That the sun will not rise tomorrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more of a contradiction than the affirmation, that it will rise.

---David Hume "Concerning Human Understanding"

Skepticism is the relationship of a philosopher to truth, not truth itself. The nature of truth in my experience can only be determined by necessity as determined by requiring that truth to survive.

In a passage by George Smith he discussed the stolen concept fallacy as a defense of objectivity.

The stolen concept being that one should not assume the truth of that which you presume to disprove.

This is a breakdown in communication and basic misunderstanding of the purpose of skepticism.

Descartes went through an existential crisis that lead him to his primary truth, which was that he exists. Or that "I" exist.

The crisis of truth isn't the existence of truth, but the primary relationship of the individual to truth.

One philosopher argued for truth being coherence.

Coherence with what?

Coherence with perception perhaps. But who's perception? And why should that perception matter?

The survival instinct is what makes that matter. When surviving, the senses heighten that activates the decision to care on the basis of survival and priority of awareness conditioned around the heightened reflex to survive.

The anti-skeptic asserted that because the skeptic wished to disprove what he attempted to prove, which was that the senses may sometimes be considered reliable, that the anti skeptic could reasonably ignore the skeptic.

But there was no reason for the anti-skeptic to even talk to the skeptic. His joke in ignoring the skeptic and created a humorous reply that produced a meaningful exchange.

The rules of logic were less pertinent than primal social engagement.

Likely he couldn't harm him without suffering consequences, and if he was rude he might not have any more laughs or intriguing discussions.

Meaning that the survival instinct is the center focus.

If the sun came up or if it didn't isn't as important as it's relevance to me, or to the species as a collective.

This is how the WIll can be firm and reliable as the survival instinct only seeks out what it needs to know, and doesn't seek what it doesn't need to know.

Meaning that "knowing" or "knowledge" in itself has no value except in relationship to the survival and prosperity of the individual.

The only method of reliability of knowledge being whether it's ever been essential for you to know that information.

The question of the skeptic is not whether knowledge exists, or whether it's important, but that it's only important if it's relevant to the proper functioning to you as an individual.

If it's not then it's not likely reliable.

That's not definitive, but it's how I base my wisdom.

All knowledge for me in the world is essential to me in my immediate environment, otherwise it would be impossible to know.

And from the perspective of the WIll to Power, I recognize that knowledge that is't relevant to me as a person is only a reflection of ulterior motives of another person.

This means that knowledge isn't neutral, but has a relationship to power, and without that understanding of truth's relationship to power, one would be vulnerable to deception and potential destruction.

This is why it's more important to be strong than knowledgeable, and when one is strong, one necessarily acquires all relevant knowledge and wouldn't need to find it, as what you need inevitably would find you.

Survival instinct comes first, knowledge, comes second.

Meaning that you don't need to know what someone else knows to understand if they're being deceptive.

If they say things designed to intrigue you, questions you should ask yourself, is this going to put you in a vulnerable position?

Context is everything, but if the person was a stranger, and smiled at you and was trying to lead you away from family and friends towards a more vulnerable position, then this person may be naively doing this, or may be a predator.

A predator would exploit this feeling of doubt, and someone naive would be compassionate towards your situation and not wanting to be vulnerable.

That's how quickly one can use cold reading to immediately understand a situation and avoid harm and instantly understand the character of the human being in front of you.




Edited by samowens84 (11/06/19 01:32 PM)