#dogmatism

[philosophybits]

The business of philosophy is to teach man to live in uncertainty — man who is supremely afraid of uncertainty, and who is forever hiding himself behind this or the other dogma. More briefly, the business of philosophy is not to reassure people, but to upset them.

Lev Shestov, All Things Are Possible

#philosophy #quotes #Lev Shestov #All Things Are Possible #uncertainty #fear #dogma #dogmatism

[mayuurx]

Hand rambles? Hand rambles (Based on talk with @freiflies)

Nihilist: Void. The funny blackhole creature. You can kiiinda feel something when you try to grab its hand but you can also phase through like nothing's there. Also absolute zero. Not meant for contact. Or life supporting. Or anything really.

Hedonist: Human like! Normal hand! Soft! Pretty fingers pretty nails. Definitely wear bracelets. Four arms. Just gotta maximize the things they can do at the same time.

Absurdist: Similar to nihilist. Hand that's there but not reallllly there. Staticky glitchy feel when you touch their hand though. I'm thinking when your leg falls asleep. Pin and needles. It's a very strange experience.

Utilitarian: Black and white hands look different but the texture is the same. Leathery feel. Like running your finger on the cover of a book. Would say how his hands feel and look fascinate me the most. Personal fave.

Dogmatist: I'm thinking statue. Smooth. Ivory feel? Burning to touch though. Hold Nihilist hand. Hold Dogmatist hand with your other hand (if they allow). Balance... Also haha eye.

#art #digital art #oc #philosophies au #rambles #nihilism #hedonism #absurdism #utilitarianism #dogmatism #oc james #oc cuckoo #oc wil #oc karen #hands...

[redsolon]

Both opportunism and dogmatism arrise from a common source: nihilistic subculturalism. Once you give up on the possibility of victory, revolutionary politics can only be driven by personal goals--professional advancement, or clique membership. It no longer matters if you fail to attack capitalism or the people reject you. Political struggle becomes ritualized.

#socialism #communism #Marxism #opportunism #revisionism #dogmatism #commandism #tailism

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

“There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors.” -- J. Robert Oppenheimer

#J. Robert Oppenheimer #science #dogma #dogmatism #orthodoxy #academic freedom #academic integrity #intellectual integrity #religion is a mental illness

[wayti-blog]

A deep mystical experience tends to dissolve the boundaries between religions and reveals deep connections between them, while the dogmatism of organized religions tends to emphasize differences between various creeds and engenders antagonism and hostility.

Stanislav Grof

#love #oneness #connection #attunement #energy #soul #life #nature #greater reality #religion #science #dogmatism #spirituality #unity #harmony #peace #spiritual evolution

[imkeepinit]

From the episode "The Drumhead," which aired on April 29, 1991

#quote #Jean Luc Picard #Patrick Stewart #Star Trek: The Next Generation #zealotry #dogmatism

[anarchistin]

honestly couldn't care less abt what any long-dead thinker 'would have thought' about something from today. it's a useless question, purely speculative, and a poor substitute for thinking about it yourself.

source

#tweet #cultism #campism #dogmatism #anarchism

[ahmed33k]

[مقدمة في علم الكلام الجديد - عبدالجبار الرفاعي]

#اقتباس #الدين #dogmatism #تملبر عربي #روح الدين

[nicklloydnow]

“I began to discern the paradox lurking at the heart of Karl Popper's career when, prior to interviewing him in 1992, I asked other philosophers about him. Queries of this kind usually elicit dull, generic praise, but not in Popper’s case. Everyone said this opponent of dogmatism was almost pathologically dogmatic. There was an old joke about Popper: The Open Society and its Enemies should have been titled The Open Society by One of its Enemies.

(…)

I noted that in his writings he seemed to abhor the notion of absolute truths. “No no!” Popper replied, shaking his head. He, like the logical positivists before him, believed that a scientific theory can be “absolutely” true. In fact, he had “no doubt” that some current theories are true (although he refused to say which ones). But he rejected the positivist belief that we can ever know that a theory is true. “We must distinguish between truth, which is objective and absolute, and certainty, which is subjective.”

Popper disagreed with the positivist view that science can be reduced to a formal, logical system or method. A scientific theory is an invention, an act of creation, based more upon a scientist's intuition than upon pre-existing empirical data. “The history of science is everywhere speculative,” Popper said. “It is a marvelous history. It makes you proud to be a human being.” Framing his face in his outstretched hands, Popper intoned, “I believe in the human mind.”

For similar reasons, Popper opposed determinism, which he saw as antithetical to human creativity and freedom. “Determinism means that if you have sufficient knowledge of chemistry and physics, you can predict what Mozart will write tomorrow,” he said. “Now this is a ridiculous hypothesis.” Popper realized long before modern chaos theorists that not only quantum systems but even classical, Newtonian ones are unpredictable. Waving at the lawn outside the window he said, “There is chaos in every grass.”

(…)

Popper abhorred philosophers who argue that scientists adhere to theories for cultural and political rather than rational reasons. Such philosophers resent being viewed as inferior to genuine scientists and are trying to “change their status in the pecking order.” Popper was particularly contemptuous of postmodernists who argued that “knowledge” is just a weapon wielded by people struggling for power. “I don't read them,” Popper said, waving his hand as if at a bad odor. He added, “I once met Foucault.”

I suggested that the postmodernists sought to describe how science is practiced, whereas he, Popper, tried to show how it should be practiced. To my surprise, Popper nodded. “That is a very good statement,” he said. “You can't see what science is without having in your head an idea what science should be.” He admitted that scientists invariably fall short of the ideal he set for them. “Since scientists got subsidies for their work, science isn't exactly what it should be. This is unavoidable. There is a certain corruption, unfortunately. But I don't talk about that.”

Popper then proceeded to talk about it. “Scientists are not as self-critical as they should be,” he asserted. “There is a certain wish that you, people like you”--he jabbed a finger at me—“should bring them before the public.” He stared at me a moment, then reminded me that he had not sought this interview. “Far from it,” he said. Popper then plunged into a technical critique of the big bang theory. “It's always the same,” he summed up. “The difficulties are underrated. It is presented in a spirit as if this all has scientific certainty, but scientific certainty doesn't exist.”

I asked Popper if he felt biologists are also too committed to Darwin's theory of natural selection; in the past he had suggested that the theory is tautological and thus pseudo-scientific. “That was perhaps going too far,” Popper said, waving his hand dismissively. “I'm not dogmatic about my own views.” Suddenly he pounded the table and exclaimed, “One ought to look for alternative theories!”

Popper scoffed at scientists’ hope that they can achieve a final theory of nature. “Many people think that the problems can be solved, many people think the opposite. I think we have gone very far, but we are much further away. I must show you one passage that bears on this.” He shuffled off and returned with his book Conjectures and Refutations. Opening it, he read his own words with reverence: “In our infinite ignorance we are all equal.”

I decided to launch my big question: Is his falsification concept falsifiable? Popper glared at me. Then his expression softened, and he placed his hand on mine. “I don't want to hurt you,” he said gently, “but it is a silly question." Peering searchingly into my eyes, he asked if one of his critics had persuaded me to pose the question. Yes, I lied. “Exactly,” he said, looking pleased.

“The first thing you do in a philosophy seminar when somebody proposes an idea is to say it doesn’t satisfy its own criteria. It is one of the most idiotic criticisms one can imagine!” His falsification concept, he said, is a criterion for distinguishing between empirical and non-empirical modes of knowledge. Falsification itself is “decidably unempirical”; it belongs not to science but to philosophy, or “meta-science,” and it does not even apply to all of science. Popper seemed to be admitting that his critics were right: falsification is a mere guideline, a rule of thumb, sometimes helpful, sometimes not.

Popper said he had never before responded to the question I had just asked. “I found it too stupid to be answered. You see the difference?” he asked, his voice gentle again. I nodded. The question seemed silly to me, too, I said, but I just thought I should ask. He smiled and squeezed my hand, murmuring, “Yes, very good.”

Since Popper seemed so agreeable, I mentioned that one of his former students had accused him of not tolerating criticism of his own ideas. Popper's eyes blazed. “It is completely untrue! I was happy when I got criticism! Of course, not when I would answer the criticism, like I have answered it when you gave it to me, and the person would still go on with it. That is the thing which I found uninteresting and would not tolerate.” In that case, Popper would throw the student out of his class.

(…)

I slipped in a final question: Why in his autobiography did Popper say that he is the happiest philosopher he knows? “Most philosophers are really deeply depressed,” he replied, “because they can’t produce anything worthwhile.” Looking pleased with himself, Popper glanced over at Mrs. Mew, who wore an expression of horror. Popper’s smile faded. “It would be better not to write that,” he said to me. “I have enough enemies, and I better not answer them in this way.” He stewed a moment and added, “But it is so.”

(…)

When Popper died two years later, the Economist hailed him as having been “the best-known and most widely read of living philosophers.” But the obituary noted that Popper’s treatment of induction, the basis of his falsification scheme, had been rejected by later philosophers. “According to his own theories, Popper should have welcomed this fact,” the Economist noted, “but he could not bring himself to do so. The irony is that, here, Popper could not admit he was wrong.”

Can a skeptic avoid self-contradiction? And if he doesn’t, if he arrogantly preaches intellectual humility, does that negate his work? Not at all. Such paradoxes actually corroborate the skeptic’s point, that the quest for truth is endless, twisty and riddled with pitfalls, into which even the greatest thinkers tumble. In our infinite ignorance we are all equal.”

#popper #karl popper #open society #dogmatism #liberalism #skepticism #falsification #science

[akumaofthemountain]

Pyrrhonism, the way of pure Skepticism

Pyrrhonism is, to this day, regarded as one of the most purely skeptic epistemologic [regarding the theory of knowledge] doctrines. It takes its name from the Greek character of Pyrrho of Elis, even though our sources regarding him are often quite contradictory and the pyrrhonistic doctrine for sure has changed substantially over time.

Among the first known pyrrhonists, we know Aenesidemus, who synthetized and expanded upon the first pyrrhonism, even though a great part of the pyrrhonist ideology is known by the writing of Sextus Empiricus.

Generally, Pyrrhonism advocated that both the sensible experience and knowledge were to be non-exact and possibly erroneous, and therefore they couldn't be considered as objective truths. Therefore, by practicing Ataraxia [Sounds like a TES V: Skyrim disease], the complete suspension of every belief and judgment, and therefore even rejecting the dogmatic truths we were supposedly given, we could reach Eudaimonia, a state of pure happiness.

Now, this becomes an ethical argument: If ethics are the study of the conditions of happiness, then Ataraxia becomes a fundamental practice for an ethical life; By suspending our judgement, we abandon every single strand of "human emotions" which, in fact, allow us to freely separate ourselves from any sort of negative feeling. Yet, this also means that we shall abandon any sort of primordial pleasure, in favor of a new, complex yet simple, concept of happiness.

Aenesidemus is famous for the formulation of ten tropes in favor of Ataraxia. Those arguments try to show to the viewer the inherent difference of thought and reasonability in different entities, trying to let him notice the weaknesses of human reason. The arguments are the following:

Different animals manifest different modes of perception;

Similar differences are seen among individual men;

For the same man, information perceived with the senses is self-contradictory

Furthermore, it varies from time to time with physical changes

In addition, this data differs according to local relations

Objects are known only indirectly through the medium of air, moisture, etc.

These objects are in a condition of perpetual change in colour, temperature, size and motion

All perceptions are relative and interact one upon another

Our impressions become less critical through repetition and custom

All men are brought up with different beliefs, under different laws and social conditions

Sextus Empiricus, trying to describe pyrrhonism in a later historical age, spoke about an alternative set of 5 similiar tropes which were to be used as a more brief demonstration (yet, still not a rigid logic proof, as they would be rejected by skepticism itself as dogmas). They are the following:

Dissent – There is an inherent uncertainty regarding the real truth on a variety of matters, therefore it's hard to find a real truth;

Infinite regress – Every proof requires another proof to be considered valid, otherwise we would need to search for axioms, and this is neglected by Skepticism;

Relation – As entities establish new relations, our interpretation of them varies;

Assumption – To reach for a truth, we involve assumptions, axioms or dogmas, and this is neglected by Skepticism

Circularity – The truth may imply a circularity of proofs if we reject axioms and dogmas. We could have a proof A which itself requires a proof B, and a proof B which requires a proof C. But, by absurd, continuing by this, we could eventually have a proof which requires the proof A. On a simpler scale, we could have two proofs A and B which are both true to proof eachother.

Obliviously, when we look at old philosophies, we need to acknowledge that their fundamental consciousness of the world's inner mechanisms was somehow lower than our actual knowledge of it, and therefore quite some fundamentals of old philosophies would be simply rejectable by today's standards. Yet, we can slowly build a new knowledge by considering both our past and future, so why stopping at a mindless innovation when we can build upon (or maybe only be inspired) a particular fundament?

I hope this has been quite comprehensible, as english isn't my first language. Therefore, I wish you all a great day, fellow seekers of knowledge.

#philosophy #happiness #skeptical #skepticism #epistemology #logic #ignorance #proofs #dogmatism

[philosophybitmaps]

#philosophy #quotes #Richard Rorty #Truth and Progress #Rorty #relative #absolute #conditional #unconditional #dogmatism #skepticism

[philosophybits]

The greater part of mankind are naturally apt to be affirmative and dogmatical in their opinions; and while they see objects only on one side, and have no idea of any counterpoising argument, they throw themselves precipitately into the principles, to which they are inclined; nor have they any indulgence for those who entertain opposite sentiments.

David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

#philosophy #quotes #David Hume #An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding #opinions #dogmatism #understanding #sentiments #values

[mayuurx]

That scene from You didn't know (Hazbin)

Util might be my fave from this AU. Unhinged rotten judge. I don't think he's naive or hypocritical, he knows exactly what he's doing.

Also haha Util + Dogma. Bitch duo. They hate each other but also will team up to bully others.

#art #digital art #philosophies au #oc #dogmatism #utilitarianism #oc wil #oc karen #absurdism #nihilism

[redsolon]

Ultra-left dogmatism and right-wing revisionism create and reinforce each other. Commandism and tailism create and reinforce each other. Centralist cults and ultra-democracies create and reinforce each other. To advance the struggle you must advance these contradictions, not just pick your favorite error.

#socialism #communism #Marxism #Marxist theory #democratic centralism #communist party #dialectical materialism #opportunism #dogmatism #revisionism #Marxism-Leninism #Maoism #Trotskyism #Left-Communism #commandism #tailism

[theidealistphilosophy]

Blessed are the hearts that can bend; they shall never be broken.

Albert Camus, Sayings.

#philosophy tumblr #philoblr #writerscommunity #writeblr #french philosophy #intelligentsia #albert camus #dogmatism #personal autonomy #romanticism #dark academia #life quotes

[wayti-blog]

When you don’t cover up the world with words and labels, a sense of the miraculous returns to your life that was lost a long time ago when humanity, instead of using thought, became possessed by thought. A depth returns to your life. Things regain their newness, their freshness.

Eckhart Tolle

#labels #words #identify #thinking #feeling #awareness #consciousness #understanding #explaining #projection #dogmatism #levels of awareness #humanity #connection #reality #life #experiences #growth #oneness #eckhart tolle