|
> > I think most people don't have the deep suspicion that everything they may know might be wrong, somehow, and that the phenomena they experience may be explainable in a parallel way that better describes things > I've always wondered why it's such a majority that don't have these suspicions This is entirely pejorative. First of all, the premisses is a contradiction in terms. If knowing with certainty is a matter of definition, then doubt about it is expressly excluded. You can go down the slippery slope and deny objectivity all together to arrive at the quote popularly attributed to Sokrates, and develop platonic ideals to finally hold it with Descartes idealizing yourself, cogito ergo sum. Yet, we fundamentally can't know what others think and feel. If we can only take a best guess, and converse to peek and poke for improving the estimate, then that's what philosophy really means in the all daily sense, our "company philosophy" and such like. It generalizes well either way, whether anthropomorphizing the environment, or objectifying people, if we always can only project from the self onto others. And esteem is actually a good analogue to philos! Still, a notable duality remains in my philosophy above. The point I'm trying to make is, I guess, that I will have to keep that formyself and leave yours to you, because ambivalence is a feature, and a bug. |