ThinkingApril 16, 2021 at 08:0210225 views38 comments
Is there something that you feel or think you truly know. Perhaps some universal truth or intuitional feeling? What about something from experience? I would like to see your answers below.
There's no way we can answer the question without being dishonest.
I would've liked to say that I know nothing but then I know that I know nothing and that's self-refuting.
I would've liked to take Agrippa's route and bring up the Munchhausen trilemma but that to is self-refuting to a certain extent and it's no longer as satisfying as it would be were that not the case.
I guess, given these two limitations, I should simply shut up and not say a word.
Perhaps, instead of all that I wrote above I should post this: :zip: The less said, the better :smile:
[quote=Laozi]Those who speak don't know. Those who know don't speak[/quote]
Is there something that you feel or think you truly know. Perhaps some universal truth or intuitional feeling?
Sure. I've been pondering this recently in conjunction with my thread on belief and posted just such an example there. Max Scheler says : "The mind itself is the self-revelation of the highest sort of being."
This is something that I've "known" since I was a child. Basically, from a scientific perspective, that the ultimate empirical fact is consciousness itself. I know that my own mind is the key to understanding the nature of reality, not only as a tool, but as exemplary object of study. I've never been more certain of anything.
Hell is a place where everything once beautiful and pure will become ravaged, vile, and destroyed. Heaven is a place where everything once vile and corrupted may be redeemed and restored. Are these two different places or merely different phases? We may all live on the same planet, but we're worlds apart.
Is there something that you feel or think you truly know.
No
Count Timothy von IcarusApril 16, 2021 at 13:51#5235510 likes
Several things that I can be sure of. The call that fouled out Paul Pierce in Game Seven of the 2010 NBA finals was total garbage, and was what allowed the Lakers to squeak by to win by four points.
GGG definitely did not lose to Canelo, and was robbed of his undefeated record. At best for Canelo, he got a draw in the first fight, and lost in the second. Glovokin still has never had even a knee touch the mat in a fight, Canelo got knocked to the ground in that same fight.
There's no way we can answer the question without being dishonest.
I would've liked to say that I know nothing but then I know that I know nothing and that's self-refuting.
I would've liked to take Agrippa's route and bring up the Munchhausen trilemma but that to is self-refuting to a certain extent and it's no longer as satisfying as it would be were that not the case.
I guess, given these two limitations, I should simply shut up and not say a word.
Perhaps, instead of all that I wrote above I should post this: :zip: The less said, the better :smile:
Those who speak don't know. Those who know don't speak
— Laozi
That's pretty much my answer too, couldn't have said it better.
ghostlycutterApril 17, 2021 at 08:19#5238830 likes
Knowing is not just halving something. I will correct myself now and add consuming the halved something rigidly, whereas being wise of it would involve more fluidly scanning over this something, almost like brail, as if the something was non-fiscial.
Is there something that you feel or think you truly know. Perhaps some universal truth or intuitional feeling? What about something from experience? I would like to see your answers below.
. Perfectly good ... Yes ... Truth is the unassailable ... It cannot be expressed, verbally ... As it cannot be expressed the beauty of a flower ... But seen ...
. Life is beyond any thinking ...
. Life is not a problem to be solved ... But a mystery to be lived ...
Is there something that you feel or think you truly know.
... No, not in particular.
Perhaps some universal truth or intuitional feeling?
... No.
What about something from experience?
... No, I don't think so.
So, what do I know? I don't. I don't even know if I know nothing. It's of no concern to me.
"In the beginner's mind there is no thought, "I have attained something." All self-centered thoughts limit our vast mind. When we have no thought of achievement, no thought of self, we are true beginners. Then we can really learn some-thing."
-Shunryu Suzuki, "Zen Mind, Beginners Mind"
Also, I think I know that there are (at least) three kinds of people –
(1) those who know what they don't know
(2) those who don't know that they don't know &
(3) those who don't care that they don't know
– but only the first is worth y(our) time because there's nothing nontrivial to learn from the other two, especially the third who, unlike the second fool, is dangerously stupid.
How can you know that? If you believe that, then you cannot believe your own statement. You need to have a vague notion of correct knowledge or belief in order to state that "I don't believe we can know anything", otherwise you don't believe what you said and the statement is negated. :chin:
Can't answer the first query without answering the second. Can't answer the second query without answering the first. It's a vicious circularity of epic proportions, no?
Reply to TheMadFool It's only a problem in so far as your epistemology is justificatory. Otherwise, pragmatic – falsifiabilist – knowledge is not viciously circular or question-begging. For instance,
I know the Earth is round.
How do you know that?
By using geometry & comparing distant (north-south) noontime shadows like Eratosthanes had done.
How do you know that geometry is always correct? ...
... and so on and so on like Abbot & Costello's "Who's on first base?" circle-jerk.
But if, instead, I say
The Earth is round?
How do you know that?
Well, if the Earth is not round then it must either (1) be finite with an edge or (2) be infinite and flat such that traveling in any direction from this place I will not eventually return to this point. Agreed?
Sure, makes sense.
Good. So let's test them both at the same time by traveling in any direction from this place until we find the edge showing that I know 'the Earth is round' is false.
Um, okay ...
... so that by process of elimination the implications of a knowledge claim can be tested, never proving what we know but narrowing down from the universe of alternatives to a single best fit, unfalsified, claim which is still fallible (i.e. could be found to be false or less approximately true than some not yet proposed alternative claim).
At least, that's how I understand Peirce-Dewey, Popper & Haack's non-justificationist epistemology (re: fallibilism —> falsificationism & foundherentism, respectively).
Is there something that you feel or think you truly know. Perhaps some universal truth or intuitional feeling? What about something from experience? I would like to see your answers below.
"Know" does not mean to be absolutely certain. It means to believe with adequate justification. By that standard I know lots of things. The sun will come up tomorrow. I love my children. All living organisms are the genetic descendants of an organism or organisms which lived more than a billion years ago. Cottage cheese is made with milk.
It's only a problem in so far as your epistemology is justificatory
:up: It never struck me that that's a possibility. Non-justificationist epistemology! :chin: What I find intriguing is the definition of knowledge in such a system. The working definition of knowledge has justification as an essential feature, no?
You mentioned Karl Popper's falsifiability theory in relation to science. I'm not all that clear on that score though especially whether Popper's take on what counts as scientific knowledge is justificatory in nature or not. Do you mean to imply that science doesn't involve justification/argument of any kind? Preposterous! In case I've read you wrong, kindly explain yourself. G'day.
Reply to TheMadFool Sorry, I can't say it better or more succinctly than I have already. I mentioned four philosophers of the pragmatist-fallibilist school and provided a context with comparative examples. Miss the forest for the trees by taking terms out of context (I showed how I am using them in this discussion) at your leisure. Bottom line: "the criterion problem" is only a problem for a (classical) 'justificationist' approach to epistemology. (SEP & wiki are your friends, TMF.)
Comments (38)
I would've liked to say that I know nothing but then I know that I know nothing and that's self-refuting.
I would've liked to take Agrippa's route and bring up the Munchhausen trilemma but that to is self-refuting to a certain extent and it's no longer as satisfying as it would be were that not the case.
I guess, given these two limitations, I should simply shut up and not say a word.
Perhaps, instead of all that I wrote above I should post this: :zip: The less said, the better :smile:
[quote=Laozi]Those who speak don't know. Those who know don't speak[/quote]
Sure. I've been pondering this recently in conjunction with my thread on belief and posted just such an example there. Max Scheler says : "The mind itself is the self-revelation of the highest sort of being."
This is something that I've "known" since I was a child. Basically, from a scientific perspective, that the ultimate empirical fact is consciousness itself. I know that my own mind is the key to understanding the nature of reality, not only as a tool, but as exemplary object of study. I've never been more certain of anything.
I experience (or, there is experience).
My brain can half more than most people.
It's not general knowledge I know most of.
I know who, how, where, when, what and why...
What I know is...
No
GGG definitely did not lose to Canelo, and was robbed of his undefeated record. At best for Canelo, he got a draw in the first fight, and lost in the second. Glovokin still has never had even a knee touch the mat in a fight, Canelo got knocked to the ground in that same fight.
That's pretty much my answer too, couldn't have said it better.
:wink:
interesting perspective
I too believe that is true
(and what Laozi says)
Honeysuckles have a delightful aroma.
. I know myself ... I know thyself ... I know that wich is not and that wich is ...
. Perfectly good ... Yes ... Truth is the unassailable ... It cannot be expressed, verbally ... As it cannot be expressed the beauty of a flower ... But seen ...
. Life is beyond any thinking ...
. Life is not a problem to be solved ... But a mystery to be lived ...
If intelligence were a crime, you'd be arrested. :up: :clap:
... No, not in particular.
... No.
... No, I don't think so.
So, what do I know? I don't. I don't even know if I know nothing. It's of no concern to me.
"In the beginner's mind there is no thought, "I have attained something." All self-centered thoughts limit our vast mind. When we have no thought of achievement, no thought of self, we are true beginners. Then we can really learn some-thing."
-Shunryu Suzuki, "Zen Mind, Beginners Mind"
Those who speak don't know. Those who know don't speak — Laozi
He said that did he?
(1) those who know what they don't know
(2) those who don't know that they don't know &
(3) those who don't care that they don't know
– but only the first is worth y(our) time because there's nothing nontrivial to learn from the other two, especially the third who, unlike the second fool, is dangerously stupid.
Who knows? :smirk:
How can you know that? If you believe that, then you cannot believe your own statement. You need to have a vague notion of correct knowledge or belief in order to state that "I don't believe we can know anything", otherwise you don't believe what you said and the statement is negated. :chin:
[quote=Socrates]What you know you must be able to tell[/quote]
[quote=Socrates]I know that I know nothing[/quote]
:chin:
Doesn't "daemon" have something to do with Socrates? :chin:
Two questions,
1. How can we know?
2. What do we know?
Can't answer the first query without answering the second. Can't answer the second query without answering the first. It's a vicious circularity of epic proportions, no?
... and so on and so on like Abbot & Costello's "Who's on first base?" circle-jerk.
But if, instead, I say
... so that by process of elimination the implications of a knowledge claim can be tested, never proving what we know but narrowing down from the universe of alternatives to a single best fit, unfalsified, claim which is still fallible (i.e. could be found to be false or less approximately true than some not yet proposed alternative claim).
At least, that's how I understand Peirce-Dewey, Popper & Haack's non-justificationist epistemology (re: fallibilism —> falsificationism & foundherentism, respectively).
"Know" does not mean to be absolutely certain. It means to believe with adequate justification. By that standard I know lots of things. The sun will come up tomorrow. I love my children. All living organisms are the genetic descendants of an organism or organisms which lived more than a billion years ago. Cottage cheese is made with milk.
perhaps in this paradox of yours there is freedom of will?
:up: It never struck me that that's a possibility. Non-justificationist epistemology! :chin: What I find intriguing is the definition of knowledge in such a system. The working definition of knowledge has justification as an essential feature, no?
You mentioned Karl Popper's falsifiability theory in relation to science. I'm not all that clear on that score though especially whether Popper's take on what counts as scientific knowledge is justificatory in nature or not. Do you mean to imply that science doesn't involve justification/argument of any kind? Preposterous! In case I've read you wrong, kindly explain yourself. G'day.
:up: No problemo, sir! You've been a big help. Muchas gracias, señor. Que tenga un buen día.
:lol: