26 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
Psychoanalysis thread. Last one was quite interesting, figured it was worth a second round. Talk about violence, desire, mimesis, stuff you've read, stuff you haven't read, how you would make your analyst's head explode, etc.
OP is basically a Girardfag. There was a good thread about de Maistre and the concept of sacrifice that 404'd before I could shit it up with RG quotes but if anons want to continue that then this could also be good.
...Where should I begin?
14 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
I'm a lit fetus- Which is to say I'm in the process of developing my literary tastes... Or perhaps, trying to find them. My issue is, I don't know where to truly begin.
If you do decide to abort me, please, before you dispose of me, walk past your libraries; show me where you began your literary journey, where your interest in reading was born and how someone like me can come join you.
Skepticism and Intellectual Dishonesty. Knowledge and Belief
0 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
Do you think the skeptic has a misplaced idea of "truth"?
Clearly he's not consenting to any kind of claim as being true or untrue. Now, ofcourse the common argument against this BOTH in casual discourse and at the academic level is that the skeptic is being intellectually dishonest, this isn't what he "really believes" ("Here is a hand", Wittgenstein's On Certainty, Kant mentioning in the Prolegomena how he's taken it as granted that somethings are universally agreed to like basic mathematical truths about addition, numerous examples).
Taking one example, skepticism about things like the validity of induction is very "real", or, people do actually have uncertainty regarding whether to believe things will pan out as they have done in the past (think occultists, junkies, etcetera) but for the vast majority of people, they would still ASSUME things are a certain way (problem of induction is np) and act in accordance with this. The usual skeptic does this too but he does not agree to inductive truths "with certainty" (I'm considering the Pyrrhonic Skeptic).
Is this way of looking at the truth of claims detached from how some people perceive it?
TL;DR: Does saying something is true require (given the common way "truth" is perceived, if any) an individual to have absolute, unwavering, certainty in the "trueness" of that thing?
Or is this conception, and the skeptic's beliefs, intellectually dishonest/incorrect, or perhaps he is just misinterpreting the common meaning of truth, if any.
Pic Related: What got me thinking about this.