I need help with my skepticism

[Arjen]

I understood. You are using the word doubting in a different way. However, that is not what is equal to postponing judgment. Look at it **** this:
1) I observe a thing crashing. My friend calls it a UFO.
2) I consider if it could be a UFO.
3) I reject that idea <-- judgment = false.
4) i say I doubt it.
5) I go there and examine the debris without making claims. <-- postponing judgment.

I think that you should understan the difference between judging and predicating.
Judging = true<->false, hot<->cold, etc.
Predicating = naming

Does that clarify?

[Terrapin Station]

I understood. You are using the word doubting in a different way. However, that is not what is equal to postponing judgment. Look at it **** this:
1) I observe a thing crashing. My friend calls it a UFO.
2) I consider if it could be a UFO.
3) I reject that idea <-- judgment = false.
4) i say I doubt it.
5) I go there and examine the debris without making claims. <-- postponing judgment.

I think that you should understan the difference between judging and predicating.
Judging = true<->false, hot<->cold, etc.
Predicating = naming

Does that clarify?

No, that didn't clarify anything. You're not simply naming something when you're skeptical.

[evolution]

After getting into philosophy, I started questioning almost everything that showed up in my mind. The problem is I started questioning if my family and my friends love me. I mean, I do feel like they love, but I just don't see how I can be sure.

The only way you can be sure is through trust.

If you trust them enough to know that they will not lie to you, then when, and if, they say they love you, then you can be sure that they do.

Also, the emotions felt, from what they do, is a sign of what is going on around you.

I know I love them because I feel the love. But how can I be certain they're not just lying to me and acting really well.

Trust, again.

The idea of them having lied to me this whole time sounds absurd, but I just don't see how to logically exclude that possibility.

If they had lied to you previously, about any thing, then you could not trust them absolutely and fully. However, the less they have lied to you, then the more you can trust them.

I frequently feel sad and unmotivated to do things because of this doubt.

The reason there is doubt there is because TRUE LOVE does NOT YET exist, in this 'world'.

But this is NOT a real reason to feel sad nor unmotivated. You have even expressed that you 'feel the love' anyway. And this is all that really matters, so far.

This also affects me when it comes to being sure if someone is lying or not. If I hear a clearly contradictory statement, then, yeah, I can tell someone's lying. However, when it comes to their subjective view of things, I just don't know how to be sure they're being honest.

This doubt only exists because the 'world' that you are living in now is created on dishonesty.

I do get the feeling someone is lying or saying the truth, but I just can't say I'm certain.

When dishonesty ends, which is not to far into the future anyway, then certainty will prevail.

What can I do to change this?

You can NOT necessarily change "others". You can only change 'you'. So, what you can change is just your own dishonesty and just be Truly Honest, all of the time.

There is not much that you can really do to make/change "others" to be Truly Honest, to you. See, some people do not even know that they are lying to 'their' own "selves", let alone to "others".

Do I just have to assume people are being honest or dishonest? I'd be really grateful for any attempt to help me.

I suggest NEVER 'assuming' ANY thing.

One way, however, that you can help in changing "others", so that they NEVER lie to you and are always Truly Honest to you, is for you to NEVER be judgmental, critical, nor punitive in your views and behaviors towards ANY other's views and behaviors.

Do you reckon you could do this?

By the way once you discover or learn EXACTLY WHY you have your views and behave the way you do, then you understand WHY EVERY one has the views they have and behaves the way they do, and then you will naturally NOT be judgmental, critical, nor punitive towards ANY "other" human being. And then, human beings can be far more OPEN and Honest, with one "another". And when they are, then you, and "others", will NOT be questioning the things that you are here, now.

[evolution]

Joker2510: I mean, I do feel like they love, but I just don't see how I can be sure.

Why do you have a need for certainty on that? It seems rather neurotic.

This is just a part of 'questioning', itself.

Some people just 'believe' what they hear and see, while others just remain OPEN and 'question' things. There is certainly NOT necessarily ANY thing neurotic about doing the latter.

Regarding the former, however, this could be 'questioned'.

Your self worth should not depend on what others think and feel about you.

Why did you ASSUME that one's 'self' worth was ever depended on what others think and/or feel about 'you'?

As someone said, "what you think of me is none of my business."

This also affects me when it comes to being sure if someone is lying or not.

This is just something one learns by interacting with people: one learns to recognize falsehood.

LOL And how good at it are you, REALLY?

If people do not even know when they are lying to their own selves, then this recognizing ability could be said to have completely vanished.

Also, because adult human beings are total experts and fooling their own selves, and others, then it can actually be from interacting with people where the ability to recognize actual falsehood becomes blurred with recognizing actual truth.

If you are not, it means you need to socialize more (in the real world of course) and/or you are seeking security from others.

Now, considering EVERY adult human being lies, and lies a considering amount of times EVERY day, then socializing more with them may not be the actual best advice at all.

Security comes from within yourself, by understanding your psyche, feelings and motivations.

And how well do 'you' actually know and understand the psyche, feelings, and motivations, from within?

Are you 'secure' or 'insecure'?

(Some, of the more enlightened ones, would have noticed and recognized, instantly, the very paradoxical nature of that clarifying question.)

And you won't find certainty in this world.

Is this a 'certainty'?

See, EVERY time some one makes a claim about Truth, Certainty, or Absolutes can NOT known, they are instantaneously contradicting 'their' own 'self'.

As they say, the only things certain here are death and taxes. Good luck.

Yet these things, quite humorously, are NOT even a 'certainty' themselves.

[evolution]

The best way to think of this is whether or not they are making an effort to show their affection.

But, they could be 'making an effort' to show "their affection" just to get some thing from the "other".

Every adult has done this in one form or another.

We can never really know what the other person thinks or feels about us

We CAN if they tell us, AND, we Trust them wholly, or enough.

and it is safe to say that everyone in some sense cannot fully control their own feelings or emotions

This may be what happens for 'you'. But this is certainly NOT what happens for 'I'.

but nevertheless what matters most is their effort, an effort to show their affection for you and their commitment in continuing that.

But what under-lying motive do they have, for doing this?

If this is NOT YET KNOWN, then we are back to 'questioning', again.

Parents maybe irritated by a child but doesn't mean they don't love him,

Sounds like there is quite a difference between 'unconditional love' and just a 'love' here.

What could a child possibly do that could or would, supposedly, "irritate" a Truly Loving parent?

emotion is just a feeling and that usually comes and goes but the commitment to show their care for that child everyday for the rest of their lives is what really counts.

[evolution]

After getting into philosophy, I started questioning almost everything that showed up in my mind. The problem is I started questioning if my family and my friends love me. I mean, I do feel like they love, but I just don't see how I can be sure. I know I love them because I feel the love. But how can I be certain they're not just lying to me and acting really well. The idea of them having lied to me this whole time sounds absurd, but I just don't see how to logically exclude that possibility...

You can't be certain that they're not just lying. They could be. They could be actors, as in The Truman Show. Or they might not exist at all; they could be figments of your imagination. Do you worry about that? If not, then why worry that they may only be pretending to love you?

Because they MIGHT JUST BE PRETENDING.

There are, after all, quite a few children whose parent/s JUST PRETEND to love them.

If you worried about everything that could conceivably be true; if you worried about every possibility that you couldn't logically exclude, then you'd have a hell of a lot more to worry about than the love of your family and friends. Don't worry about what could logically be true. Stick with what appears, on the evidence so far, to be true.

If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, don't worry that it might not be a duck. Just feed it some bread.

So, in other words, are you saying; JUST PRETEND, as well?

Relax, and learn from Doctor Flicker:

But WHY 'try to' enjoy ourselves will we are here? WHY NOT just enjoy ourselves will we are here?

[evolution]

The key for this sort of stuff is to let go of what's essentially a neurotic need for certainty.

Coming from the one who continually writes in a way that expresses that they KNOW what is certain.

Finding and KNOWING 'certainty' is about one of the easiest AND simplest things to do, while there still CERTAINLY exists NO 'need' for 'certainty', itself.

Instead, ask yourself what reasons you have to believe one possibility over another. What evidence do you have? If the only evidence you have for something is that it's possible--nothing else supports it aside from the logical possibility of it being the case, then that's not really a good reason to believe something.

What good reason is there to BELIEVE ANY thing?

[Jack D Ripper]

After getting into philosophy, I started questioning almost everything that showed up in my mind. The problem is I started questioning if my family and my friends love me. I mean, I do feel like they love, but I just don't see how I can be sure.

The only way you can be sure is through trust.

If you trust them enough to know that they will not lie to you, then when, and if, they say they love you, then you can be sure that they do.

Also, the emotions felt, from what they do, is a sign of what is going on around you.

I know I love them because I feel the love. But how can I be certain they're not just lying to me and acting really well.

Trust, again.
...

That is some of the worst advice I have ever read. Trusting someone does not give one knowledge that they are worthy of trust. A lot of people have gotten horribly hurt trusting people who turned out to be liars who take advantage of them.

One should only trust people when one has good reason to believe they are trustworthy.

The issue of the opening post appears to be a reaction to the study of philosophy, where they now feel uncertain of everything. Well, absolute certainty is hard to come by in most things (unless one is a fool who believes beyond the evidence), but that does not mean that one does not have sufficient evidence that it becomes reasonable to believe something. As in the case of one's family loving one, usually, one has a good deal of evidence to work with, and one can come to a reasonable conclusion about it, one way or another. Of course, there can be cases where the evidence is so mixed that one is not sure, but in that case, it is wise to not trust them.

[evolution]

After getting into philosophy, I started questioning almost everything that showed up in my mind. The problem is I started questioning if my family and my friends love me. I mean, I do feel like they love, but I just don't see how I can be sure. I know I love them because I feel the love. But how can I be certain they're not just lying to me and acting really well. The idea of them having lied to me this whole time sounds absurd, but I just don't see how to logically exclude that possibility. I frequently feel sad and unmotivated to do things because of this doubt. This also affects me when it comes to being sure if someone is lying or not. If I hear a clearly contradictory statement, then, yeah, I can tell someone's lying. However, when it comes to their subjective view of things, I just don't know how to be sure they're being honest. I do get the feeling someone is lying or saying the truth, but I just can't say I'm certain. What can I do to change this? Do I just have to assume people are being honest or dishonest? I'd be really grateful for any attempt to help me.

Let's do a thought experiment. Let us imagine that the following is actually possible. Suppose that these people are just pretending that they love you, but do not really do so, but always act like they do. So they never say anything bad about you behind your back, they are nice to you in your presence, etc.

Let us now imagine a second idea, again, pretending that this is actually possible. Suppose that these people really love you, but they do not act like they do. They talk about you behind your back, saying bad things about you, and when you are present, they are unkind to you and treat you just like they don't love you, etc.

Now, which of the above situations is better for you?

Neither. As dishonesty plays a part in both scenarios.

Honesty is what is best, for me. Dishonesty in any form is NOT better for me.

I could have started with this, but I will put the trite (but apt) old saying here: Actions speak louder than words. What matters is how they treat you, not what is going on in their heads.

But, if these ones are behaving in that way in the second idea, then they, obviously, do NOT really love 'you'.

You write as if what they do and what is going on in their heads is not connected in any way.

ANY pretense, trickery, or foolery is NOT connected.

The way you know that someone loves you is that they consistently act like they love you.

But the word 'act' here implies or infers some sort of deceit from the outset.

Why 'act' when you could just do, or just be?

And the way that you know that they don't love you is that they don't consistently act like they love you.

Again, WHY is ANY one 'acting' here, in this 'world'?

[evolution]

You're wrong. Doubting IS a judgment.
Is it X?
I doubt that, so something else, not X.

Is it X?
I am not sure, let's examine and then decide.

I can't make it clearer than this.
Doubting is saying: not that, something else. And that is a judgement.

I think that you are referring to Descartes: "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum"?

Is it X?

I am not sure, I doubt it, but let us still examine this first, and then decide.

'Doubt' in this scenarios is NOT saying; "not that, something else".

'Doubting' is this scenario is NOT a judgement.

I see and understand what you are 'trying to' get at. But 'doubt' itself does NOT necessarily 'have to be' a judgement ALREADY made.

For example you could say that you went to the shop yesterday. I could doubt this, based on the actual evidence that I have so far, but I am NOT saying that this is incorrect nor wrong. I can doubt this and still wait while I examine ALL of the evidence, and then even after this remain in doubt, UNTIL thee actual PROOF comes forward, BEFORE I decide, or conclude.

See, from ALL of the evidence that I currently have, there is NO way that you could have gone to the shop yesterday. So, I can still doubt that you went to the shops yesterday. However, because there might have been five minutes, which I had NOT YET considered, where you could of stopped off at the shops on your way home from somewhere else, which, if explained to me would lessen my doubt, but still NO judgement NOR decision has been made. I in fact might remain completely OPEN forever more. NEVER making a judgement NOR decision either, but all the time while still in doubt.

Doubting, itself, is NOT, to me, saying; "not that, something else". So, doubting, to me, is NOT necessarily 'judgement' at all.

[evolution]

You're wrong. Doubting IS a judgment.

I'm not saying it isn't. I said it's not a denial of P. If someone says "A UFO crashed at Roswell" and you consider it and say, "I'm not committing to either 'A UFO crashed at Roswell' or 'A UFO did not crash at Roswell' until we have more information, because either could be the case," then you're making a judgment about "A UFO crashed at Roswell." (Namely that you'd need more info to say either way--you're doubting that it's true.)

If you are going to propose this last bit in brackets and present it correctly, then you would also have to write that you are speaking for 'you' only here. As for some one else they may doubt that it is untrue. So, to write what you did here more correctly, then you would have to add that; "you are doubting that it is untrue", as well.

[evolution]

I understood. You are using the word doubting in a different way. However, that is not what is equal to postponing judgment. Look at it **** this:
1) I observe a thing crashing. My friend calls it a UFO.
2) I consider if it could be a UFO.
3) I reject that idea <-- judgment = false.
4) i say I doubt it.
5) I go there and examine the debris without making claims. <-- postponing judgment.

I think that you should understan the difference between judging and predicating.
Judging = true<->false, hot<->cold, etc.
Predicating = naming

Does that clarify?

2) If you can NOT identify what the flying object is, then 'it' is, irrefutably, obviously a UFO.
3) 'Rejecting' an idea is NOT the same as 'doubting' an idea, which is more or less what you are 'trying to' do here.
4) Why say you "doubt it" if what you really mean is you "reject it"?

[evolution]

The only way you can be sure is through trust.

If you trust them enough to know that they will not lie to you, then when, and if, they say they love you, then you can be sure that they do.

Also, the emotions felt, from what they do, is a sign of what is going on around you.



Trust, again.
...

That is some of the worst advice I have ever read.

Okay.

Trusting someone does not give one knowledge that they are worthy of trust.

Are you ASSUMING, or have you JUMPED TO SOME CONCLUSION, that one just suddenly starts 'trusting' another here BEFORE actual 'trust' has been earned?

You seriously could NOT be ASSUMING that this is what I meant, could you?

I did, after all, write and use the words; 'IF you trust them enough', which OBVIOUSLY means ALREADY.

And, you do NOT ALREADY trust some one IF they have NOT ALREADY yet shown NOR proven to be 'trustworthy', correct?

Or, do you actually start trusting people BEFORE they are PROVEN to be trustworthy?

If you do NOT, then WHY would you START ASSUMING I am suggesting this? What in what I have ACTUALLY WRITTEN could even be construed as meaning this?

A lot of people have gotten horribly hurt trusting people who turned out to be liars who take advantage of them.

So, WHY did you even go down this line of thinking?

There OBVIOUSLY is NOTHING in what I wrote that would even suggest nor imply this, let alone is suggesting nor saying to do this.

One should only trust people when one has good reason to believe they are trustworthy.

Which is EXACTLY what I was saying. So, your statement; "That is some of the worst advice I have ever read." is so far off track it never ceases to amaze me how quick and easily this can occur.

The issue of the opening post appears to be a reaction to the study of philosophy, where they now feel uncertain of everything.

This is EXACTLY what I took from it as well. The first sentence; After getting into philosophy, I started questioning almost everything that showed up in my mind. in the opening post seems to make this QUITE CLEAR.

Well, absolute certainty is hard to come by in most things (unless one is a fool who believes beyond the evidence), but that does not mean that one does not have sufficient evidence that it becomes reasonable to believe something.

I find and found absolute certainty, in most things, quite easy to come by, and quite simply i will add.

The rest has NOTHING to do with what I have said, so far.

As in the case of one's family loving one, usually, one has a good deal of evidence to work with,

And what is that 'evidence', exactly?

and one can come to a reasonable conclusion about it, one way or another.

If you say so.

What conclusion have you arrived at?

And what ACTUAL 'evidence' do you have for this conclusion?

Of course, there can be cases where the evidence is so mixed that one is not sure, but in that case, it is wise to not trust them.

WHY trust ANY one who has lied, to you?

[Arjen]

No, that didn't clarify anything. You're not simply naming something when you're skeptical.

That is exactly my point.
Skepticism is postponing judgment. While naming is a form of judging (ambiguous terminology) that is not what is not done. Your doubting just covers up this ambiguety. The double meaning of judging is where your unclarity lies.

evolution I am trying to explain the issues with words and seperating meaning. The term UFO was chosen for fun, not as a topic to debate.

[evolution]

No, that didn't clarify anything. You're not simply naming something when you're skeptical.

That is exactly my point.
Skepticism is postponing judgment. While naming is a form of judging (ambiguous terminology) that is not what is not done. Your doubting just covers up this ambiguety. The double meaning of judging is where your unclarity lies.

@evolution I am trying to explain the issues with words and seperating meaning.

You may be trying to do this, but you are not being successful.

The term UFO was chosen for fun, not as a topic to debate.

No matter what you choose, you still have to present it in logical form. That is; If you really want to back up and support your previous claims.