The quest for true Knowledge and Rational Obligation

[ChainBreaker]

There is the principle of what I would call the Rational Ought. To put it simply there are things that we have to accept as certainly true.

On the other-hand there are things that we speculate as being probably true, and even though they could be false we adhere to it as being true anyway.

What can we be certain about, in terms of what one ought to believe as true, from a purely philosophical perspective? And how do we justify adherence to that which we can’t be certain about?

 

[curtish1947]

Hi,
So this is a rigid philosophical question, which I cannot answer, or is it a non rigid Philosophical question, that I might be able to answer.
Ought to believe sounds similar to the Biblical statement that in us, is morality and it is hard written in all of us. I object strongly to holding even things we ought to hold as true, without a test. I surely understand some of the reasons that your definition Rational Ought might indeed include that test, tacitly. However, the thought that one might define your words Rational Ought into things that cannot be questioned, because of the common understanding and the accept truth from that, from a strictly authoritarian view, which always holds the possiblity of error. Testing all things, removes that possibility, if of course the tester, is doing the job right, Totally Objectively.
Adhering to the unproven that has only good possibliites that are not proven by you, always makes sense. Such an item might be God, and the possibliity that He exists. Why not? Why not do that?
From a purely Philosophical point of view, that I can not understand nor comment on. Philosophy apart from math and logic, is not a hard science. Yet, they produced Math and Logic, both are hard, with proofs.
Justification, for what you are uncertain about, is usually done with, a less than total commitment to that for which you are uncertain about.
On the last item, while doing research, because I had to for ethical rasons, and because I did not know, if God or any Religioin knew for certain what they were talking about, and because I did this for many many years: One day the group I worked with asked me a question. “Do you think that any of us, know for certain if our religion is true” Yes, I would have ansered then. Each of them said roughly: “I have no idea if what I follow is true”. The mormon startled me when he said that, so the others were less of a shock. None of the religions represented there, and were followed by the various members, were followed because of certainty, but for other reasons.
That is something for you to think on. And what are you really trying to lower your anxiety about? Is the actions of others, or the possible present or past actions of yourself? Are you possibly just wondering at what point you can throw away the concept of God, or is it to accept the concept of God, without proof?
What is it???

 

[GEddie]

“You can’t handle the truth!”

                                   ---Jack Nicholson

Seriously, our heads are set up to look for truth. We assume things are true until they are proven false; that’s how we are made.

If we could reverse that programming, there would be no point to living life at all, since all would be illusion or deception.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Nihilist]

There is the principle of what I would call the Rational Ought. To put it simply there are things that we have to accept as certainly true.

On the other-hand there are things that we speculate as being probably true, and even though they could be false we adhere to it as being true anyway.

What can we be certain about, in terms of what one ought to believe as true, from a purely philosophical perspective? And how do we justify adherence to that which we can’t be certain about?

The only things which are ‘necessarily true’ are things which are might be characterized as ‘linguistic rules’. For example- ‘1+1=2’. That is true by virtue of its status as ‘linguistic rule’, of how number work.

But, in fact, these ‘linguistic ruless’ are only ‘necessarily true’ as long as we chose to operate within the ‘language system’ which they govern. And that is only a ‘reality’ in artificial languages (e.g. maths, computer languages), rather than natural langauges.

So, in ‘real life’, there are no ‘rational oughts.’

But religious ‘faith’ is something quite different, because it does not consist merely in holding as true certain verbal propositions, but rather in a spiritual orientation- which expresses itself in certain statement (e.g. ‘Christ is risen’), but is much more than simply accepting such statements as true.

 

[ChainBreaker]

That is something for you to think on. And what are you really trying to lower your anxiety about? Is the actions of others, or the possible present or past actions of yourself? Are you possibly just wondering at what point you can throw away the concept of God, or is it to accept the concept of God, without proof?
What is it???

You seem to be trying to ascertain why i am asking the question. I don’t understand what that has to do with the question.

Let me put the question another way. What is true knowledge?

 

[curtish1947]

You seem to be trying to ascertain why i am asking the question. I don’t understand what that has to do with the question.

Let me put the question another way. What is true knowledge?

Hi,
Knowing why you are asking the question, helps me to know how to answer you, or even if I can realistically answer you.

To me, without knowing what your own personal definition you are using for both true and knowledge, I can only hope to guess what you mean from my way of using those words, and I would not normally use true and knowledge together.

So, I’ll guess. I am going to answer this question: What is there that can be known, in any way possible, that is without error, ever?
The answer is anything that God says in true.

Another possibity of yours, is if I say something is true, how do you know you can believe what I say, without a proof?
You should not and cannot normally. You need a proof.

You might be saying what in the Bible if anything is true?
I can answer that. I have done the work. I also have the proofs for some of it.

So, I don’t know if this is just a talk about a philosophical idea, with no proofs, or actually what you are really asking. If it is purely about a philosophical theory, I said and I am sorry but it is true, all things I know use a different set of tools, yet come up with some of the very same answers such as we are all relational. That last item is Philosophical, and is not easily understood in those terms to me, it is in other terms totally understood, by me. That is one of the reasons, I was asking you, what you were trying to find out? It is to see, if I have anything useful for you or not.
I am primarily an advanced research scientist type, who can say nothing without proofs, from things like experiments.
…Kate.

Most conversations that start with an unproven statement, and one that when tested proves to be false, go on for ever.
…Kate.