i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
nobody really knows of this creature. if the creature is called Knowledge, then nobody knows knowledge.
knowledge is impossible to know.
knowledge is impossible to know.
Epistemology
- Thread starter bodach
- Start date
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Why not?
max_freakout
Nothing matters
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
There are so many nuances missed out in this debate.
What about the distinction between knowledge of truths and things, discussed by Bertrand Russell?
What about the distinction between knowledge of truths (called 'knowing that' in this case eg knowing Paris is the capital of France) and our knowledge of skills (called 'knowing how' in this case eg the ability to speak French). This one was by Gilbert Ryle
What about a discussion about the aquisition of knowledge? Locke, Berkelely and Hume all discussed this, as did Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza, the disctinction between them being the former are empiricists and the former are rationalists. What about a discussion about this?
What about a discussion about Realism or Idealism?
What about a discussion about Memory and Perception?
If we are going to talk about skepticism, why not talk about pyrrho, or carneades or Aenesidemus or Sextus Empiricus, and the discussion of Dogmatism?
Why not discuss more recent skeptics, Gassendi, Foucher, Huet, Glanville, Bayle?
Why not? Do their ideas count for nothing? Do the nuances not matter? All we have had on this thread is an idea repeated over and over and over and over again, without any real discussion of its nuances, or anything. Just repeated over and over again, because those arguing for it do not actually understand with any depth what they are actually saying.
What about the distinction between knowledge of truths and things, discussed by Bertrand Russell?
What about the distinction between knowledge of truths (called 'knowing that' in this case eg knowing Paris is the capital of France) and our knowledge of skills (called 'knowing how' in this case eg the ability to speak French). This one was by Gilbert Ryle
What about a discussion about the aquisition of knowledge? Locke, Berkelely and Hume all discussed this, as did Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza, the disctinction between them being the former are empiricists and the former are rationalists. What about a discussion about this?
What about a discussion about Realism or Idealism?
What about a discussion about Memory and Perception?
If we are going to talk about skepticism, why not talk about pyrrho, or carneades or Aenesidemus or Sextus Empiricus, and the discussion of Dogmatism?
Why not discuss more recent skeptics, Gassendi, Foucher, Huet, Glanville, Bayle?
Why not? Do their ideas count for nothing? Do the nuances not matter? All we have had on this thread is an idea repeated over and over and over and over again, without any real discussion of its nuances, or anything. Just repeated over and over again, because those arguing for it do not actually understand with any depth what they are actually saying.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
*fully expects what will be posted next*
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Because it's impossible
how could you?
How could I not. I have knowldge of my experiences and interactions. I know about maths, reading, history, pretty pictures, comic books, the humpty dance, and raising whippets. I am self-aware. I can interact in a variety of ways with people. I feel pain, empathy, anger. I respond to stimulus. I can critically analyse stuff and make decisions as to what I think the right answer is, or could be. I have performed passably well in most tests of intellect I've ever taken, though not well enough to suggest that factors other than my own laziness-smartness-drunkeness axis were in play.
That's all knowledge. How can that be impossible?
max_freakout
Nothing matters
Because they have no impact at all on the subject of this debate
this debate is about propositional knowledge, the type of knowledge that is the concern of epistemology, of the form:
x knows that p
and what makes this different from:
x believes/thinks he knows that p
it is impossible to accquire, something that is impossible to acquire, this only confuses the issue
that distinction is irrelevant to this debate
None of this matters in the slightest
people on this thread have already agreed with the one point i was making, that knowledge is impossible, and none of those who didnt have been able to provide a definition of knowledge which actually was possible
so my point is as 'proven' as it could possibly be
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Dillinger, I'm afraid that my knowledge doesn't take in any of that stuff. You'll have to bat some ideas out here and let us bounce them around. Lead the seminar, if you like.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Anyway, max, my point is, if you read between the lines of what Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre are actually arguing for is knowledge, but not on a dualist/monist conception of reality, but one that has its basis in the world of perceptual experiance.
For example, Merleau-Ponty, in the Phenomenology of Perception, offers an analysis of perception, action, the self, and their interplay in human experiance and reflection.
Merleau-Ponty concentrates on the body, and gives a description of the Lebenswelt (life world) which originates in Husserl, and discusses the role of the boy in the construction of a spatio-temporal world.
How about we discuss that?
If you accept existentialism, or anything like it, you accept that we exist IN knowledge.
For example, Merleau-Ponty, in the Phenomenology of Perception, offers an analysis of perception, action, the self, and their interplay in human experiance and reflection.
Merleau-Ponty concentrates on the body, and gives a description of the Lebenswelt (life world) which originates in Husserl, and discusses the role of the boy in the construction of a spatio-temporal world.
How about we discuss that?
If you accept existentialism, or anything like it, you accept that we exist IN knowledge.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Oh, I see your tactic max. If you dont want to discuss it you dismiss it as irrelavent. Very clever.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
tell me what is the difference between these 2 statements, and you will have solved the conundrum of epistemology:
Bluestreak knows that he exists
Bluestreak believes that he knows that he exists
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
For example, Realism and Idealism could be entirely relevant to this debate, as they are discussions of how one may ACQUIRE knowledge in the first place, if this were at all possible.
But no, max decrees this as irrelevant, because it does not fit in with the bleating of NOTHING XSIZTS LOL
But no, max decrees this as irrelevant, because it does not fit in with the bleating of NOTHING XSIZTS LOL
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
You cant prove a negative. This discussion is just like a 9/11 thread.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
Oh, I see your tactic max. If you dont want to discuss it you dismiss it as irrelavent. Very clever.
My tactic is to keep this thread on topic
if you want to discuss a different topic, why dont you start another thread about it?
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Its all relevant, you just cant bring yourself to discuss anything other than your repetitive bleating.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
Philosophy is broader than just epistemology, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject being discussed in this thread
rather than saying 'could be relevant', why dont you say HOW any of these unrelated subjects affect the fact that knowledge is impossible, which most people on this thread have already (at least temporarily), vaguely, conceded anyway?
max_freakout
Nothing matters
you havent yet said HOW it's relevant, to the fact that knowledge is impossible
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Because you would have a better understanding of your own position, and would not have to incessantly repeat the same sentence over and over again. It is doing my fucking nut in to talk about philosophy with no justifications.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I am just fucking irritated by the repetition.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
I mean, you clearly dont see how one field of philosophy can possibly affect another. Its not all separate.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
You barely even show an understand of the arguments of almost every single philosopher mentioned.
All you know is your own ego.
All you know is your own ego.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
you can't disprove a negative either
that's because (or perhaps why) knowledge is impossible
There is a book called On Certainty by Wittgenstein, containing his thoughts on the relationships between belief, knowledge and certaintly. You will find it in the bookshop next to the other books by Wittgenstein, not in the epistemology section. You can find other references to epistemology in, well, pretty much all his work.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
you havent said how disparate philosophical issues affect the core issue of epistemology
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Somebody is going to have to move it into the epistemology section before max can decree it as relevant, I am afraid.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
One is an accurate position. the other is an inaccurate position.
Which is which is down to the indivual to choose.
You're telling me the second is an accurate position. You might be right, but I want you to tell me why. Telling me that knowledge is impossible is fine, but that's just another layer of the onion, it only begs more questions. Why is knowledge impossible, why can't we know? I can think of a few answers to that question. So the next question is 'how do we test those answers?' or 'why to those answers?', and so on and so on until we have tested everything until breaking point. Repeat as scientific and philosophic techniques move on. Keep peeling back the layers, splitting the atom.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Why should I spoon feed you?
max_freakout
Nothing matters
but wittgenstein did not solve the conundrum of epistemology, and did not have any effect on the drive of epistemologers to try and solve it, in other words, his work has not persuaded epistemologers to give up on their attempt to find a solution, and his work is certainly known to epistemologers
