Epistemology

[max_freakout]

*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.

Forget about 'you', stop wasting you posts filling them up with aggressive crap about 'you'

what about you? Do you think knowledge is possible? how is it possible?

 

[Dillinger4]

Yes, I think I do. But not in the straw man definition you have put up.

I will cover it in my thread later on about Descartes, Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre.

 

[max_freakout]

Yes, I think I do. But not in the straw man definition you have put up.

I HAVENT PUT UP ANY DEFINITION!!!!

please tell me which definition you understand

what is knowledge?

you 'think' you do? what do you mean by that? that you might not?

there is no definition because knowledge is impossible, there is no such thing

 

[jonH]

what the fucks a definition

 

[Dillinger4]

Like I have said, Philosophy as we generally know it rests on some pretty shaky foundations, and within the house built upon it, knowledge is not possible, no.

But that is not to say it is impossible. I don't think, anyway.

 

[max_freakout]

what the fucks a definition

a definition of knowledge isn't anything

 

[Dillinger4]

Right, I am off out now. laterz

 

[max_freakout]

Like I have said, Philosophy as we generally know it rests on some pretty shaky foundations, and within the house built upon it, knowledge is not possible, no.

But that is not to say it is impossible. I don't think, anyway.

So to summarize your position:

"knowledge is not possible"

AND

"I don't think knowledge is not impossible"




this highlights the problem with having a position.....

 

[jonH]

The more I know the more I know I don't know

Life is for Love, Time that we may do DMT (know God)

 

[i-am-your-idea]

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

this is true of any statement.

therefore knowledge is impossible.

 

[Jonti]

max doesn't have a definition for "knowledge". 'Cos, you see it's impossible!

I think he means it's logically impossible (whatever it is). As a fully paid up member of the even-more-awkward squad, I think I'm inclining towards the view that it's an empirical question anyway.

We may turn out to have the kind of direct connection with the stuff of the world that "knowledge" demands; or we may not. It all depends on the way the world actually is.

But it is logically contradictory to say "knowledge is impossible" (being as that phrase purports to refer to a fact about us and our relationship with the world). And Wittgenstein was a logician. So although it may turn out to be an empirical question, a little read of a few of his aphorisms may help.

Then again, it may not. I was just kind of hoping that "Whereof we cannot speak*, thereof we must be silent" would appeal to max_freakout

* 'cos it's impossible!!

 

[bluestreak]

you are going back to the start of the argument

Are you claiming that knowledge is possible?

No, but claims that knowledge isn't possible ARE STILL EPISTEMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS.

Besides which, I would claim that some knowledge is possible: the knowledge of my own self-awareness. I don't know for sure the nature of that self-awareness, but I am self-aware.

 

[jonH]

I am self-aware.

almost

 

[max_freakout]

I think he means it's logically impossible (whatever it is).

It isnt anything! How could it be?

 

[bluestreak]

almost

 

[bluestreak]

It isnt anything! How could it be?

Oh dear.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

has anyone actually given an arguement why knowledge is possible yet??

 

[bluestreak]

I just don't know anymore

 

[articul8]

has anyone actually given an arguement why knowledge is possible yet??

Asking why knowledge is possible is like asking why pain hurts - knowledge in the de-absolutised sense is simply a condition of our being in the world. It would be entirely impossible to function as a human being if we didn't operate with certain rudimentary forms of knowledge. We "know" that the way to alieviate thirst is by taking a drink. We "know" that searing pain suggests something not is not quite right!

It's a classic fallacy to argue that because it is impossible to have some archimidean viewpoint of absolute knowledge, that all knowledge is therefore impossible.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

It would be entirely impossible to function as a human being if we didn't operate with certain rudimentary forms of knowledge. We "know" that the way to alieviate thirst is by taking a drink. We "know" that searing pain suggests something not is not quite right!

this is feel-edge!

 

[articul8]

Aha - classic mistake of narrow Cartesian englightenment understanding of reason to try to sever it from affectivity.

No knowledge without the body!

 

[i-am-your-idea]

Asking why knowledge is possible is like asking why pain hurts - knowledge in the de-absolutised sense is simply a condition of our being in the world.

It's a classic fallacy to argue that because it is impossible to have some archimidean viewpoint of absolute knowledge, that all knowledge is therefore impossible.

Extreme pain, thirst and emotion are just feelings and beliefs.
do you think animals have knowledge?

are you saying that we can 'know' things in an *unknowing* sort of a way, but we cant really know anything?

 

[bluestreak]

A Challenger Appears :d

 

[i-am-your-idea]

if absolute knowledge is impossible then it is also impossible to have any certain knowledge.

if you have something that you think you know, where is its foundation? what is this ''knowledge'' standing on?

 

[i-am-your-idea]

Aha - classic mistake of narrow Cartesian englightenment understanding of reason to try to sever it from affectivity.

No knowledge without the body!

i didnt say that. i just said pain and emotion are feelings.

 

[bluestreak]

So clearly what is needed here is a definition of knowledge.

 

[bodach]

So clearly what is needed here is a definition of knowledge.

I've been away from this thread for a few days now, and this is where you lot are.

 

[articul8]

do you think animals have knowledge?

In rudimentary forms I guess, yes. But certain human concepts are grounded in common experiences bound by our condition as a species, so it certainly doesn't follow that human knowledge and animal "knowledge" are qualititatively similar. As Wittengenstein said, if a Lion could speak we couldn't understand what he was saying!

are you saying that we can 'know' things in an *unknowing* sort of a way, but we cant really know anything?

I don't think there is a difference between "knowing" and "really knowing". To "know" something is just to find a particular description of something to be compelling given the available information. "Knowledge" holds in a particular place and particular time - that doesn't mean that it is infallable or unconditionally true for all places and times.

 

[bluestreak]

I've been away from this thread for a few days now, and this is where you lot are.

There are no winners on the internets, bodach, only lots of varieties of loser.

 

[bodach]

There are no winners on the internets, bodach, only lots of varieties of loser.

But what's a winner, and what's a loser. Why can't there be varieties of winners?