Epistemology

[articul8]

More mystical bollocks

Knowledge is perfectly possible. As i said, I know that these hard white things in my mouth that are fixed to my gums are my teeth.

It isn't just that I believe it to be the case - there is not currently a plausible context in which to doubt it. OK, if there was some secret dentist secretely swapping people's teeth, then the question "do I know that thes teeth are mine?" might have a sense.

But until such a context arises, then it is perfectly reasonable to claim that it is something I know.

 

[Santino]

No, because it's impossible to give such an argument, until you know what 'knowledge' is, which you never will because knowledge cannot exist

We don't LEARN or DISCOVER what knowledge is, because it's not something out there to be discovered. We are merely exploring how people form beliefs and how people understand the idea of knowledge. There is not some magical special thing called knowledge, just minds and beliefs.

 

[max_freakout]

I know that these hard white things in my mouth that are fixed to my gums are my teeth.

you believe that you know this


you dont know that you know this, because knowledge is impossible

 

[max_freakout]

We don't LEARN or DISCOVER what knowledge is, because it's not something out there to be discovered. We are merely exploring how people form beliefs and how people understand the idea of knowledge. There is not some magical special thing called knowledge, just minds and beliefs.

i totally agree, knowledge doesnt exist

 

[Jonti]

Resistance is useless!

 

[bluestreak]

you dont know that you know this, because knowledge is impossible

Which you are going to actually prove now, I hope.

 

[max_freakout]

Which you are going to actually prove now, I hope.

there is nothing to prove

because knowledge is impossible, how could i prove it?

 

[Santino]

i totally agree, knowledge doesnt exist

It does exist, as I have defined it. Well-grounded true belief. If there are well-grounded true beliefs, then there is knowledge, WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE CERTAIN THAT THESE BELIEFS ARE TRUE.



Ooh, deja vu.

 

[bluestreak]

there is nothing to prove

because knowledge is impossible, how could i prove it?

Good point. Repeating something makes it true. I'd forgotten that from infants school.

 

[Jonti]

He doesn't need to prove anything. It's both his starting point and his conclusion. He's looking at an "obvious" truth; a self-evident, self-transcendent paradox.

It's a theological issue more than philosophical. Alde's resolution ...

"There is no truth possible without knowledge, let alone an "obvious" truth."

Wittgenstein would just tell him to shut up. Not that he's wrong as such, but because some things are unsayable.

 

[Dillinger4]

*waits for more bleating*

 

[max_freakout]

Wittgenstein would just tell him to shut up. Not that he's wrong as such, but because some things are unsayable.

wittgenstein didnt write much about epistemology, this is a problem of epistemology

 

[Dillinger4]

wittgenstein didnt write much about epistemology, this is a problem of epistemology

What Wittgenstein said affects much of Philosophy. Or are you missing nuances on things you have not read again?

 

[max_freakout]

He doesn't need to prove anything. It's both his starting point and his conclusion. He's looking at an "obvious" truth; a self-evident, self-transcendent paradox.

exactly

It's a theological issue more than philosophical.

i disagree, this is *the* problem of epistemology

 

[bluestreak]

The trouble with self-evident truths is that they have no place in philosophy. They are anti-philosophic in the extreme. As you say, theological.

 

[Dillinger4]

Max considers himself a kind of 'Anti-Philosopher' though. The stuff he talks about has much more to do with sprituality, mysticism and theology, really.

 

[max_freakout]

What Wittgenstein said affects much of Philosophy. Or are you missing nuances on things you have not read again?

his books do not appear in the 'epistemology' section of the library

and this thread is about epistemology

will you actually explain what wittgenstein said that was relevat to this? Instead of repeatedly telling me i dont know it

 

[max_freakout]

Max considers himself a kind of 'Anti-Philosopher' though. The stuff he talks about has much more to do with sprituality, mysticism and theology, really.

i dont consider myself to be anything

except a philosopher

 

[max_freakout]

The trouble with self-evident truths is that they have no place in philosophy. They are anti-philosophic in the extreme. As you say, theological.

why do philosophers talk about them then?

descartes founded his entire philosophy on one, why is he not considered anti-philosopic?

 

[fractionMan]

er...

no wait. I can't be bothered.

 

[max_freakout]

It does exist, as I have defined it. Well-grounded true belief. If there are well-grounded true beliefs, then there is knowledge, WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE CERTAIN THAT THESE BELIEFS ARE TRUE.

this is barefaced denial of an obvious truth

that knowledge is not the same thing as belief

knowledge is entirely different from belief, but how? What makes it different?

 

[Dillinger4]

I think you might be interested in Pyrrhonian skepticism Max

Whereas 'academic' skepticism, with as its most famous adherent Carneades, claims that "Nothing can be known, not even this", Pyrrhonian skeptics withhold any assent with regard to non-evident propositions and remain in a state of perpetual inquiry. According to them, even the statement that nothing can be known is dogmatic.

As for Wittgenstein, you do know I am supposed to be writing my dissertation here? I already typed out a massive thing about Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre that I have not finished, and you have not replied to.

 

[fractionMan]

I've already pointed max to Pyrrho and I doubt he bothered to look it up then either.

 

[max_freakout]

I think you might be interested in Pyrrhonian skepticism Max

i am, but it isnt really what im getting at on this thread

 

[max_freakout]

I've already pointed max to Pyrrhonia and I doubt he bothered to look it up then either.

ive studied it in great detail, and no you never pointed me to it

 

[Dillinger4]

I've already pointed max to Pyrrhonia and I doubt he bothered to look it up then either.

Shame.

 

[fractionMan]

Actually, it was i-am-your-idea, not max. Easy to mix em up.

 

[Dillinger4]

i am, but it isnt really what im getting at on this thread

Really? It looks like it is exactly what you are getting at.

I don't think there is any way out of that cave once you put yourself inside it.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

The trouble with self-evident truths is that they have no place in philosophy. They are anti-philosophic in the extreme. As you say, theological.

i really thought this was something very basic in philosophy. something they teach even at a level. maybe you've just got too lofty in your study that you've forgotten the basics?

 

[Jonti]

LOL at max saying "If it's not been written yet, it ain't epistemology."

You are using language; Wittgenstein had some very interesting things to say about language. It's almost math really, and just as in maths, some grammatically correct expressions that seem to make sense lead one immediately into contradiction. One simply use cannot use the language symbols to express whatever it was that seemed to makes sense.

That's not to say there is no problem; just that it's one that needs to be pointed at, rather than directly expressed; that its resolution is considerably more nuanced than you allow.