Talk:Certainty

message: Why is there no discussion for certainty? Can one not discuss certainty?
"The conclusion of Q however, assumes "P or Q" and "not P" are true. This is not certainty. Philosophers have struggled throughout history for premises such as these with certainty."
This is not true. It may be true that one cannot derive certainty from uncertainty, but in logic, u don't assum the premises are true; you question them. For the conclusion to be sound, the premises must be true. If "P or Q" and "not P" are certain, then the conclusion will be certain
::--Tsinoyboi 16:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 comments

message: I'm not clearly seeing why this gets a whole page. here's my feed back on individual sentences in the main paragraph:
*Certainty is the absence of all doubt. 
Certainty is defined as state of being certain, and Certain is defined as free of doubt; so Certainty isn't the absence of all doubt but the state of being absent of doubt. i'm not finding definitions of certainty or certainty describing all doubt.
*Something is certain only if skepticism could not exist. 
skepticisim as in doubt or philosophical skepticism as in lack of knowledge? i don't understand how skepticism could not exsist. an individual not having doubt? does this mean if skepticism exsists, then something cannot be certain?
*Philosophy (atleast historically) struggles toward certainty. 
All i can say is is there a verifiable source to this? also the wording isn't clear to me.. "struggles"?
*Meditations on First Philosophy is a famous pursuit of certainty by Descartes. 
i guess i got nothing on this one..
*Epistemology is the study of knowledge, certainty and truth. 
this one either
*Contemporary views of knowledge do not demand certainty, a common alternative is "justified true belief".
JTB is alternative to certainty?
Overall, i'm hoping someone could explain why.. ya.. just why.. perhaps more information and sources would make this more clear
:--Tsinoyboi 04:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification needed?

message: The statement that philosophy seeks certainty is ridiculous. Anything that can be concretely proved or disproved would inherently be outside the domain of philosophy.--209.89.155.96 (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Philosophy and certainty

message: 'Strictly speaking, certainty is not a property of statements, but a property of people'
Really? This seems to be an issue of semantics; both seem like legitimate uses. A certain statement is absolutely true; a certain person believes that a statement is true. Even if absolute certainty is not possible, it is still a property - just one that's 'false' for every statement. 99.244.97.75 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Emotion' 

message: I think that Pyrrho contributes the same (even more) here as Socrates, because his doubt is consistent and based logically, and he was earlier. They both doubted their knowledge but Pyrroh did it better. So I think he should be here instead Socrates.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.167.78 (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Socrates' 

message: I just wanted to voice my opinion for what it's worth.  I find myself in disagreement with the above quote, as it seems to me a statement which attempts to erase the concept of uncertainty ("doubt").  It seems like Wittgenstein is viewing uncertainty itself as though it were a concept of certainty.  This personally strikes me as absurd.  Certainty is to Uncertainty as Order is to Chaos.  
I wonder if he may be speaking from a perspective overly used to a hardened state of thinking and argumentation where in his experiences of changing his position it has required countering thoughts of reason to compel away his previous belief(s) through conflict.  That is not the only way to challenge and destroy beliefs.  Uncertainty itself has the power to potentially wash away any belief into the unknown.  
I can imagine an argument to claim that from a perspective of absolute omniscience there is only certain order, but from our perspectives as humans who acknowledge limitation and humility, we understand concepts of uncertainty/chaos to be something other than knowable certainty/order.  
If Wittgenstein means to say that to question certainty requires an identity which itself would have to include some type of certain order to hold form...  I feel I may disagree with that assumption.  Chaos/Uncertainty can, in my view, exist independently of Order/Certainty as a force on its own.  As its own source of motion to create or destroy ideas and things through instability; to question ideas of truth and wash away order.  
A normal human identity includes order and some form of personal certainty/truth.  But he/she can also acknowledge uncertainty & chaos to exist outside the realm of what he/she understands or identifies to be within his/her self.  
I call for the acknowledgment of uncertainty, and if a position is to be represented counter to that, as may be the case with Ludwig Wittgenstein, I think it should be presented within the context of clarifying that it may be counter to what I presume is a popularly held opinion that uncertainty exists.  --— sloth_monkey 08:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree with quote in article 

message: Certainty is abstraction, an abstract term created perhaps from the verb certify, in any case related to some verb form as most abstract nouns are. To certify is a synonym of testify, evidence, prove all that implying a procedure  of checking reality or allegations. It may well be that the end result of such a procedure takes you to a mental state of satisfaction with the reality or existence of what you have been trying to verify to a degree of certainty.
This implies that no abstract term such as certainty makes sense on its own, but by tracing it back to the production of the term through some verbal exercise or relation if you like. And relation, another abstract term comes from relating your internal (subjective) experience to the external objective world to see if they match, or can get connected as S-R.
Another approach is to start off from certain, an adjective, another abstraction given to an object as a result of some past experience, along with its synonyms, such as sure, granted, etc. The adjective implies that experience proves the existence of such a quality as certainty (of certain, another form of a property). 
In everyday life certainty indicates the need for evidence which is usually a trace left behind by an event, force, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.10.126.198 (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: try this

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Certainty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623052519/http://www.bartleby.com:80/61/41/C0214100.html to http://www.bartleby.com/61/41/C0214100.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What's the reasoning behind having a quotes section? Isn't that what Wikiquotes is for? - 37.164.128.35 (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I removed the section per WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE. I moved the Wittgenstein quote up to the appropriate section, with no prejudice against paraphrasing or removing it. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote section 

message: Isn't doubt more like a subjective sense of uncertainty about a piece of knowledge, regardless of whether he/she actually has that? We can always be uncertain of some things and then remember "oh yeah! this was the case". That makes me inclined to remove this part from the beginning sentence. 37KZ (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a personal opinion, which is not a legitimate reason for including or excluding statements, see WP:FORUM#MYOPINION. But the lead does have issues with MOS:LEAD (does not summarize the article) and WP:V (no source provided). I rewrote it accordingly. Paradoctor (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the mental state of being without doubt"