Philosophy Now Forum

You educated the message board in scepticism, then would you enlighten with some information. Knowing, you have acquired wisdom, might you have informed with some epistemology. Scepticism had taken its toll in the past philosophies, then had it been nothing. Scepticism is a rational approach and empirical, the possibilities of knowledge having been proving itself. S knows that q iff S believes that q, q is true, S is justified in believing that q. The Justified True Belief, what you doubt.

puto wrote: ↑Thu Jul 10, 2025 8:25 am You educated the message board in scepticism, then would you enlighten with some information. Knowing, you have acquired wisdom, might you have informed with some epistemology. Scepticism had taken its toll in the past philosophies, then had it been nothing. Scepticism is a rational approach and empirical, the possibilities of knowledge having been proving itself. S knows that q iff S believes that q, q is true, S is justified in believing that q. The Justified True Belief, what you doubt.

Justified true belief is merely a belief in the act of justification thus justified true belief is merely nested beliefs.

If reality is subject to belief than by default chaos ensues as there is no law as to what to or not to believe. Rationality is merely the measuring of what we are currently aware of thus is relative by nature.

Simply put, deduction from that does not depend of inference from basic beliefs. "I believe my car is in the parking lot." The rationale is that no philosopher can dispute.

puto wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 10:58 am Simply put, deduction from that does not depend of inference from basic beliefs. "I believe my car is in the parking lot." The rationale is that no philosopher can dispute.

but the repo man can

-Imp

puto wrote: ↑Sun Jul 13, 2025 10:58 am Simply put, deduction from that does not depend of inference from basic beliefs. "I believe my car is in the parking lot." The rationale is that no philosopher can dispute.

Your belief deduction will provide clarity to all ambiguous issues, or at least many of them, while the logical course of deduction is a continuous act of unknowing as one thing reduces to another than another than another and what is reduced is merely an expression of a temporal and finite experience, in many regards, and from this finite/temporal clarity comes a limit to what is known and knowable.

This limit of knowledge presents a state of unknowing that necessitates belief to traverse, this belief is in the bias of projecting what is known upon that which is unknown in an effort to make sense of things. Belief is merely actualizing patterns upon the unknown, the foreign, in an effort to achieve clarity.

Given projection is inherent in pattern recognition one cannot seperate belief from rationale.

On the other hand pure deduction, the act of reducing reality to one thing would effectively leave no definitive answer or clarity to a thing as a pure unity of reality would effectively be nothing as there would be no distinction.

Eodnhoj7

You really are a good sceptic. I understand the 'true belief' from our perspective. The Agrippan argument is ancient and specific in justification.

puto wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 7:53 am

Eodnhoj7

You really are a good sceptic. I understand the 'true belief' from our perspective. The Agrippan argument is ancient and specific in justification.

There is only so specific one can get about justification without obliterating it within the infinite and yet to choose to limit how specific one becomes results in a purely assumed nature to justification as the spontaneity one ends the regress with equals the spontaneity of the definition of justification leaving a sense of randomness imbued within this very definition.

What one calls justification is merely a choice to stop defining it relative to another thus relegating reality to a mere projection of will in regards to a clear cut definitive nature to justification.

I am not sure the ancients where skeptical enough, for it they where an inversion of the skepticism would result, by nature of being skeptical of even skepticism, and an acceptance and belief in everything would occur simultaneously. To far down one extreme results in a polarization that creates the other.

What I see as a true skeptic is the man or woman who believes and accepts everything, while simultaneously holding the very same doubts, for they know the depth of futility in true pure doubting for often times one doubts out of a fear of being deceived, and the subsequent pain that comes with it, and yet they are rarely, if ever, skeptical of this fear and unknowingly have a belief in this internal paradigm they know little if anything about and yet fail to see that suffering occurs regardless of truth.

That is my two cents...for better or for worse....

All occurrence is absolutely 360 degrees true. Than.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 11:30 pm All occurrence is absolutely 360 degrees true. Than.

Put this in ai:

Falsity occurs, and it is true that there is falsity as occurence is justification of truth for what gives impression, as occurence does, is thus the means of change and what changes manifests as reality.

Falsity is true as Falsity by nature of it occuring. Falsity is merely an observation of context. The statement 1+1=3 is false under the standard context of mathematics. However if the context of 1+1=3 is changed where:

There is one phenomena
There is another one phenomena
There is a phenomena of ones as two phenomena.
There phenonema of ones as two phenomena is a third phenomena.

Under this context 1+1=3 is true and within this context 1+1=2 is false.

Now if both contexts are simultaneous then both are true within there given context and false within the context of another. Looking at these contexts simultaneously necessitates 1+1=2 is simultaneously true and false, 1+1=3 is simultaneously true and false.

Contextualization is thus the creation of paradox, and this nature necessitates that the application of context is the application of a transformation where limits are defined and dissolved.

To contextualize is to create experience by creating distinction. This creation of distinction is the creation of truth and falsity by nature of them being distinction. However creation itself is a distinction thus creation becomes a recursive process within itself where context forms context as distinction forms distinction and creation thus becomes its own progressive looping that just occurs and in these regards in becomes a spontaneous event when observed as a distinction that arises as a recursive form, thus the nature of infinite creation becomes finite by nature of it being distinct as creation and infinity and finitude become relative contexts that follow the same nature as truth and falsity, creating/creation is thus relegated to a mere conceptual paradigm by which to interpret things.

To cycle back upon truth and falsity, as arguments over infinity and finitude are reducing such concepts to degrees or forms of truth or falsity:

Truth and falsity are merely points by which something is interpreted and how or what something is deemed as truth or falsity becomes a process of distinction for further distinctions thus an act of cause and effect by nature of distinction being the everpresent potential for further distinctions so on and so forth. Distinction occurs within the act of attention and this attention is simultaneous to distinction thus resulting in an observer effect for abstract and/or empirical phenomena.

By attention of concepts further concepts occur thus consciousness can be reduced to the potentiality of change in many respects and is akin to nothing in many regards, it is akin to the absence of actuality by which actuality occurs for when an observation occurs it is the unfolding of distinctions.

Given the process of order is the repetition of limits, such as the quality of green or sides of a square or branches of a tree, recursion is the foundation of creation.

Given the variation of order into new orders allows for adaptation isomorphism is the foundation of creation.

Given the order being a means for expanding orders and other order condensing into a specific order, variability is the foundation for creation.

Given creation is a distinction it is created thus a paradox occurs allowing for transformation where creating/creation is always present as many things and yet one where "the one" and " the many" are mere contexts by which to make distinctions.

Distinctions are the foundation for consciousness as consciousness is a distinction thus relegation consciousness as the means and potential for transformation of things so that being occurs.