Click here to become a Knight of the Grail by supporting us on Patreon!

News Briefs 24-01-2007

Happy Birthday to my beautiful wife Tonita!

Quote of the Day:

Certitude is seized by some minds, not because there is any philosophical justification for it, but because such minds have an emotional need for certitude.

Robert Anton Wilson

Editor
  1. Hmmmmm?
    [quote]”Certitude is seized by some minds, not because there is any philosophical justification for it, but because such minds have an emotional need for certitude.” – Robert Anton Wilson
    [/quote]

    I’m not certain that this is true. I wonder if Mr. Wilson is certain about the accuracy of his statement?

    1. good point
      I suppose Wilson is trying to make a difference between certainty, and certitude. Certainty is based on confirmable facts, while certitude relies more on belief systems.

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

      1. Subtle, but true…
        Are you certain that was his intent?

        And did he say it because the fact of his statement is a certainty? Sure sounds like it. But I would classify it as a certitude he held. So maybe he should have just spoke for himself.

        1. LOL!
          Well, maybe this affirmation of his was based on a research he conducted (so it would be certainty), but nevertheless I think he did have an emotional need to feel he was right about what he said.

          But, truth be told, I’m not certain about it 🙂

          I’m not certain about ANYTHING, as a matter of fact.

          I’m not even certain that I’m not certain! Let’s leave it at that before my brain leaks from my ears ok? 😉

          —–
          It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
          It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

          Red Pill Junkie

          1. Agreed
            I just can’t stand to sit still while people are criticized for holding a particular faith (certitude)….by people who themselves are spouting nothing more than their own faith in something.

          2. Emotion
            I’d argue all philosophical and conceptual ideas are based, in the end, on emotion, be it religious, scientific or philosophical. That’s why moderation is so important.
            I emotionally believe that.

            I’m fanatical about … well, you know

            Anthony North

          3. The Difference
            I speak out in defense, to counter-balance, to point out the ignornace, hyposcisy and hatred of the “tolerant and open-minded” amoung us. I rarely initiate. When I speak from faith, I admit to it. Otherwise, I cite facts, sources and cross-references. Most of all, I challenge those who take the easier road of not challenging themselves. Am I perfect? Nope. But when it comes to practicing what one preaches, I am quite at peace with my track record. You come off as very hostile and intolerant Rick. As if maybe you aren’t used to being challenged? That’s the weakness of people on the Left: they spend so much time in their echo chambers that they find themselves frustrated by, and unable to deal with, anyone not uttering the same yodels. Whatever the case may be, I don’t take it personally.

            To each his own. Until he shoves it in someone else’s face.

          4. Certainly…
            [quote=Anonymous]I just can’t stand to sit still while people are criticized for holding a particular faith (certitude)….by people who themselves are spouting nothing more than their own faith in something.[/quote]

            I think you’re jumping to conclusions there. There is a significant difference between certitude, and offering an opinion. Wilson at no point says that he is certain of his opinion (and indeed, it could be argued that his philosophy was to question everything, including your own thoughts).

            I see the statement as having more dimensions to it – Wilson isn’t talking about faith, he’s talking about the desire (or perhaps ‘need’) to know something with certitude. I think this is most pertinent when applied to the philosophy of materialism, which is based on the premise that only what can be measured, valued (and therefore provides certitude) is considered ‘reality’.

            But that’s my take, which may be just an opinion! For more context, here’s the extended quote:

            ——

            “There remains, of course, Scientific Method (SM), the alleged source of the certitude of those I call the New Idolators. SM is a mixture of SD (sense data: usually aided by instruments to refine the senses) with the old Greek PR. Unfortunately, while SM is powerfully effective, and seems to most of us the best method yet devised by mankind, it is made up of two elements which we have already seen are fallible – SD (sense data) and PR (pure reason) can both deceive us. Again: two fallibilities do not add up to one infallibility. Scientific generalizations which have lasted a long time have a high probability, perhaps the highest probability of any generalizations, but it is only Idolatry which claims none of them will ever again have to be revised or rejected. Too many have been revised or rejected in this century alone.

            Certitude is seized by some minds, not because there is any philosophical justification for it, but because such minds have an emotional need for certitude.”

            ———–

            IMO it’s an excellent insight into one of the foibles of the modern atheist/skeptical/materialist movement.

            For a more hilarious take on the same topic, there’s always CSICON. Maybe Paul would like to comment on the testicle issue…
            😉

            Kind regards,
            Greg
            ——————————————-
            You monkeys only think you’re running things

          5. Scientific Certitude
            I just finished Lee Smolin’s book: The Trouble With Physics. As an insider’s insider, he pretty well dumps out all the garbage that the hard sciences would rather you not know about them. The book is a bit tedious if you are not into the heavy jargon of science, but the last couple of chapters reveal some amazing insights.

            My most shocking discovery inferred from the book was that something like 25,000 manyears! have been expended on string theory without anything consequential derived from the effort. This is worse than a million monkeys/typewriters doing Shakespeare.

            Cheers,
            Xavier Onassis

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal