How do you know that things you believe are right?

Everyone's lives are beautiful pieces of fiction. They're written in different ways by different people coming from different experiences that influence the way they live their lives, but it's all still fiction.

Nice and poetic.

The idea of a universal truth is hard to nail down because it takes a personal understanding to get there, which is rather contradictory in trying to find an objective, universal truth. Enter science, the purpose of which is to find empirical evidence about the state of reality to piece together a cohesive idea of what the universe is and how it works. Problem there, is that the search for a universal truth usually doesn't require a how or what, but a why, which science does well, but only to a certain extent; it's a great tool to use in the search of truth, but it only takes us so far.

Enter religion, the purpose of which is to explain the "unexplainable". Sadly, we can't rely on empirical evidence at this point, since there's very little empirical evidence to use to define "reality" in the first place.

There's a philosophical term for it and I forget what it is, but we can only experience life through our own means. A universal truth is appealing if doubt is introduced and an individual becomes intimidated by it. However, since the search of a universal truth is, usually, an individual endeavor, when two different people have two separate ideas of what a universal truth is, the doubt of reality becomes even more stark and intimidating.

TL;DR: Make like Descartes, welcome doubt, and use it to build the foundation of your personal belief structure. It's not the best we can do, but it's a way we can do it.

Not as unlikely as I'd like to think, I suppose. It could happen.

Well, I suppose through self-reflection and discussion with those whom one disagrees with one could uncover biases and flaws (in either position).

Such conviction is a flaw and a weakness.

edited 28th Apr '11 2:45:57 PM by GreatLich

If it feels nice and truthy, I'm there.

I don't know. I believe. Good enough for me.

One of my few regrets about being born female is the inability to grow a handlebar mustache. -Landstander

If those are your definitions, those are your definitions. I don't understand what your question is meant to be.

So you draw the line between "me" and "not me" at the borders of your physical body. Others draw the line elsewhere. Daniel Kolak's line, for instance, doesn't separate his body from other physical bodies. Some singularitarians do not draw a line between their consciousness and an upload of it, or between themselves and versions of themselves elsewhere in the Multiverse. Some draw the line between themselves in the short term and themselves in the long term, and therefore seek short term gratification. Some draw their line in such a way as to exclude certain parts of their minds or bodies. I often see people classify their fears as "not me", and therefore avoid factoring it into their cost benefit analyses. Some classify their sexual urges as "not me", and so try to suppress them. Some suppress certain thoughts, having classified them as being from "the devil", rather than their own psychology. I draw a line between me and my conscience; I see it as society's attempt at a Restraining Bolt. I don't draw a line between me and my depression, but a number of depressives and individuals with other psychiatric diagnoses make a point of drawing a line between themselves and their disorders. The fictional nature of the single discrete self allows for any number of exclusions.

I am right because I believe so. Try to prove me wrong and you'll just end up wrong because I know I'm right.

Hey, did you realize the parody going on here?

Because you know I'm right.

The thing about making witty signature lines is that it first needs to actually be witty.

I don't have a question, I was only pointing out that there is an objective "beneficial for me", and then people starting nitpicking. Once I know what I want, there's obviously a single, objective, most efficient way to achieve that.

Da Rules excuse all the inaccuracy in the world. Listen to them, not me.

edited 29th Apr '11 5:18:54 PM by rbx5

I'll turn your neocortex into a flowerpot!

Either Chesterton and I have differing definitions of "believe", or else I fail to see why that should be a bad thing.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Multiplication tables taught in school are rather limiting. Decimal? Lame-o. Limiting.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

^^Admittedly, it is taken out of context (from Orthodoxy, which is a fantastic book and everyone should read it), but basically I think he's trying to say that at some point you have to assume what you believe is true, and can't go through life doubting anything. This is predicated on the belief that there are definite/absolute Truths, of course, a view I happen to share.

edited 29th Apr '11 5:29:34 PM by rbx5

I'll turn your neocortex into a flowerpot!

Oh, right.

Personally... I assume many things, but I'm ready to be proven wrong on all of them. I assume there is a definite truth, but I may be wrong about that. I don't think there's a contradiction there.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

"Once I know what I want, there's obviously a single, objective, most efficient way to achieve that."

Not even that, necessarily.

Enjoy the Inferno...

It's just a witty statement. Doesn't actually form an argument. Most of the «arguments» for believing in things in such a manner seem to be like that, really.

[1] This facsimile operated in part by synAC.

Why do I get the feeling that Chesterton, like many pushers of "objective" morality, is conflating existential/empirical truths with moral "truths" for his own ends?

Enjoy the Inferno...

^Not quite sure what you mean.

I'll turn your neocortex into a flowerpot!

& I'm imagining people saying, "Look what I found out! It's amazing, and explains everything about our universe!" while denying any other possible means to reach the same conclusion.

Thread Hop: Easy, I've willed myself into being right.

Rarely active, try DA/Tumblr Avatar by pippanaffie.deviantart.com

Zarathustra: secret Naruto fanboy.

I guess sometimes you'd have to be content with just beleiving, but not knowing.

How do I know that I am right and other people are wrong?

Simples! Other people vote Tory which proves that MOST of them are insane. Tory Party Policy is that Aristos rule the State. It is sane for Aristos to vote for that doctrine; it is insane for Peasants to vote for Aristo Rule, but most of us do.

Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!