I am saying that, I think, the predominant feature of a skeptic is
doubt.
On Sep 9, 11:39 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
> So molly, other than a copy/paste...what do you think? I am quite
> aware that words have numerous meanings...often I post links when the
> term 'faith' comes up and someone demands one small area of meaning
> for the term....
>
> In other words, are you saying that you find skeptics to NOT be people
> who examine?...What?
>
> On Sep 9, 6:33 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I am not sure that a true skeptic only closely examines. Here is the
> > unabridged definition
>
> > Main Entry: skep·ti·cism Pronunciation Guide
> > Variant(s): or scep·ti·cism \-tschwasecondarystresssizschwam\
> > Function: noun
> > Inflected Form(s): -s
> > Etymology: New Latin scepticismus, from Latin scepticus skeptic + -
> > ismus -ism
> > 1 a : the doctrine that any true knowledge is impossible or that all
> > knowledge is uncertain : a position that no fact or truth can be
> > established on philosophical grounds <total or radical skepticism> b :
> > a viewpoint that universally reliable knowledge is unattainable in
> > particular areas of investigation <theoretical or scientific
> > skepticism> <moral skepticism> <metaphysical skepticism> <religious
> > skepticism> c : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or
> > destructive criticism characteristic of skeptics -- compare DOGMATISM,
> > HUMISM, SOPHISM
> > 2 : an attitude of doubt or disposition toward incredulity in general
> > or in regard to something particular (as a supposed fact)
> > 3 : doubt concerning but not necessarily denial of the basic religious
> > principles (as immortality, providence, revelation) : FREETHINKING --
> > compare AGNOSTICISM
> > synonym see UNCERTAINTY
>
> > Citation format for this entry:
>
> > "skepticism." Webster's Third New International Dictionary,
> > Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002.http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com
> > (9 Sep. 2009). of skepticism:
>
> > On Sep 9, 8:20 am, Simon Ewins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > 2009/9/9 ornamentalmind <[email protected]>:
>
> > > > of consciousness. So…here I ask you to become a true skeptic and
> > > > examine very closely the things you see and feel. What is the nature
> > > > of a table? Does it exist? How do we know a table is a table? Does a
> > > > table ever change what it is? Etc.
>
> > > How do we share concepts of items such as rocks or tables or trees or
> > > other things that we all experience in a shared way? I have formed the
> > > following opinion...
>
> > > We use approximation and synthesization. As long as we can approximate
> > > in our reality the perceptions that fit the feedback about the same
> > > object as others describe in their reality then we can agree that we
> > > are sharing an experience of the same object.
>
> > > This is easy with physical objects but becomes more problematic with
> > > other types of objects. The hierarchy is:
>
> > > 1: Auto-psychological objects (the self).
> > > 2: Physical objects.
> > > 3: Hetero-psychological objects (other 'selfs').
> > > 4: Cultural objects.
>
> > > The further we get from #1 the more abstract and difficult
> > > approximation and synthesization becomes. Cultural objects (such as
> > > gods and philosophical concepts) are the most divergent while physical
> > > objects (such as rocks and tables and chairs) are the least.
>
> > > > How could he come to find that emptiness is the ultimate cosmology?
>
> > > Because at its base that is what it is, either at a quantum level or
> > > as the sum of all mass and all gravity in our universe (E=0).
>
> > > > Why would you not agree with him?
>
> > > That would depend what is meant by 'ultimate'. If it is meant that we
> > > 'rise to' it, then no. If it is meant that we 'rise from it', then
> > > yes.
>
> > > Although I am equating emptiness with nothingness here...
>
> > > All that is something comes from nothing. Now, the problem is with
> > > nothing which many physicists don't believe exists. There is always
> > > something even if it is the 'spooky' responses (energy of some sort
> > > not understood at all) between vastly separated quantum particles. Why
> > > is there something instead of nothing? Because something is more
> > > stable. What has been thought of as nothing is simply a curve of
> > > space-time in a quantum vacuum that possesses an unimaginable amount
> > > of energy. Occasionally this energy creates a bulge in the space-time
> > > curve and a bubble breaks free and often becomes a new universe (but
> > > that is for another thread).- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
