Possibilities vs Certainties

[Eaglerising]

Is it more important to view something as a certainty rather than as a possibility? I ask this question because most of the discussions on this forum are anchored to certainties. In other words, one certainty opposing an opposite certainty, neither considering the other’s view or the possibility that both are wrong or inaccurate.

What prevents both from examining the subject “freshly,” as if it was being examined for the first time? Are we capable to examining something free of any judgment?

[Burning ghost]

I like you

Keep going and keep digging

[Eaglerising]

Thank you Burning ghost for your kind words.

[Phenomexistentialist]

I agree with you that possibility is more important than certainty. For starters, certainty at a philosophical level at least is almost impossible. Outside of cogito ergo sum, which basically lead Descartes nowhere else certain, there's real no consensus on any particular philosophical position that has reached certainty at all. We were just talking about Hussel in another thread, and my take on him is that his project is roughly another Cartesian quest for certainty and an ultimately ground. I don't think Husserl fairs much better.

To me, better to rule out whats is IMpossible and then examine the live options for what seems most plausible given the evidence.

For example, assuming we agreed on a definition, do we have free will? A person may feel certain about it based on dogma or intuition, but I don't think either position has been philosophically proven in a scientific way beyond any doubt at all or with a 100% amount of surgery. And that's ok!

Is it morally wrong for me to spend a lot of money on strip clubs while people are starving in the street outside. Yeah, it probably is, but there's not certain proof of this, and opinions will differ (i.e. its my hard earned money and I have the moral right to do with it as I please; nor am I morally responsible for the fact that the person outside is homeless). Now, if we do think it is probably immoral, we have two choices, of course: to do what we are under the belief - but not certain - is the more moral course of action; or to ignore the philosophical evidence that spend money on the strip club instead. But we have no certainty here because there are counter-rational arguments, and we don't ascribe to mere intuition or dogma has philosophers.

[Eaglerising]

Phanomexistentialist – What a handle. Are you a Hispanic philosopher existentiaist?

Regarding "free will". You can gain the understanding of free will by experiencing it. Once you experience it, you no longer have to believe or disbelieve in it.
But for now, I will say this, free will is a choice between the will of thought and the will of the spirit that occupies your body. To experience it, you have to meditate and see what happens. Eventually though trial and error you'll be able to distinguish the will of thought and the will of consciousness. Hint, thought is more dominate then consciousness and fragmented. Thus, you make wiser choices choosing the will of consciousness rather than thought.

[Consul]

I agree with you that possibility is more important than certainty. For starters, certainty at a philosophical level at least is almost impossible. Outside of cogito ergo sum, which basically lead Descartes nowhere else certain, there's real no consensus on any particular philosophical position that has reached certainty at all.

There is a difference between psychological, subjective certainty and epistemological, objective certainty. They are independent of each other, because my being certain that p doesn't entail its being certain that p, and its being certain that p doesn't entail my being certain that p.
It is fair to say that there is no objective certainty in philosophy, especially in metaphysics.

[Eaglerising]

Consul –

There is a difference between psychological, subjective certainty and epistemological, objective certainty. They are independent of each other, because my being certain that p doesn't entail its being certain that p, and its being certain that p doesn't entail my being certain that p.

I feel you may have missed my point about certainty vs possibilities. Yes, I am aware of the various types of certainty, The view of all of them are different from possibilities. There is a "conclusion" associated with every type of certainty. On the other hand, a conclusion isn't associated with possibilities. In fact it stimulates additional questions and possibilities. In other words a possibility is an on going and never-ending journey. Something new is learned each step of the way.

Consul –

It is fair to say that there is no objective certainty in philosophy, especially in metaphysics.

That depends on what is doing the viewing, thought or consciousness. Consciousness (not thought) sees metaphysics and religion as opposite sides of the same coin.

[Burning ghost]

If we cannot know we cannot know. If we can know then maybe we will or will not.

[Phenomexistentialist]

Is it more important to view something as a certainty rather than as a possibility? I ask this question because most of the discussions on this forum are anchored to certainties. In other words, one certainty opposing an opposite certainty, neither considering the other’s view or the possibility that both are wrong or inaccurate.

What prevents both from examining the subject “freshly,” as if it was being examined for the first time? Are we capable to examining something free of any judgment?

To me, Descartes's quest for epistemological certitude was a philosophical dead end. It proved his own existence and... not a whole lot else really, which is a pretty poor epistemological state to be in.

I think we are much better off looking for not just possibilities, but also likelihoods and probabilities and such, rather than certainties.

[Prothero]

With all there is to "know" and "experience" in the world, no single human can know or experience more than a tiny fraction, so a little humility about "certain" knowledge is probably in order.
In the larger view, nature seems to be a matter of potentials becoming actualities (at least on the quantum scale), the future consists of possibilities (or potentials) and the past consists of actualities (certainties) so there may be a lesion in nature as well.

[Phenomexistentialist]

There is a difference between psychological, subjective certainty and epistemological, objective certainty. They are independent of each other, because my being certain that p doesn't entail its being certain that p, and its being certain that p doesn't entail my being certain that p.

Oh, definitely, definitely! Totally agree.

It is fair to say that there is no objective certainty in philosophy, especially in metaphysics.

Hmmm... You may be right, but you don't even think the "cogito ergo sum" is pretty much an epistemological certainty?