Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zarathuckya · 01-08-2002, 07:51 PM

Hello people, I am new here, im from New Zealand, im 22, I am a man not a woman and I am trying to be good. I like Billie Holliday, the Wu-tang Clan, basketball and my guitar. (Any other NZers here?)

Now I have a question- it stems from the fact that I am trying to be good.

How can a human that does not know EVERYTHING ever be sure about the truth of ANYTHING? To be absolutely sure about the truth of something, would we not need to know everything first?

For instance, I might think that ending the suffering of beings is a good objective. But I dont know everything you see. perhaps if god granted me with knowledge of everything, it may turn out that contributing to another beings happiness is evil...

ah, so recently I have been coming to the conclusion that everything a human does is done in folly. we can never know anything for sure, everything we do, we do without full knowlege.

Even if god gave me knowledge of 99.9% of things, but he didnt tell me that rabbits fart through their mouth, then I could not be SURE about anything of the 99.9% of 'knowledge' he just bestowed upon me. Because for all I knew, the .01% of knowledge he was witholding (about the rabbit) may really have been the fact that the 99.9% he told be was all lies.

Maybe the only thing I can know is that I cant know anything for sure unless I first knew everything.

hmmm

This realisation has thwarted my quest to be good, as it seems I cant be sure about what being good really requires. I am annoyed now.

respond react pretty please

Thus spake Zarathuckya

Zarathuckya · 01-08-2002, 07:54 PM

whoops I meant to post this on the philosophy board.

tronvillain · 01-08-2002, 10:06 PM

I do not consider it a problem that I cannot be totally sure about the truth of anything. Why would I? I'm afraid that you're simply going to have to observe the world and act based on what you can observe. Don't wait for full knowledge to act - just act based on what you know now and be prepared to change your mind later.

jdawg2 · 01-08-2002, 11:52 PM

don't have anything of substance to add, but I was just curious if you are the same zarathuckya that posts at okayplayer? (I'm Jason_A there)

Jamie_L · 01-09-2002, 05:13 AM

If we waited for absolute knowledge before coming to conclusions, we'd never decide or do anything. But having incomplete knowledge still works.

I'm not absolutely sure that Fargo, North Dakota exists. I've never been there. I've never seen pictures or met anyone from there. However, I feel confident that it does exists, and I wouldn't worry about buying a plane ticket to Fargo and then finding out I'd been swindled because Fargo doesn't exist.

As for issues of the supernatural, my feelings are probably better expressed by Richard Carrier here:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/fish.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/fish.html</a>

Jamie

Prax · 01-09-2002, 05:54 AM

good question.
I think your post boils down to pointing out that we, as humans, are fallible. Human fallibility. Its unavoidable, however, I posit it is unreasonable to assume that due to our fallibility we should doubt everything. That�s referred to as universal skepticism, I believe. Doubt is contextual, like knowledge. If you are going to doubt a piece of information, the doubt should be backed with contextually specific reasons for the doubt. Appealing to our inherent fallibility as a reason for doubt is actually not �thinking� (pick your word�considering, reviewing, etc) about the actual premise you are doubting�and doing so on purpose!

/doda

Zarathuckya · 01-09-2002, 12:54 PM

yo jdawg2 yeah im the same one! If I knew okayplayers were up in this place I would have made my list of music I liked longer ha ha

dont want any lessonheads clowning me you see

you are mostly in activist no? I found this place through a link that some one put up in activist, maybe that was you. ANy other okayplayers here?

Ill get back to my topic after I think some more

Thus spake Zarathuckya

jdawg2 · 01-09-2002, 04:36 PM

don't know of any other okp's here...but usually I screw around in General, but that moral relativism post was my first "real" activist post (I usually lurk, and reply once in a while)

I do remember posting a link to that guy defending noah's ark (now that was some funny shit) now that you mention it, and well, welcome to infidels.org, hehe

Kent Stevens · 02-18-2002, 12:09 AM

We can know only one indisputable fact. That is there are no facts.

I am only kidding. This is supposed to show that uncertainty about everything can be self refuting. The statement "there are no facts" is a contradiction.

I would suggest the position of objective relativism is the best with regards to knowledge. Relativism acknowledges that morality changes between cultures and between people. However, there is some objectivity in that you can argue about moral positions. Also, there seems to be some moral ideas that have a objective character to them. For example the ideas that "murder is wrong", or "theft is wrong" is held across many different cultures.

I am also from New Zealand, as was the original person who posted this topic. Yes, there are other New Zealanders here. You can be certain about that. For those people who do not know where New Zealand is, it is to the right of Australia in the South Pacific.

abe smith · 02-23-2002, 06:12 AM

The short answer to your original qy is, No. Apart from that, originator, why do you want to be "good"? And,"good" for WHAT?

01-08-2002, 07:51 PM	#1
Zarathuckya Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5	Can we know anything for sure? Hello people, I am new here, im from New Zealand, im 22, I am a man not a woman and I am trying to be good. I like Billie Holliday, the Wu-tang Clan, basketball and my guitar. (Any other NZers here?) Now I have a question- it stems from the fact that I am trying to be good. How can a human that does not know EVERYTHING ever be sure about the truth of ANYTHING? To be absolutely sure about the truth of something, would we not need to know everything first? For instance, I might think that ending the suffering of beings is a good objective. But I dont know everything you see. perhaps if god granted me with knowledge of everything, it may turn out that contributing to another beings happiness is evil... ah, so recently I have been coming to the conclusion that everything a human does is done in folly. we can never know anything for sure, everything we do, we do without full knowlege. Even if god gave me knowledge of 99.9% of things, but he didnt tell me that rabbits fart through their mouth, then I could not be SURE about anything of the 99.9% of 'knowledge' he just bestowed upon me. Because for all I knew, the .01% of knowledge he was witholding (about the rabbit) may really have been the fact that the 99.9% he told be was all lies. Maybe the only thing I can know is that I cant know anything for sure unless I first knew everything. hmmm This realisation has thwarted my quest to be good, as it seems I cant be sure about what being good really requires. I am annoyed now. respond react pretty please Thus spake Zarathuckya

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-08-2002, 07:54 PM	#2
Zarathuckya Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5	whoops I meant to post this on the philosophy board.

01-08-2002, 10:06 PM	#3
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	I do not consider it a problem that I cannot be totally sure about the truth of anything. Why would I? I'm afraid that you're simply going to have to observe the world and act based on what you can observe. Don't wait for full knowledge to act - just act based on what you know now and be prepared to change your mind later.

01-08-2002, 11:52 PM	#4
jdawg2 Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Cedar Hill, TX USA Posts: 113	don't have anything of substance to add, but I was just curious if you are the same zarathuckya that posts at okayplayer? (I'm Jason_A there)

01-09-2002, 05:13 AM	#5
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	If we waited for absolute knowledge before coming to conclusions, we'd never decide or do anything. But having incomplete knowledge still works. I'm not absolutely sure that Fargo, North Dakota exists. I've never been there. I've never seen pictures or met anyone from there. However, I feel confident that it does exists, and I wouldn't worry about buying a plane ticket to Fargo and then finding out I'd been swindled because Fargo doesn't exist. As for issues of the supernatural, my feelings are probably better expressed by Richard Carrier here: <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/fish.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/fish.html</a> Jamie

01-09-2002, 05:54 AM	#6
Prax Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: earth Posts: 12	good question. I think your post boils down to pointing out that we, as humans, are fallible. Human fallibility. Its unavoidable, however, I posit it is unreasonable to assume that due to our fallibility we should doubt everything. That�s referred to as universal skepticism, I believe. Doubt is contextual, like knowledge. If you are going to doubt a piece of information, the doubt should be backed with contextually specific reasons for the doubt. Appealing to our inherent fallibility as a reason for doubt is actually not �thinking� (pick your word�considering, reviewing, etc) about the actual premise you are doubting�and doing so on purpose! /doda

01-09-2002, 12:54 PM	#7
Zarathuckya Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5	yo jdawg2 yeah im the same one! If I knew okayplayers were up in this place I would have made my list of music I liked longer ha ha dont want any lessonheads clowning me you see you are mostly in activist no? I found this place through a link that some one put up in activist, maybe that was you. ANy other okayplayers here? Ill get back to my topic after I think some more Thus spake Zarathuckya

01-09-2002, 04:36 PM	#8
jdawg2 Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Cedar Hill, TX USA Posts: 113	don't know of any other okp's here...but usually I screw around in General, but that moral relativism post was my first "real" activist post (I usually lurk, and reply once in a while) I do remember posting a link to that guy defending noah's ark (now that was some funny shit) now that you mention it, and well, welcome to infidels.org, hehe

02-18-2002, 12:09 AM	#9
Kent Stevens Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 484	We can know only one indisputable fact. That is there are no facts. I am only kidding. This is supposed to show that uncertainty about everything can be self refuting. The statement "there are no facts" is a contradiction. I would suggest the position of objective relativism is the best with regards to knowledge. Relativism acknowledges that morality changes between cultures and between people. However, there is some objectivity in that you can argue about moral positions. Also, there seems to be some moral ideas that have a objective character to them. For example the ideas that "murder is wrong", or "theft is wrong" is held across many different cultures. I am also from New Zealand, as was the original person who posted this topic. Yes, there are other New Zealanders here. You can be certain about that. For those people who do not know where New Zealand is, it is to the right of Australia in the South Pacific.

02-23-2002, 06:12 AM	#10
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	The short answer to your original qy is, No. Apart from that, originator, why do you want to be "good"? And,"good" for WHAT?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.