Epistemology

[i-am-your-idea]

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.

a reasonable claim is NOT the same as knowledge!

you could be an mad, old man with no teeth, how would you know?

 

[Aldebaran]

this definition explains very well why knowledge is impossible, but it does not fully define what knowledge is

I think, to define knowledge meaningfully, you would have to say what it is that makes it different from belief


I know that p

I believe that p

what is the difference?

Seriously, how come you don't see that?
A belief is a construct of your mind. No more, no less.
How does that fit into my description of what knowledge is?

salaam.

 

[Jonti]

a reasonable claim is NOT the same as knowledge!

you could be an mad, old man with no teeth, how would you know?

Yeah, you're reminding me the kind of things you can find in the writings of Oliver Sachs.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

Seriously, how come you don't see that?
A belief is a construct of your mind. No more, no less.
How does that fit into my description of what knowledge is?

salaam.

you described the qualities of knowledge, but didnt specifically define what it means.

 

[Dillinger4]

I don't think anything anybody could say would bring you out of your skeptical cave.

 

[Aldebaran]

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 ...

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

Jonti, you make the mistake to be prejudiced because you know I believe God exists. (be careful, do not take this for "knowledge" that God exists.)

I approached this issue entirely independent from the question if yes or no I believe God exists.
It has absolutely nothing to do with theology, not even coming close. I'm quite capable of approaching issues independently of my background and/or beliefs. (Surprising as it might seem, I have a functioning brain capable of keeping separeate one and an other.)

salaam.

 

[Dillinger4]

I don't doubt it, myself, Aldebaraan. You are a clever chap, IMO.

 

[bluestreak]

why do philosophers talk about them then?

Philosophers discuss propositions and ideas, testing them to see if they break. You keep repeating one thing time and time again. They're not the same.

 

[max_freakout]

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?

I had a Greek philosphy lecturer who used to say that all of western philosophy was a 'footnote' to Plato and Aristotle

it seems as if modern philosophy looked at Socrates' "i know that i know nothing"

and they interpreted it as a challenge, rather than as a statement of transcendental truth, and from that, 'epistemology' was born

 

[Dillinger4]

I had a Greek philosphy lecturer who used to say that all of western philosophy was a 'footnote' to Plato and Aristotle

it seems as if modern philosophy looked at Socrates' "i know that i know nothing"

and they interpreted it as a challenge, rather than as a statement of transcendental truth, and from that, 'epistemology' was born

But what if Western Philosophy rests on false assumptions max?

I actually deal with this in my Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre thread.

I think epistemology (and the problems associated with it) is itself is a result of these mistaken assumptions.

 

[i-am-your-idea]

I don't think anything anybody could say would bring you out of your skeptical cave.

you are the ones in a cave! let go of your blanket, you really dont need it.

if knowledge was such an important belief then how come i get by without it?

 

[bluestreak]

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?

Hmm, maybe I just had a poor education, no one told me that there were some things that were absolutely true and undiscussable.

 

[max_freakout]

But what if Western Philosophy rests on false assumptions max?

I actually deal with this in my Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre thread.

I think epistemology (and the problems associated with it) is itself is a result of these mistaken assumptions.

right i agree with you on that

this is why the enquiries of Husserl Heidegger and Sartre stand apart from standard philosophy (which is epistemology and metaphyshics)


And im saying that one very important ' false assumption' which modern philosophy may have made, is to understand Socrates/Plato's epistemology as a challenge rather than a fact

 

[Dillinger4]

you are the ones in a cave! let go of your blanket, you really dont need it.

if knowledge was such an important belief then how come i get by without it?

Because you are completely and utterly ignorant.

 

[Jonti]

I'm certainly happy to call it a problem of Pure Philosophy, rather than Theology. I accept that's a more accurate description.

 

[bluestreak]

you are the ones in a cave! let go of your blanket, you really dont need it.

if knowledge was such an important belief then how come i get by without it?

QFTW.

You have no knowledge eh? want to buy these magic beans?

 

[max_freakout]

you are the ones in a cave! let go of your blanket, you really dont need it.

if knowledge was such an important belief then how come i get by without it?

i was thinking that

the sceptic is standing in the light, not the darkness

 

[Jonti]

The skeptic knows the limits of the sayable.

 

[bluestreak]

And im saying that one very important ' false assumption' which modern philosophy may have made, is to understand Socrates/Plato's epistemology as a challenge rather than a fact

Whereas you accept that unquestioningly as a fact without seeking to test whether it is or not and you have the bare-faced cheek to self-identify as a philosopher?

Top banana, carry on, fine fellow.

 

[max_freakout]

You have no knowledge eh? want to buy these magic beans?

do you have knowledge bluestreak? How do you know what knowledge is?


people seem to be running around in circles on this thread, claiming that they accept knowledge is impossible, then saying that it is possible

 

[bluestreak]

The skeptic knows the limits of the sayable.

Clearly in this case the skeptic knows not the limits of the ego.

 

[max_freakout]

The skeptic knows the limits of the sayable.

and can see beyond them into the abyss

 

[max_freakout]

Clearly in this case the skeptic knows not the limits of the ego.

the sceptic has no ego, the sceptic isnt a person

i am not a sceptic, i am arguing from the p.o.v of the sceptic

 

[Jonti]

do you have knowledge bluestreak? How do you know what knowledge is?


people seem to be running around in circles on this thread, claiming that they accept knowledge is impossible, then saying that it is possible

Ah, no.

I accept I may be mistaken about almost anything; and point out that "knowledge is impossible" is unsayable.

 

[Jonti]

and can see beyond them into the abyss

Quite.

 

[Aldebaran]

you described the qualities of knowledge, but didnt specifically define what it means.

No, I said what should be understood and thought about when using that word. That is not describing qualities, it is defining the meaning behind a word.

salaam.

 

[bluestreak]

do you have knowledge bluestreak? How do you know what knowledge is?


people seem to be running around in circles on this thread, claiming that they accept knowledge is impossible, then saying that it is possible

Are we beginning to get somewhere? I think we may be.

I have some knowledge. Is it true knowledge? I do not know. How do I find out? I ask myself questions. Is this a flawed process? it may be. Does it present a paradox? It does. Accepting that knowledge is impossible require making a statement that is itself reliant on knowledge. Knowledge therefore may or may not be possible. Not IS, not ISN'T. So perhaps we're looking in the wrong way, asking the wrong questions. So where do we ask, how do we look?

After that we're on our own really.

 

[Aldebaran]

Ah, no.

I accept I may be mistaken about almost anything; and point out that "knowledge is impossible" is unsayable.

Don't you see that you underscore my definition by this.
Describes that it is what you call "unsayable" and explains why.

salaam.

 

[max_freakout]

"knowledge is impossible" is unsayable.

this is something i was trying to say at the start of the thread


that i am not making the claim that knowledge is impossible, because it would be (of course) impossible for me to 'make' such a claim


But it is, nevertheless, TRUE, that knowledge is impossible


maybe this is why Plato wrote his philosophy through a third character, Socrates

 

[max_freakout]

Are we beginning to get somewhere? I think we may be.

I have some knowledge. Is it true knowledge? I do not know. How do I find out? I ask myself questions. Is this a flawed process? it may be. Does it present a paradox? It does. Accepting that knowledge is impossible require making a statement that is itself reliant on knowledge. Knowledge therefore may or may not be possible. Not IS, not ISN'T. So perhaps we're looking in the wrong way, asking the wrong questions. So where do we ask, how do we look?

After that we're on our own really.

the overall point is, you cannot possibly know


you cant know what knowledge is
AND
you cant know if you possess any knowledge