Epistemology

[bluestreak]

but you can intuit something and it isnt necessarily correct. knowledge implies being correct.

I suspect that the term "knowledge" includes things you think you know. Intuition would definitely come under that.

 

[Santino]

No it isn't. Knowledge is an eternal absolute, a beginning and endmark, unchangeable.

Is it fuck.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

I suspect that the term "knowledge" includes things you think you know. Intuition would definitely come under that.

okay, im talking about knowledge as in 'the things you know'

of course you can *think* you know something. im not arguing against that. people think all sorts of things.

 

[Dillinger4]

Almost every single problem posed on this thread disappears once you reject the flawed assumptions upon which they rest. As Heidegger and Sartre did.

*goes back to lurking*

 

[bluestreak]

I might go through this thread a make a list of all the things people suggest knowledge may (or may not be). The vast range of ideas has, if nothing else, given me a practical display of why empiricism is a major branch of philosophy.

Still an ethicist, mind

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm looking forward to your assessment of Where Descartes Went Wrong -- no hurry of course. This is the philosophy forum

mmm... luring me back to Dyslex torture? You really want me to write on that? Well, maybe in a month or so. And in a thread made for it
I'm sure he went wrong somewhere, don't we all, in the eyes of others?

salaam.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

I might go through this thread a make a list of all the things people suggest knowledge may (or may not be). The vast range of ideas has, if nothing else, given me a practical display of why empiricism is a major branch of philosophy.

Still an ethicist, mind

a) thinking you know things : not impossible

b) knowing you know things : impossible

i think its b we are talking about. sometimes people get sulky because they dont like the idea of b, so they start talking about a to change the subject!

 

[Dillinger4]

I'm looking forward to your assessment of Where Descartes Went Wrong -- no hurry of course. This is the philosophy forum

I am just quoting this, because I am going to come back later on this evening and try and give some answers.

 

[Aldebaran]

Almost every single problem posed on this thread disappears once you reject the flawed assumptions upon which they rest. As Heidegger and Sartre did.

I'm still waiting to have my conclusion(s) proven wrong. Please don't hesitate to explain

salaam.

 

[Jonti]

... I mean people who are really convinced they and they alone have knowledge (of what is the truth, for example)...

This puts me in mind of the Modern Radicals; and the other many weird Cults or "mind-control rackets" that exist all over the world. I know one cult that actually calls its teachings (which are a mish-mash of very badly taught Kriya and Bhakti Yoga, some Hinduism, and loads of Messianism) "Knowledge".

In any kind of discussion those guys tend to explain you just "don't get it". Well, how could you ... you don't have Knowledge so of course you don't understand ...

 

[Dillinger4]

I'm still waiting to have my conclusion(s) proven wrong. Please don't hesitate to explain

salaam.

I will give it a go, but this evening. I am supposed to be working today.

 

[Aldebaran]

I am just quoting this, because I am going to come back later on this evening and try and give some answers.

If you are going to discuss that can you make a thread for it? Easier to jump in it when I'm done with the Dyslex torture reading.

salaam.

 

[bluestreak]

a) thinking you know things : not impossible

b) knowing you know things : impossible

i think its b we are talking about. sometimes people get sulky because they dont like the idea of b, so they start talking about a to change the subject!

Well, I think that epistemology covers both, being as it is the study of knowledge. Isn't it?

You were the one who started on intuition though...

 

[Jonti]

I think it's worth a thread too; but no reason not to post here as well if it's relevant

*Goes to find copy of Descartes' Meditations

 

[max_freakout]

a) thinking you know things : not impossible

b) knowing you know things : impossible

i think its b we are talking about. sometimes people get sulky because they dont like the idea of b, so they start talking about a to change the subject!

spot on


i'm interested in the implications of (b)

(a) is just boringly trivial, i have said it many times in this thread, you can believe anything

but you cant know anything

 

[Jonti]

Here we go again ...

I know I can't say "I know nothing". But I'm not sure what that logical restriction means. Perhaps Wittgenstein could help

 

[max_freakout]

Descartes said the only certain thing is that I exist


this is wrong, and in fact the opposite is true

The only certain thing is that knowledge is impossible

yet in order for this to be true, it follows logically that I dont exist!


i cannot possibly exist, because know;edge is impossible

so Descartes should perhaps have said:

"I think, therefore I am not"

 

[i-am-your-idea]

Well, I think that epistemology covers both, being as it is the study of knowledge. Isn't it?

You were the one who started on intuition though...

im not arguing that espistemology doesnt exist. of course people *think* they know things. they make studies of why they *think* they know things.

im just saying that nobody really knows.

 

[max_freakout]

Here we go again ...

I know I can't say "I know nothing". But I'm not sure what that logical restriction means. Perhaps Wittgenstein could help

would someone who is familiar with Wittgenstein please tell me what light he shone on this problem?

he was not in any way an epistemologer ,none of his words appear in the epistemology books mentioned at the start of this thread, his are was logic, and this problem is explicitly a problem of epistemology, so i suspect he will not help us

I am saying, that the question "why is there an epistemology section at the library?" is something of a mystery, because we have no need for epistemology, as knowledge is obviously impossible

 

[bluestreak]

An interesting critique of the Cartesian fundamental.

See, I agree with Rene that the only single piece of knowledge that i know for a fact is that there is an 'I', which I am aware of because the 'I' thinks. What that 'I' may be and the accuracy of the thoughts are another matter.

 

[Dillinger4]

You have such a basic grasp of philosophical thought. You barely even understand the cogito and its implications.

 

[butchersapron]

Descartes said the only certain thing is that I exist


this is wrong, and in fact the opposite is true

The only certain thing is that knowledge is impossible

yet in order for this to be true, it follows logically that I dont exist!


i cannot possibly exist, because know;edge is impossible

so Descartes should perhaps have said:

"I think, therefore I am not"

Don't think you've quite grapsed the cartesian method there my old chum. As i've demonstrated to you before.

 

[Dillinger4]

An interesting critique of the Cartesian fundamental.

See, I agree with Rene that the only single piece of knowledge that i know for a fact is that there is an 'I', which I am aware of because the 'I' thinks. What that 'I' may be and the accuracy of the thoughts are another matter.

The problem with Descartes is that the cogito just creates a whole other lot of problems.

Like we know our own minds exist through doubt, but what about the outside world? What about other minds, in a subject/subject relation? How can a mind reflect on itself without changing itself? All the problems on this thread, especially max's claim that knowledge is impossible ETC are based on this false assumption.

Argh!

I really should be doing other stuff.

 

[bluestreak]

I am saying, that the question "why is there an epistemology section at the library" is something of a mystery, because we have no need for epistemology, as knowledge is obviously impossible

Except that isn't the case, because for most people, knowledge is a clear and obvious everyday occurance, it's only philosophers who examine the unexamined innit. Also, the very statement "knowledge is obviously impossible" is surely an empistemological statement, covering as it does, a philosophical viewpoint on knowledge.

 

[Dillinger4]

Don't think you've quite grapsed the cartesian method there my old chum. As i've demonstrated to you before.

He seems to miss ALL the nuances of the philosophy he is talking about, and just uses it to show why he believes he is right about whatever he is saying.

 

[bluestreak]

The problem with Descartes is that the cogito just creates a whole other lot of problems.

Like we know our own minds exist through doubt, but what about the outside world? What about other minds, in a subject/subject relation? How can a mind reflect on itself without changing itself? All the problems on this thread, especially max's claim that knowledge is impossible ETC are based on this false assumption.

Well, yes, quite. However, as I see it, cogito ergo sum doesn't account for anything else, it's simply a reduction to the minimal amount of knowedge possible. It's not my field especially though, so I may be missing some vital point.

 

[max_freakout]

Serious question Max: do you distinguish between the non-knowledge belief I have that I live in Flat no.5, and the non-knowledge belief that the Holocaust didn't happen?

for the strict purposes of this argument there is no difference, neither of these examples are 'knowledge', because there is no such thing as knowledge

And, to go back to the earlier argument: I only believe knowledge is possible when it is the particular *knowledge I have previously defined (i.e. is not certain)

*knowledge isnt 'knowledge'

why not just call *knowledge 'belief'? Because that is what it is, and you can believe anything

The knowledge that you are railing against is not some pre-existing phenemonon that we are trying to determine the nature of, it is entirely a human construct.

I am not railing against anything, im am stating a plainly obvious truth, humans couldnt possibly have constructed a concept of knoweldge!

You haven't discovered something about the world, you have just analysed a word in such a way as to make it an empty concept. With a more nuanced and, in my case, contingent definition we can come up with a rich and useful description of *knowledge, a part of which can be a discussion about how we should form beliefs about religion, politics, social science, New Age beliefs, jurisprudence and so on. Are you really arguing that we shouldn't distinguish between good and bad justification for belief?

what i am saying has nothing to do with *knowledge

this point is about knowledge, there is no type of knowledge which isnt certain

 

[max_freakout]

He seems to miss ALL the nuances of the philosophy he is talking about, and just uses it to show why he believes he is right about whatever he is saying.

read the thread again, 'believing to be right' = knowing

and i am saying knowledge is impossible

and you are saying i believe myself to be right


how could i possibly know? I is you, not i, who is claiming knowledge

 

[max_freakout]

Except that isn't the case, because for most people, knowledge is a clear and obvious everyday occurance, it's only philosophers who examine the unexamined innit. Also, the very statement "knowledge is obviously impossible" is surely an empistemological statement, covering as it does, a philosophical viewpoint on knowledge.

you are going back to the start of the argument

Are you claiming that knowledge is possible?

 

[Dillinger4]

*Sigh*

You saying something enough doesn't make it true, or correct, or right, or whatever it is you want it to be.

All I am seeing is a massive lack or argument and a huge use of circular arguments. Knowledge seems almost definitely impossible for you, tbh. It really shows.