While it might be semantics sometimes, belief usually is reserved for things that there is no proof for. Knowledge ispeaks to that we know, have proof of
@five2one man is the only creature in existence that can actually have an idea of the future. He says “I will do such and so” and fate steps in and declares “no, you will not.”
@Jear77
And humans are perhaps the only creature we know of in existence that can as an individual, consciously choose to alter our path before the dead-end is reached.
@griz the ultimate fate of all is death. The only love of it would be to kill one’s self, or deliberately place one’s self in situations where one might be killed.
@Jear77
Semantics correction: “no current proof for”. And let’s remember that the “body of proof” is not stable. It is constantly being added to, corrected, recanted. It’s a good tool, but a lousy “almighty”.
But a follow-up question? Can you personally “know” something that science has not yet generated a “proof” for?
(This doesn’t have to mean it is beyond science’s reach. It can simply mean nobody has yet found a way to profit from studying it. Let’s remember that science is the lapdog to funding)
@Jear77
What if the experiment . . . is your successfully negotiating Life — and all that this entails?
We SHOULD be the ones doing it. But that doesn’t happen if we’re sitting around waiting for others to tell us “approved” ways to go about doing it.
Peer experiences are part of the meta-narrative. But no science can tell us how to successfully negotiate through a story that writes itself as it goes along! (It can only tell us what the corporeal objects in the story are made of and how they interact with each other in a purely physical way).
@griz be that as it may… the issue is there’s (as the soap opera title goes) [only] one life to live. There are no second chances. No do overs. No ability to go back and change things. Why do you think that 20 YEARS of underemployment and unemployment hurt so much?
@Jear77
Well, a bit of logical flaw there. We have absolutely no proof that we only have one life to live! And an absence of proof of one hypothesis has never been accepted by good science as any kind of proof of a contrasting hypothesis.
People have negotiated bad pasts before, and will do so today, and in the future. As it’s said, it’s not what happens to us but what we do with what happens to us.
@griz proof of the hereafter is likely impossible to obtain.
And the income i would beed to retire (at any sort of comfort level) would be $100/ hr+. Why? By my age i should have saved 10X an average year’s salary. By age 50 it should be x15-20.What should be a good salary? Your age x $10,000 minimally.
What if there were real-time benefits today? Not to help us acquire things materialistic, but to help us fortify spirit, strength of character, fortitude, joy, peace?
Someting that could render you personally successful no matter what your income or situation?
@griz much of those things are byproducts of having enough. What good is love if you starve to death or are exposed to the elements? How does inner peace help if you have to worry about ordinances (i.e military explodive weapons) detonating your house? Will it protect you fron the explosion? Do you honestly think joy can eliminate the need for pain medicine when every breath is agony?
@Jear77
That is patently false. Very few people who are lacking balanced personal assets find satisfaction in materialism. If the general Life malaise, fear and dysphoria are not dealt with, wealth tends to only make it worse. There have been volumes written on this; and it’s been peer-accepted
Whereas those who have the personal assets to be grateful for little, tend to manage a lot very well.
Having a lot materialiatically will actually only give one more to fear, as fear is already a master. Most of your last statement is about fear running amok in one’s life.
@griz money allows the time to take care of yourself better. I saw a program last night about working conditions in the 1800s in England, where people were doing reenactments showing the sweatshops and the tough choices people faced. That program cemented my idea concerning how wealth will always make things infinitely easier
@griz the situations presented in this reenactment were truly horrible! But reenactments can only speculate so far. The actual conditions were likely MUCH worse than anything our modern minds can imagine. Religious persecution. Unemployment 50%. Choice between food and shelter. Needing to pawn your most precious possessions. Even when you had work, it was likely a sweat shop or dock work and then they docked your pay. Rich people who came around and wanted to gawk at your life.
@Jear77
Just don’t stray too far into the mindset of the wicked rich and the saintly poor. That’s what Marxism and its incarnations did.
There’s a natural allocation and distribution law working as a function of any free and open system. I’m drawing a blank on the name and the exact algorithm right now but roughly put 10% of the people end up controlling half of the production. And 10% of that group control half of that production, and so on.
Reset everything to “equality” by some autocratic means, and as soon as freedom is restored the distribution pattern recreates itself.
And this based entirely on biological factors and a rigid mathematical algorithm.
Marxism kept trying to artificially control this natural distribution law. All they did was rack up horrendous body count, ruin the basis of their society ( by controlling and killing the entrepreneurial spirit), and destroy itself after very few cycles as those that categorize themselves as the “oppressed” became magnitudes worse oppressors than they had ever been oppressed by.
If we want a free and open society we are going to have to learn to accept this natural biological law. “Fairness” is just not a part of nature, science, math or evolution.
And if we want to try to artificially cancel out this law so we can feel better . . . There is plenty of murderous cautionary experiments in the 20th century to remind us of where this can only go.
It is why these victims groups and their insane SJW’s are so concerning.
@griz the problem is that no system is truly open/ free. There are numerous forces at work. Availability / scarcity – to work, for food, or any other necessary commodities. Willingness to do that which is needed or deciding that it’s too much hassle. Addiction to various substances. Pressures of persecution, needing to provide for one’s self and family, whether or not you’re willing to stay within the bounds of what is legal or if you’ll break the law to get by – and what you’re willing to do. Money makes it easier to stay on the right side of the law, makes decisions less stark.
@Jear77
Yet many great Heroes of history and fiction arise during desperate times because they are not willing to abandon morals just because times are difficult.
They are not willing to addict to excusing mindsets
@griz or their measures are only considered heroic, laudable because they succeeded. Would the same thing be said if they failed, no matter their struggle(s)?
28 responses to “Belief and Knowledge”
Knowing and believing are the same thing…
Semantics.
While it might be semantics sometimes, belief usually is reserved for things that there is no proof for. Knowledge ispeaks to that we know, have proof of
@Jear77 ” belief usually is reserved for things that there is no proof for”
That is believing lies.
People believe many things, whomever they are, most of these beliefs are very true.
You believe when you get on an airplane it will actually take you someplace, though until it happens you do not have proof it will happen.
The future is all beliefs, until things happen.
You have no idea if your plans will come through or break and fail.
Tomorrow and everything you put there is belief.
There is evidence, but not a sure proven bet.
@five2one man is the only creature in existence that can actually have an idea of the future. He says “I will do such and so” and fate steps in and declares “no, you will not.”
@Jear77
Or, “You can. But it will lead to folly/consequences you might not like/will cost you more than you think”.
Are you aware of Nietzche’s proclamation “Amor Fati”? (the love of one’s fate)
@griz dire consequences, unintended consequences still amount to a dead end, if not immediately, then at the end of the path.
@Jear77
And humans are perhaps the only creature we know of in existence that can as an individual, consciously choose to alter our path before the dead-end is reached.
Or to sit down and concede defeat.
Again, any thoughts on “Amor fati”?
@griz the ultimate fate of all is death. The only love of it would be to kill one’s self, or deliberately place one’s self in situations where one might be killed.
@Jear77
That’s only part of the picture.
What you perceive as just the most negative part of the picture.
Where’s the rest of the picture? The positive parts of life.
We really get a cock-eyed view when our quest for education, truth, insight, growth etc is shanghaied by the need to prove ourselves right.
@Jear77
Semantics correction: “no current proof for”. And let’s remember that the “body of proof” is not stable. It is constantly being added to, corrected, recanted. It’s a good tool, but a lousy “almighty”.
But a follow-up question? Can you personally “know” something that science has not yet generated a “proof” for?
(This doesn’t have to mean it is beyond science’s reach. It can simply mean nobody has yet found a way to profit from studying it. Let’s remember that science is the lapdog to funding)
@griz yes…if you’re the one doing the experiments! But then you need peer review and the ability to duplicate the experiment.
@Jear77
What if the experiment . . . is your successfully negotiating Life — and all that this entails?
We SHOULD be the ones doing it. But that doesn’t happen if we’re sitting around waiting for others to tell us “approved” ways to go about doing it.
Peer experiences are part of the meta-narrative. But no science can tell us how to successfully negotiate through a story that writes itself as it goes along! (It can only tell us what the corporeal objects in the story are made of and how they interact with each other in a purely physical way).
@griz be that as it may… the issue is there’s (as the soap opera title goes) [only] one life to live. There are no second chances. No do overs. No ability to go back and change things. Why do you think that 20 YEARS of underemployment and unemployment hurt so much?
@Jear77
Well, a bit of logical flaw there. We have absolutely no proof that we only have one life to live! And an absence of proof of one hypothesis has never been accepted by good science as any kind of proof of a contrasting hypothesis.
People have negotiated bad pasts before, and will do so today, and in the future. As it’s said, it’s not what happens to us but what we do with what happens to us.
@griz proof of the hereafter is likely impossible to obtain.
And the income i would beed to retire (at any sort of comfort level) would be $100/ hr+. Why? By my age i should have saved 10X an average year’s salary. By age 50 it should be x15-20.What should be a good salary? Your age x $10,000 minimally.
@Jear77
So what if the “prize” was not “pending”?
What if there were real-time benefits today? Not to help us acquire things materialistic, but to help us fortify spirit, strength of character, fortitude, joy, peace?
Someting that could render you personally successful no matter what your income or situation?
@griz much of those things are byproducts of having enough. What good is love if you starve to death or are exposed to the elements? How does inner peace help if you have to worry about ordinances (i.e military explodive weapons) detonating your house? Will it protect you fron the explosion? Do you honestly think joy can eliminate the need for pain medicine when every breath is agony?
@Jear77
That is patently false. Very few people who are lacking balanced personal assets find satisfaction in materialism. If the general Life malaise, fear and dysphoria are not dealt with, wealth tends to only make it worse. There have been volumes written on this; and it’s been peer-accepted
Whereas those who have the personal assets to be grateful for little, tend to manage a lot very well.
Having a lot materialiatically will actually only give one more to fear, as fear is already a master. Most of your last statement is about fear running amok in one’s life.
@griz money allows the time to take care of yourself better. I saw a program last night about working conditions in the 1800s in England, where people were doing reenactments showing the sweatshops and the tough choices people faced. That program cemented my idea concerning how wealth will always make things infinitely easier
@Jear77
The ideologies that equate easy with good tend to serve as little more than dire cautions.
@griz the situations presented in this reenactment were truly horrible! But reenactments can only speculate so far. The actual conditions were likely MUCH worse than anything our modern minds can imagine. Religious persecution. Unemployment 50%. Choice between food and shelter. Needing to pawn your most precious possessions. Even when you had work, it was likely a sweat shop or dock work and then they docked your pay. Rich people who came around and wanted to gawk at your life.
@Jear77
Just don’t stray too far into the mindset of the wicked rich and the saintly poor. That’s what Marxism and its incarnations did.
There’s a natural allocation and distribution law working as a function of any free and open system. I’m drawing a blank on the name and the exact algorithm right now but roughly put 10% of the people end up controlling half of the production. And 10% of that group control half of that production, and so on.
Reset everything to “equality” by some autocratic means, and as soon as freedom is restored the distribution pattern recreates itself.
And this based entirely on biological factors and a rigid mathematical algorithm.
Marxism kept trying to artificially control this natural distribution law. All they did was rack up horrendous body count, ruin the basis of their society ( by controlling and killing the entrepreneurial spirit), and destroy itself after very few cycles as those that categorize themselves as the “oppressed” became magnitudes worse oppressors than they had ever been oppressed by.
If we want a free and open society we are going to have to learn to accept this natural biological law. “Fairness” is just not a part of nature, science, math or evolution.
And if we want to try to artificially cancel out this law so we can feel better . . . There is plenty of murderous cautionary experiments in the 20th century to remind us of where this can only go.
It is why these victims groups and their insane SJW’s are so concerning.
@griz the problem is that no system is truly open/ free. There are numerous forces at work. Availability / scarcity – to work, for food, or any other necessary commodities. Willingness to do that which is needed or deciding that it’s too much hassle. Addiction to various substances. Pressures of persecution, needing to provide for one’s self and family, whether or not you’re willing to stay within the bounds of what is legal or if you’ll break the law to get by – and what you’re willing to do. Money makes it easier to stay on the right side of the law, makes decisions less stark.
@Jear77
The absence of an absolute ideal as an excuse??
Seriously?
Let’s not forget addictions to excusing mindsets.
@griz more to the point “desperate times call for desperate measures. “
@Jear77
Yet many great Heroes of history and fiction arise during desperate times because they are not willing to abandon morals just because times are difficult.
They are not willing to addict to excusing mindsets
@griz or their measures are only considered heroic, laudable because they succeeded. Would the same thing be said if they failed, no matter their struggle(s)?
@Jear77
Actually yes. Then they become the tragic hero.
Remember these are archetypes we are talking about and not just social constructs.