If you are not able to live it I feel there is something wrong

There are methods of philosophy that state it is all an illusion or that we cannot know anything with surety. This is a mindset that has at best always been one I thought was wrong and at worse one that has annoyed me. Now I am getting better at trying to set aside my own admited bias but I still do not see this as a sensible outlook. To give an example of this mindset. I will use a quote from another thread

TheDude wrote: Atheism is a belief.
For example, it is a fact that something exists (cogito ergo sum) but almost everything else is a belief. I believe that there is a lamp in this room with me, since I see it and have interacted with it, but I may be subject to an illusion or some other deception, and so the existence of the lamp is not absolutely certain. As a result, I can only say that I believe the lamp is there or that I believe there is no lamp there.

Now TheDude I am not knocking you simply the philosophical outlook expressed by this statement so I truely hope I come off as respectful and not as attacking. If I come off as offensive in any way I will preemptively apologize as this is not my intent at all.

In this statement we say that we cannot know that a lamp exists at all. Yet others can see it and interact with it so is this mass delusion? But more importantly we act as if the lamp is real. We turn it on if we need light. We catch it if it falls to avoid it breaking. We replace the bulb if that part wears out. If someone were to toss it at our head we duck.

In short we live in every manner as if that lamp is real and would think someone crazy if they did not. We would think something wrong with a person if they refused to duck as lamps were tossed at them while they claimed the lamps do not exist even as we would see the bruises on their skin from the impacts.

So if we cannot live the philosophy that something does not exist does it matter if it is true or not? What benefit do people find from the philosophy if they cannot apply it or live by it? If people that understand this mindset better then me could enlighten or inform me I would be grateful.

No offense taken.
A long line of religions claim similar things. Buddhist sects teach a doctrine of "no-self" . Some Hindus believe that Brahman is everything and is also without any qualities , and that only ignorance prevents us from understanding this entity without qualities. So the idea has presented itself outside the realm of philosophy.
There is a difference between what is useful and what is true. The possibility of you being a jellyfish in a mad scientist's lab somewhere is... well, possibly true. There's really no way that you could verify or deny it. The others interacting with objects may also themselves be illusions. Your relatives, friends, enemies, and so on. But it isn't really useful to consider that, even if it is true. And information regarding this "outside world" is all also useless, even if it's true. In most cases.
But you can also apply this kind of metaphysical system to other areas, such as ethics. My belief in the Force is highly in line with the previously mentioned belief in Brahman (by the Advaita Vedanta Hindu sect), for example, and I think that it is easier to argue for certain ethical codes such as moral nihilism once you are working from a premise of such a thing as the Force as I see it or any other true non-dualistic metaphysical system. In this way it can change your actions, assuming you live in accordance with the ethics you personally support.
Moreover, I personally believe that knowledge does not have to be pursued as a means to an end, but can be pursued as an end in itself. I encourage anyone looking at any area of any field to continue doing so, whether the information they're looking at is really useful or not.

Ok glad I didnt come off wrong. So do you mind explaining your beliefs on the Force and how it plays into this philosophy? How does this philosophy in your opinion help shape morals or make it easier in your opinion. I know that mental exercise or knowledge can be an end in and of itself but what benefit does it bring or is that looking for something where really there is nothing to look for?

When you play a video game (I admit, I exhaust the hell out of this metaphor but I've yet to find any other as mirroring to the idea as I have realized it for myself), say, for example, Skyrim, the objects and people in the game don't actually exist. In fact, the character you're playing doesn't actually exist. So why are you playing it? Nothing you do in the game ultimately means anything... at least not outside the game, right?

We play it for the experience we have regardless of if the people and objects in the game are real (as we see it) or not. Actually, all those objects and people are just pixels on a screen manipulated by electrical pulses being sent from a processor. If we blow this up into our own realm of existence, some believe that the Force is no different, just a universe of consistent energy, doing various things, in which our senses perceive as "things" and "people". So if "just a bunch of energy" is all that everything is, why act as if it's not?

Same reason someone plays Skyrim. To have the experience. Because if there is one thing that we can know for certain, it is that we are having an experience, whatever that might mean. We are here to play out whatever experience we are making and receiving, which plays by the rules of what are senses make out of all this "energy".

Proteus wrote: Same reason someone plays Skyrim. To have the experience. Because if there is one thing that we can know for certain, it is that we are having an experience, whatever that might mean. We are here to play out whatever experience we are making and receiving, which plays by the rules of what are senses make out of all this "energy".

However we are not claiming that Skyrim is real. We are not making it a philosophical basis for our outlook on it. We are aware that it is for entertainment and the experience. The outlook I am mentioning is making assumptions about reality though maybe I am missing your point and what you are trying to get at is that the assumptions do not matter and they are just entertainment for the mind.

MadHatter wrote: Ok glad I didnt come off wrong. So do you mind explaining your beliefs on the Force and how it plays into this philosophy? How does this philosophy in your opinion help shape morals or make it easier in your opinion. I know that mental exercise or knowledge can be an end in and of itself but what benefit does it bring or is that looking for something where really there is nothing to look for?

Well, supposing the reality around us is an illusion will likely come with a general revision to a person's priorities. It might be a method by which a person forsakes attachments and attains enlightenment (whatever that means). But specifically for understanding morals, I can make a quick example. I've been meaning to write down and organize my thoughts on Force philosophy in general, anyway.

Supposing the Force as a premise, with the Force in my view being a monistic entity which contains all qualities and through which all things are made ( I think Spinoza's argument, linked here, is good enough to justify this claim ), then all people are the same thing (for me, the Force). In truth, they are aspects of the single substance (the Force). Correct actions must be decided with that in mind.

Once that premise is accepted, I look at the Force. It composes all things, including opposites, empty space, and so on. So let's take the concept of, say, time. Time is really an interaction between two objects, or at the very least the activities of an object within empty space (if there are no other objects). But empty space is something within the Force, as are all perceived things. And so if there is the Force, which all qualities are composed of (including non-qualities), the idea of time is no longer makes much sense. If there is a singular thing which incorporates all other things, it has no motion relative to any outside space or object, and so there is no time. If there is no time during which events can occur, then there is no possible moral judgment for actions, as actions don't exist. So I see the Force as amoral, without any notions of good or evil or justice, and so I say that there is no objective moral standard other than that there are no objective moral standards.

Actively promoting and participating in moral nihilism wouldn't result in any enjoyable consequences for me in this world, so I choose to live in accordance with the moral standards of human beings. But that's a really quick and rough.