Why should I talk to you at all?

[Questioner]

It seems to me that most of the people here grant the following points:

1. Nothing is absolutely knowable, everything is doubtable.

2. Nothing really has any value other than that which we assign to it.

3. Even for the things we think we know, there is no reason to think they will remain the way we think they are.

Okay, then I say:

If #1 is true, why should I try communicating my viewpoint to anyone? I can't be sure they're right and I'm wrong. What's more, if #2 is true, their view really is just as valuable as mine (that is, it really has no value). Thus, it doesn't matter whether I change their minds, and even if I do their view hasn't improved, since its no better than it was before. On top of that, even if my view were somehow better than yours (i.e. it corresponds closer to reality as we both observe it or whatever), reality could change in the next ten seconds, so it really is still utterly useless.

In short, why should I bother talking to you at all?

[NialScorva]

[quote]Originally posted by Questioner:
If #1 is true, why should I try communicating my viewpoint to anyone? I can't be sure they're right and I'm wrong.
<hr></blockquote>

Why must there be a right or wrong to talk?

[quote]
What's more, if #2 is true, their view really is just as valuable as mine (that is, it really has no value).
<hr></blockquote>
How do you figure? My viewpoints are much more valuable to me than yours are. Yours are much more valuable than mine. Both obviously have value and relative value, that value just changes depending upon who's interpretting.

[quote]
Thus, it doesn't matter whether I change their minds, and even if I do their view hasn't improved, since its no better than it was before.
<hr></blockquote>
They agree with you, and you agree with them. Consensus is something I value, so it's better in my view.

[quote]
On top of that, even if my view were somehow better than yours (i.e. it corresponds closer to reality as we both observe it or whatever), reality could change in the next ten seconds, so it really is still utterly useless.
<hr></blockquote>
We presume consistency of experience. There's no rational reason for it, and there arguably cannot be a rational reason, but it's a useful tool, none the less.

[quote]
In short, why should I bother talking to you at all?<hr></blockquote>

Because you want to.


You seem to have some misconceptions about the consequences of the three statements:
[quote]
1. Nothing is absolutely knowable, everything is doubtable.
<hr></blockquote>
Nothing is absolute, but we do bestow provisional absoluteness upon many propositions. The statement itself is contradictory without that caveat. In many cases we say things are absolute when we mean that they have intersubjectively confirmed to such a degree that it would be pedantic to withhold provisional acceptance. Much of science is one such endeavor. The degree of intersubjective confirmation is a very fuzzy line, and we often communicate to negotiate that line. In addition, presumption of consistency is actually the skeptically superior position, since inconsistency can only be phrased as the hypothetical "there exists a contradiction in X".

[quote]
2. Nothing really has any value other than that which we assign to it.
<hr></blockquote>
A better way to say it would be "Nothing has any intrinsic value, only that which we assign it." Your phrasing can interpretted as equivalent to "only things that we assign value to have value", and uncharitably interpretted as "Nothing has value. Except things we assign value to". Either way, it's clear that the emphasis is not on the non-existence of value, but rather that we bestow value on things, they don't just have it.

[quote]
3. Even for the things we think we know, there is no reason to think they will remain the way we think they are.
<hr></blockquote>
I addressed this somewhat in #1 with the presumption of consistency. It's really a specialization of #1, saying that we have no absolute knowledge that things will remain the same as they are.

With subjectivity comes a greater need for communication. A weak version says that we can't perceive objective reality on our own, so we need to establish consensus to eliminate the observational errors. A strong version denies or ignores objectivity altogether, and emphasizes the prediction of experience and gaining knowledge. Part of that prediction is eliminating extraneous data points, and intersubjective confirmation is one of the best tools for doing so that we've found so far.

[excreationist]

Questioner:
"Topic: Why should I talk to you at all?"

Who said that you *should* talk to us? If anyone said this, it would just be there opinion, and you can ask that person themself why they have that opinion.

"If #1 is true, why should I try communicating my viewpoint to anyone?"

I'm not saying you *should* communicate your viewpoint to others. Who said that? It's just what a lot of people do - they talk to other people. You don't *have* to do that - you won't die if you don't - you just might learn something if you talk to others.

"I can't be sure they're right and I'm wrong."

Well through the process of talking you get clues to whether your beliefs seem to make sense or if their beliefs make more sense. On the other hand, you can just go to a Christian board and then things are absolutely correct or incorrect depending on what the Bible says.

"What's more, if #2 is true, their view really is just as valuable as mine (that is, it really has no value)."

Well, as you said in #2, things have whatever value you assign it. So if you think opinions have no value - then this is true - from your point of view.

"Thus, it doesn't matter whether I change their minds, and even if I do their view hasn't improved, since its no better than it was before."

So let's say they previously were Nazi's who liked to beat up black people, then you changed their mind - I think that would have improved the world - from a utilitarian's perspective.

"On top of that, even if my view were somehow better than yours (i.e. it corresponds closer to reality as we both observe it or whatever), reality could change in the next ten seconds, so it really is still utterly useless."

Ok... if you follow that reasoning, then what about if you were sky-diving... it is possible that you could survive without opening the parachute but it seems more probable that you wouldn't and so you'd probably open your parachute.

"In short, why should I bother talking to you at all?"

Well it depends what your aims in life are. If you want to get a better understanding of the world then you might want to discuss things with people on this board. But it's up to you.

[Angyson]

It seems to me that most of the people here grant the following points:

1. Nothing is absolutely knowable, everything is doubtable.

2. Nothing really has any value other than that which we assign to it.

3. Even for the things we think we know, there is no reason to think they will remain the way we think they are.

Okay, then I say:

If #1 is true, why should I try communicating my viewpoint to anyone? I can't be sure they're right and I'm wrong. What's more, if #2 is true, their view really is just as valuable as mine (that is, it really has no value). Thus, it doesn't matter whether I change their minds, and even if I do their view hasn't improved, since its no better than it was before. On top of that, even if my view were somehow better than yours (i.e. it corresponds closer to reality as we both observe it or whatever), reality could change in the next ten seconds, so it really is still utterly useless.

In short, why should I bother talking to you at all?

Because whatever you say, somone will contadict it no matter if it is true. Others take pleasure in belittling you and your opinions. It will lower your self-estem. It is futile to argue logically as somone will come forth with a personal experience that serves to negate all generalizations. It will lower your self esteem. It will teach you how low the human spirit will go to prove a point. It helps you detect bullshit from reality.

[Angyson]

You also get to express your constutional rights to freedom of speech to people who would rather listen to themselves talk than listen to you.

That about covers it.

[Javaman]

How on earth did you find this thread? I have to believe you did a search. I'm oddly intrigued and am finding myself wanting to know your criteria. FYI, you realize that the poster 'Questioner' got their answer given that the post to which you responded was his/her last of three total posts from over 2 1/2 years ago. You may actually be due for a prize for the oldest resurrected thread. :)

[Megatron]

You may actually be due for a prize for the oldest resurrected thread. :)
No joke... 32 months! That's gotta be a record...

(Meanwhile, half the board goes into shock, thinking "WHOA -- WTF IS ZERO DOING IN THE UPPER FORA?!?!?" :rolling: Guess there's another record... :rolling: )

[Ms. Siv]

(Meanwhile, half the board goes into shock, thinking "WHOA -- WTF IS ZERO DOING IN THE UPPER FORA?!?!?" :rolling: Guess there's another record... :rolling: )
Upper fora, eh ??

Is that what you guys call the Philosophy forum ??

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_1_63.gif

[Aethari]

:confused: What the...

It looks like someone was diggin' round here tryin' to play God...resurrecting things that were put to rest eons ago. Creatin' these here zombies--t'ain't natural. A dead thread is meant to stay dead, as th' good Lord intended--and there's only one way to ensure that...yeeeehaw!

*bursts of gunfire ensue, followed by a copious dousing of holy water over the corpse*

And this time, STAY dead! ;)

~Aethari