try this: everything you have ever believed in, everything you have always known to be true, everyting you have faith in.... deny it... convince yourself it isnt true, convince yourself everyting you knew was right was in fact wrong and everything you knew to be false was in fact true.... how long can you stay in that state of mind for...?
Originally posted by eatmybishop try this: everything you have ever believed in, everything you have always known to be true, everyting you have faith in.... deny it... convince yourself it isnt true, convince yourself everyting you knew was right was in fact wrong and everything you knew to be false was in fact true.... how long can you stay in that state of mind for...?
Whats the point? What will this accomplish?
If you actually convince yourself, I'd say you'll stay in that state of mind until you are convinced otherwise.
Originally posted by Wayne1324 Whats the point? What will this accomplish?
If you actually convince yourself, I'd say you'll stay in that state of mind until you are convinced otherwise.
Agreed, although without any evidence or outside arguments, I'd say you'd only be able to convince yourself you were wrong if you'd never really given it serious thought before.
Originally posted by eatmybishop try this: everything you have ever believed in, everything you have always known to be true, everyting you have faith in.... deny it... convince yourself it isnt true, convince yourself everyting you knew was right was in fact wrong and everything you knew to be false was in fact true.... how long can you stay in that state of mind for...?
Originally posted by jammer try this: don't post when you're drunk.
belee dat
so you've never tried to look at the same view from a different angle? i call that narrow minded, the only reason you criticise the post is because you're unable to do it
I ask you this, what will I do if I was to convice myself that I was wrong about everything?
and what would "everythying" include?, and finnaly I think this "excersise" is just another way to lower your self-esteem and this will contribute to our obesity problem
Originally posted by eatmybishop try this: everything you have ever believed in, everything you have always known to be true, everyting you have faith in.... deny it... convince yourself it isnt true, convince yourself everyting you knew was right was in fact wrong and everything you knew to be false was in fact true.... how long can you stay in that state of mind for...?
I do it all the time. Just for fun. It's a mind game.🙄
Okay, with due regard to some of the comments on here that I think are aimed at the way the original post was expressed—e.g., suppose we did away with the word “everything” in favor a a specific something...
I often try to mount the best argument I can against my own beliefs, if there’e no one else around to to it for me (and sometimes even if there is).
I do it as an exercise to check my own self-integrity. So that I don’t start to hold beliefs that become “unquestionable” simply becauseI have not tried hard enough to question them—or allowed anyone else to either.
Originally posted by vistesd I often try to mount the best argument I can against my own beliefs, if there’e no one else around to to it for me (and sometimes even if there is).
I do it as an exercise to check my own self-integrity. So that I don’t start to hold beliefs that become “unquestionable” simply becauseI have not tried hard enough to question them—or allowed anyone else to either.
I'd always thought about this as a true test of substantiation, until I actually tried it. After a few months of seriously questioning every position I held I realised 2 things. Firstly that I had only reached a position of averages; every belief was accompanied by its opposite in almost equal quantities. This lead me to my second belief, that holism is the view of the world I find most coherent. To elaborate, I hold to what I now know to be called the Quine-Duhem thesis; namely that we cannot analyse a single hypothesis in isolation, since it always rests on auxiliary assumptions from other hypotheses. So the contradicting of my individual beliefs was redundant, since I only looked at them individually and did not pay attention to the reasons for why I had come to the beliefs in the first place.
I now try to be far more holistic in my approach to my own beliefs and leave 'Phaedrus' knife' for dissecting other people's positions: Not knowing what their own contextual pyramids are all I can do is take their beliefs in isolation, until I am somehow able to perceive the grounds upon which they structure their webs of belief better.
Originally posted by josephw I do it all the time. Just for fun. It's a mind game.🙄
Also fun is to occasionally try to argue with someone who agrees with your own position, and try to be convincing. Sometimes I take the opposite of my real opinion and try to argue with someone who holds the same general position as I do. It can be very good for clarifying one's own ideas.
Originally posted by vistesd Okay, with due regard to some of the comments on here that I think are aimed at the way the original post was expressed—e.g., suppose we did away with the word “everything” in favor a a specific something...
I often try to mount the best argument I can against my own beliefs, if there’e no one else around to to it for me (and sometimes even if there is).
...[text shortened]... e” simply becauseI have not tried hard enough to question them—or allowed anyone else to either.
Originally posted by Starrman I'd always thought about this as a true test of substantiation, until I actually tried it. After a few months of seriously questioning every position I held I realised 2 things. Firstly that I had only reached a position of averages; every belief was accompanied by its opposite in almost equal quantities. This lead me to my second belief, that holism is ...[text shortened]... somehow able to perceive the grounds upon which they structure their webs of belief better.
Interesting. I don’t think of it as a test of substantiation, but a kind of willingness to continually test for flaws; more attempt at falsification than verification. I can see that I really must take a look at Quine (2nd time now you’ve mentioned him to me).
BTW. It is that perceived equipollence of positions that is the basis for Pyrrhonic Skepticism, ala Sextus Empiricus.
Originally posted by Dance Master MC When and how long do you people do this excercise?!😕😴
When I'm having a bad day and want to take my frustration out on someone honestly. I like to crush them verbally. Usually I find people protesting something and often enough I agree with them, and I'll just take the opposing point of whatever they are protesting and have it out with whomever seems most able to form a coherent argument.
26 Mar '07 00:19
The test
Back to Top