so I can watch my own at work"
Yet I don't read that intent in your statements to this DU group.
I'll examine the discussion.
You begin with two quotes, the first from wiki that explains what a "Pyrrhonist" is, followed by your assertion that you became such a "Pyrrhonist" in order to combat what you claim to be "pernicious effects of belief in my worldview". You don't mention that your becoming a so-called "Pyrrhonist" is itself based on an entire structure of belief. The second quote is from the Stanford site and gives a truncated explanation of what "belief" is according as most "contemporary analytic philosophers of mind".
This is the bedrock that, you say, leads you to some "interesting conclusions" about the nature of knowledge, conclusions which you then laud for having a personal psychological effect on you, that in fact led you to experience a psychological state that you claim is similar to that achieved by a disciplined Buddhist monk. You claim that this wonderful mental state follows "since there is no longer a requirement to defend any particular proposition". I assume that you include propositions such as "This leads to a state of ataraxia or lucid tranquility, similar to what the Buddhists call "equanimity"".
I responded in a simple way, asserting that I distinguish 'belief' as defined by the Stanford article from knowledge: belief being general, knowledge being particular. I made it clear that my response depended entirely on *my* definition/understanding of the language that I was using, and was *my* distinction -- I made no claim to any wider acceptance whatsoever.
You responded with several assertions about what "we know", "Often it's simply because someone in whom we have reposed trust has told us so". That statement has no bearing on how I responded to your original post. That statement makes a generalization about how "we", in general, think, and use words like "know". You then make a general claim that all knowledge (according as everyone proceeds and according as everyone uses the term 'know') is based simply on believing, saying something about "belief based knowledge".
I responded by telling you that your account, your response, makes no sense to me.
You responded by elaborating further on how "we" think, about "the pyramid of knowledge that we each build for ourselves over our lifetime", continuing with claim after claim about how "we" think. (Interestingly, you are now free to apply your one personal dictum to these generalities, that for you, as a self-proclaimed Pyrrhonian skeptic, "there is no longer a requirement to defend any particular proposition".) You conclude by stating "This is my own epistemological perspective, I wasn't intending to impute it to you or anyone else.", a statement that's flatly contradicted by your omnipresent use of the term "we".
I responded by pointing this out: "You believe in a whole slew of generalizations about how other people think"
Now your final response:
"I'm simply saying that most of what we call "knowledge" seems to be belief."
However, if that was all you had said we'd be in total agreement, since I responded to your OP by saying that I distinguish knowledge as being a particular case of belief (as 'belief' is above defined).
But now you go on: "Whether it's "actually" knowledge or belief doesn't really matter except to epistemologists". Have you already forgotten your assertion "This is my own epistemological perspective"?
If it doesn't really matter, why did you post your OP on the subject?
"I'm just trying to get a better insight into how the mind functions, so I can watch my own at work"
But you aren't watching your own mind at work. You start by making claims about how you attained to a state of Buddhist equanimity and you proceed to make claim after claim about how others think, precluding yourself from having to defend your claims, and concluding with assertions that the question doesn't really matter.
= new reply since forum marked as read
