skepticism
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask a very specific question, every person thinks that what they think is right is also right. But on so many of the same issues that they think they are right, there are other people who also think they are right. Even issues that each side has invested a lot of time and thought into, like the existence of God.
So we can liken this to a device that receives input and outputs “correct” output, would you trust it? It sounds like there is some evidence that the existence of disagreements constitutes a strong positive doubt against trusting the feeling of rightness. Just as seeing that there are no demons when we are in a dark place at night constitutes an insight for us that there is nothing to trust in the feeling of fear at night.
I would love to understand why I am wrong here 🙂
See column 247.
I don't think this answers what I asked.
But rather a different question, how can a person hold onto what they hold despite the existence of a peer.
I ask this because it is not known whether the person in front of you is a peer. Even if he is not a peer at all. Still, the fact that I see the machine outputting “correct” even when it is not correct in my opinion shows something wrong with the machine.
I don't understand.
If lots of conflicting inputs have the same output “true to me”
which should objectively be different given those different outputs.
then the machine is problematic.
The machine is not perfect but it works very well. The arguments are on the sidelines.
By the way, this is exactly the same question as the one discussed in the column.
How can there be arguments on the sidelines if on almost every issue there is another person in the world who thinks the opposite of you..
Anyway, that's not what the column is discussing, because the column is about a peer dispute. Then the claim that the other is locked up.
I argue that even if we assume that one of the parties to the dispute is not a peer at all, the claim that you are better than him cannot be preferred due to the reason that the system itself is problematic because for any particular input (which differs from system to system) it will output an output of “it seems right to me”, and the evidence is that he often thinks the same thing about you.
I lost you completely.
What is there to lose here,
You ask when there are two colleagues how a person can hold his position due to the existence of a dispute.
You excuse this as known as a conditional colleague, you called it being locked. (He is not really your colleague specifically here).
I ask even in the case that the other is not your colleague so that you seemingly do not need justification at all to stay in the same position.
There is still a skeptical question that arises here.
How do you know that the other is not your colleague, when the colleague also thinks that the other is not a colleague.
In other words, for a certain set of assumptions for that person, he thinks that he is right and the others are wrong.
Even if it is true that individually, justification exists here for the single side when he thinks that the other is not a colleague. But the question still exists.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
