Philosophy: How Do you Know You are Reading This?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Truthstalker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Truthstalker

Guest
Are you sure you are reading this? How do you know? Do you know? Are you sure what you are reading is what wrote?
 
This sentence is false. :rolleyes:

Is this what philosophy has become? Unfortunately, yes, this is the best of what philosophy is doing today. Most of it, however, tends to be arguments over who said what, rather than if what they said is true. In other words, it is the study of what men have opined, not the study of the truth-the exact opposite of what St. Thomas said it should be!
 
No, I am not reading this. I am posting a response to it. 👍

~~ the phoenix
 
Truthstalker said:
Are you sure what you are reading is what wrote?
Click to expand...
As a former English teacher, I’d like to ask you to reconsider this sentence. Did you mean, “Are you sure what you are reading is what was written?” Or is this part of a sly trick you’re playing on us? You’re assuming that we’ll correct this sentence in our head, and respond to the corrected sentence, instead of the actual words, thus proving your thesis?

Or is it just time for me to go to bed?
 
Cari said:
As a former English teacher, I’d like to ask you to reconsider this sentence. Did you mean, “Are you sure what you are reading is what was written?” Or is this part of a sly trick you’re playing on us? You’re assuming that we’ll correct this sentence in our head, and respond to the corrected sentence, instead of the actual words, thus proving your thesis?

Or is it just time for me to go to bed?
Click to expand...
No trick. I left out the word “I”.:o
 
Is water wet? Do dogs bark?

These are the deep questions of our time. :whistle:
 
Common Sense.

One of the “internal senses” of philosophy - which a lot of modern philosophers, however, seem to have been deprived of.

Nita
 
This made me think of how the Gospel is an ever living word. God is speaking it every day because it is Love and Love is ever present. And these words, and dogs barking, and those words. They come and go. It should all be referred to past tense because 1. The present is only present the time it happens (time being in teh action of an the instant it hits your mind its over) and the future has no yet happened and we do not know the future for we are finite and free willed. How ever flawed all of our statements can be such as “I hate you and I Love You” I think maybe we can confide our thoughts heart soul and actions with the word of God which is always living and always real and what you read no matter how many times and no matter when you “remember” it. Taht is the exception. The instant it hits your mind, it is not past, but it is present past and future. I know this because it is. ?
off topic, but yeah.

What do you guys think?
 
Truthstalker said:
Are you sure you are reading this? How do you know? Do you know? Are you sure what you are reading is what wrote?
Click to expand...
OK, I’m busted, Truthstalker. I’m not sure I am reading what you wrote.

Can I fake it til I make it?

English to English translation: Is it possible to emulate certainty without actually being certain?

:cool: :rotfl: 😉

Ancillary questions:
  • How can I be certain that I am uncertain?
  • If I am uncertain that I am uncertain, then is it not possible for me to be certain?
  • In the realm of possibility about being certain, a good gamble would be to fake it til I make it, would it not?
  • In other words, I could probably work out what I could be certain about if I had a knowledge of statistical probability.
    D-oh! :doh2: Truthstalker, you have lured us once again into the realm of quantum theory.
 
I see that sophists and pseudo intellectuals are still alive and well enough to pose dumba— questions.
 
I am sure I am reading. (I was anyway, I’m finished now.) I know because this is what I call “reading”. I don’t know if you and I mean the same thing by “reading”. I can’t prove to you that I am reading. I only know that I am doing what I call reading.

I am equally sure that I didn’t read what wrote, because I completely missed the mistake until it was pointed out. I know that I can’t always trust my senses. At least I am pretty sure I can’t always trust my senses. I really can’t be 100% sure when I should trust them or not.

I, for one, think that the post was really well done, a very subtle way of making the point.
 
Truthstalker said:
Are you sure you are reading this? How do you know? Do you know? Are you sure what you are reading is what wrote?
Click to expand...
Am I sure I am reading this?

Do I need to be sure?

How do I know?

I don’t need to know.

Do I know?

No. I think.

Are you sure what you are reading is what * wrote?

I had to copy and paste the last question, so yes, I’m sure it is what you wrote - whatever that was.*
 
I think that it is a good question, because it helps you to determine your most basic assumptions.

“How Do you Know You are Reading This?”

I identify what I perceive to be ‘me’, but I could of course be insane and be imagining that I am someone that I am not. “Crazy people” claiming to be Napoleon actually believe that they are that person with the same kind of certainty that you believe you are you. You may point to all kinds of evidence, but of course, you are merely pointing to what you perceive to be evidence. Even bystanders that appear to independently confirm your view could be imaginary.

It’s similar to the question asked in the movie “The Matrix”. How do you know that what appears to be real is real? I cannot think of any answer to that question that doesn’t involve me citing evidence that itself may not be real. My answer is that I don’t know and say that it’s one of my most fundamental assumptions. It may be wrong, but it’s safest to assume its not. For example, if you assume that a car driving towards you is fake and you are wrong, then you die. If you assume it is real and you are wrong, all you did was step to the side in your imagination, which is no great loss.

I think that there are more complex arguments that demonstrate that you can know for certain the reality of reality (I’m reading a book describing a Thomistic view of reality which I think makes this claim) but I can’t convincingly argue that at the moment.
 
Truthstalker said:
Are you sure you are reading this? How do you know? Do you know? Are you sure what you are reading is what wrote?
Click to expand...
Define your terms! In order to answer this question we need to have a basis for discussion including arriving at a common understanding of what it is to know ( and to believe and to know you know), how we know, what assumptions are reasonable to make to turn virtual certainties into certainties etc.

I would analyze it this way: I have a model of the world that translates what certain things I see into letters and certain letters I see into words and certain words I see in to parse-able statements/questions and statements into relationships between concepts that can be tested against/ support or weaken the model I have for the way the world works.

so while I am not certain as to exactly the point/question you are communicating, I very certain as to the general direction of your inquiry, hence this post.
 
What is the difference between knowing, knowing certainly, and thinking something is true?

What assumptions are we making about how we know things and how can we push those back, to discover that those are actual rational conclusions based on a prior (or deeper) set of assumptions?

We have to make some assumptions in order to function, but how do we know we are actually functioning? That we know anything?
 
Since we’re getting all philosophical and stuff, I have a question. What is the sound of one hand clapping? Oh… wait… wrong website. :o

On a serious note, I know that I’ve read what I’ve read because I saw it with my own two eyes. Since I’m not insane or on any mind-bending substances (Quick message to our young readers: “Crack is Whack” and “Say no to drugs”), I’m pretty certain that I actually read what I read. That doesn’t mean I understood what I read, but I know I read it.

God Bless,
Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top