There are two categories of things that can be proved in philosophy:
Will Joel Friedman, Ph. Read More A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
With musing on the subject, different realms have organically emerged in my experience: To know what you do know is the foundation of competency. To not know what you can know is a call to awaken and inhabit presence.
The last two realms are most intriguing because they may well offer the greatest growth opportunities for our personal and species evolvement.
As Socrates knew, true knowledge is born out of Proving anything is possible by losing weight ignorance and unawareness, not out of knowing or analytical understanding. Being a complete beginner, we can stay watchful for these signs of conditioning.
We can identify what is false by gathering relevant evidence drawing upon different ways of knowing to inform us of what is not supported or substantiated.
Thus, you can discern what is false, and then you do know what is not true. Alternatively, what is true and real can only be pointed at and demonstrated, not proven, in embodied living.
For illustration, science is science by its ability to generate and test falsifiable propositions. Nothing is ever fully shown, unquestionably demonstrated or absolutely proven to be real or true in science. At best, science generates hypotheses, empirically tests and retests them, and derives probabilities within agreed upon parameters for relationships, whether associations i.
In the context of daily living such proofs look rigorously ridiculous. Unless the procedure is ruled negligent, inappropriate, biased or with an undecided or hung judge or jury, usually the court is forthcoming with a ruling that decides the legal matter in question.
What exactly is being so proven? Given how private actions or torts often result in seemingly arbitrarily verdicts given the temper of the times, perceptions, biases and moods of judges and juries, the quality, intelligence, experience and resourcefulness of the attorney or legal representative as well as other intangible subjective factors like the weather, memory of testifiers, availability of pertinent evidence or exhibits and so on, how absolutely accurate can such proofs be?
As we all know, human infallibility is depthless. Debate is supposed to function through the intelligent use of reason in skillful explaining, although it more typically succeeds through emotionally savvy, fear and hope-based argument augmented by heart-grabbing examples.
It all seems so hollow. To take the need to prove to its inevitable limit, does the earth have to prove its powerfulness through earthquakes? Does the air want to prove how gentle or rough it can be?
This may all sound rather silly to you. Perhaps exploring competition can illuminate what is going on with the need to prove. This format of structural competition is one of mutually exclusive goal attainment-one only can gain the goal and win if the other loses.
These are situations of scarcity since what I want must be scarce if I must defeat another in order to obtain it. A stronger version of structural competition is when one participant must force the other to fail in order to succeed, as in tennis, war, chess and in a variety of sports and games.
Intentional competition is an individual competitiveness with the aim to best others. This often takes the form of someone acting in a fashion to prove how worthy, attractive, intelligent, generous, skillful, powerful or other socially desirable attribute they are. In observation of this behavior you could decipher that the person feels insecure, thinks he or she is inferior and lacks self-esteem.
Who else but this imaginary self or fictive ego-mind would care to prove anything in the first place? Would such proofs help assuage its insecurity, doubts and fears as well as convince other egos of the same? What seems to be at stake is what you know. The choices governing a quality life can be the result of well-directed intelligence balanced with fine judgment.
This honors the higher power in the universe, while haphazard misguided choices often result from ignorance and lack of a passionate curiosity. This funny, anonymous story illustrates both sides of the coin: How many of you children are atheists too?
Yet one student, a beautiful girl named Sara, refused to raise her hand. My mother knows God and my father knows God, so I know God.May 14, · 3. How Losing Weight Changed My Life | Full Interview | Possible Pat. In this video, you get to meet a man who lost more than pounds, and just watching his journey from being overweight to being fit makes this one of the most inspiring weight loss videos that you will watch online.
I used to be very over-weight and would rely on food as my gateway, and yet I used to be very depressed and the thoughts that woul It looks like you've lost connection to our server. Please check your internet connection or reload this page. The foundation for weight loss continues to be based on physical activity and diet.
Take in fewer calories than you burn, and you lose weight. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends cutting calories by to calories a day to lose 1 to pounds ( to kilograms) a week.
Actually, it is. All that is real is beyond the nonsense of proving anything, as if anything can prove anything to any “one” anyway. Perhaps exploring competition can illuminate what is going on with the need to prove.
With structural competition the participants’ fates . Sep 04, · 1. Dieting trumps exercising. We hear a lot that a little exercise is the key to weight loss – that taking the stairs instead of the elevator will make a difference, for instance.
In the end, most of history points in the direction that humans' knowledge is inherently limited, and as a result, it's not possible for humans to know anything or prove anything to an absolute degree.