered the most likely "truth" about the many things that comprise my knowledge.

 

[smashp]

Wow, Thats Deep Man............

(Preparing to light Joint)


Woah

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Your assumption that your consciousness requires a physical manifestation in a "place" is based on inductive reasoning regarding the basic laws of exestence based on observation from your senses, which could be an illusion.

But this is getting off-topic.

I don't think I assume that.. not at all. It is a question... not an assertion.
I exist. I know this. 'Where' is irrelevant to knowing that.[/q

I think we need to agree on what it might mean to know. I know my shirt is white but is that knowledge or knowing. Similarly I know I had toast for breakfast, but in knowing that or reflecting on that past event am I then in a state of being. There seems to be a problem with thinking. Thinking is always about the past, what is dead and gone and that isn't being. To think I am is not to be it seems to me because all it is is remembering I just was, or thought I was. Perhaps that is why the mystic says I am I am I am and why he is called a mystic and not a person of common sense, but a walrus or perhaps an egg man, no?

I don't KNOW anything about my shirt other than what I preceive it to be (Lurnt stuff based on sensory input). If I listen to your voice and it confims this and I assume you exist for that purpose I might conclude I learned or gained the knowledge that the shirt had a particular color....
I only know I exist. I know it to be true. All else is based on my knowledge gained thus far..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
While it is true that that there are many (if not all) things I do not know with certainty, there are many beliefs that serve me well in my everyday existance. I believe that if I do not eat, I will die. I believe that if I drop a bowling ball on my foot, it will hurt.

One of the great advantages of our species is that we can accept what others offer us as truths. I have never personally measured the distance from the Earth to the Sun, but I believe it is reasonable to believe it is approximately 93 million miles. Mankind has the incredable ability to collect, preserve, and distribute the "knowledge" of all its members. Opinions come from assembling bits of this collective knowledge and drawing conclusions. Opinions can always be debated on the basis of: whether the other has collected the appropriate bits, whether the bits were considered in a logical manner, whether past precedent shows a future path, etc..

It is naught but human nature to constantly assemble these bits of presumed knowledge, find patterns, and make predictions of the future. Whether we believe the bits to be absolute truth is immaterial. Only the devoutly religious believe in absolute truths anyway, and they never enter a discussion with opposing views expecting to be further enlightened.

I shall be very happy to continue to bumble about for the rest of my time, never absolutely certain I am right, but satisfied that I have discovered the most likely "truth" about the many things that comprise my knowledge.

But, Jack you've got to start somewhere other than assuming distance to the sun.. How do you know it exists. Measuring based on assumption that a truth exists is how we live. It is reasonable under the circumstances but it does not produce a truth.
IF the sun exits and IF the earth exists then it becomes possible to proceed to IF time and distance exist it may be resonable to assume the distance someone may have determined is knowledge gained but, still not the absolute truth. You assume you know but it is based on assumptions some of which you have no reason to cross-examine.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by jackschmittus:

While it is true that that there are many (if not all) things I do not know with certainty, there are many beliefs that serve me well in my everyday existance. I believe that if I do not eat, I will die. I believe that if I drop a bowling ball on my foot, it will hurt.

{You refer to knowledge here that is also possessed by a chimp but it's easy to see they 'know' nothing. Clearly there is a sloppiness about how we use the word 'knowing'.}

One of the great advantages of our species is that we can accept what others offer us as truths. I have never personally measured the distance from the Earth to the Sun, but I believe it is reasonable to believe it is approximately 93 million miles. Mankind has the incredable ability to collect, preserve, and distribute the "knowledge" of all its members. Opinions come from assembling bits of this collective knowledge and drawing conclusions. Opinions can always be debated on the basis of: whether the other has collected the appropriate bits, whether the bits were considered in a logical manner, whether past precedent shows a future path, etc..

{You can tell a teenager the sun is 93 million miles away but you can't give him the wisdom not to drive too fast. This business of information, knowledge and wisdom are a bit slippery it seems}

It is naught but human nature to constantly assemble these bits of presumed knowledge, find patterns, and make predictions of the future. Whether we believe the bits to be absolute truth is immaterial. Only the devoutly religious believe in absolute truths anyway, and they never enter a discussion with opposing views expecting to be further enlightened.

{One of the most important things I think it's important not to know is 'What is human nature'. I can think of few subjects in which I see more opinion and pure speculation. It strikes me that the first thing that people who know nothing know is what is human nature. It strikes me as patently absurd that 'Only the devoutly religious believe in absolute truth anyway, ...' When you said that 'It is naught but human nature to constantly assemble...' you were stating an absolute truth, an incorrect on, in my opinion, but absolute from your point of view, no? But then what do I know?}

I shall be very happy to continue to bumble about for the rest of my time, never absolutely certain I am right, but satisfied that I have discovered the most likely "truth" about the many things that comprise my knowledge.[/quote]

Socrates also said that the unexamined life is not worth living. How he or I would know, I'm not sure.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Your assumption that your consciousness requires a physical manifestation in a "place" is based on inductive reasoning regarding the basic laws of exestence based on observation from your senses, which could be an illusion.

But this is getting off-topic.

I don't think I assume that.. not at all. It is a question... not an assertion.
I exist. I know this. 'Where' is irrelevant to knowing that.[/q

I think we need to agree on what it might mean to know. I know my shirt is white but is that knowledge or knowing. Similarly I know I had toast for breakfast, but in knowing that or reflecting on that past event am I then in a state of being. There seems to be a problem with thinking. Thinking is always about the past, what is dead and gone and that isn't being. To think I am is not to be it seems to me because all it is is remembering I just was, or thought I was. Perhaps that is why the mystic says I am I am I am and why he is called a mystic and not a person of common sense, but a walrus or perhaps an egg man, no?

I don't KNOW anything about my shirt other than what I preceive it to be (Lurnt stuff based on sensory input). If I listen to your voice and it confims this and I assume you exist for that purpose I might conclude I learned or gained the knowledge that the shirt had a particular color....
I only know I exist. I know it to be true. All else is based on my knowledge gained thus far..

Who is this I that knows that it exists? Is a thought real? Is the knowledge you speak of that you exist a thought? Are we aware of something or is there something because we are aware? Can awareness be the object of itself?