Epistemology

[bluestreak]

Another solution would be simply to point her students at the thread ...

I'll send a copy of the final result when it calms down and if she really is interested in using it as materials we'll worry about it then.

 

[max_freakout]

I wish I knew for sure that I didn't know anything.

it's relatively unimportant that you don't know anything

what's more interesting is that you couldn't know anything, not even whether or not you couldn't know anything. How could you?

 

[Jonti]

i think "i know that i know nothing"


is in fact 'I' trying to insist that it exists, when in fact it doesnt.......

of course you do!


"I think, therefore I am"


there is *obviously* no way out of this tangle

the fact that the concept of knowledge exists, opens up a black-hole in language, which you get sucked into if you look directly at it

You've lost me here.

Are you saying "Cogito ergo sum" (so knowledge of the world is impossible 'cos we've started by assuming a sort of disembodied consciousness)?

Or are you saying "I, in fact, doesn't exist" (so knowledge of the world is impossible 'cos there's no-one to know stuff)?

 

[Jonti]

I'll send a copy of the final result when it calms down and if she really is interested in using it as materials we'll worry about it then.

Sounds good. I might actually get to learn something from this tiresome thread.

 

[max_freakout]

The "of" is what people imagine to be knowledge, which in fact is only a self- suggestion, hence doesn't exist outside the mind of the individual.

people couldnt imagine knowledge to be anything

 

[max_freakout]

Sounds good. I might actually get to learn something from this tiresome thread.

i hope by now you understand epistemological sceptisism

 

[Jonti]

Of course I understand it.

Radical doubt is marvellously effective in sending philosophy students completely barmy.

 

[bluestreak]

what's more interesting is that you couldn't know anything, not even whether or not you couldn't know anything. How could you?

Are you sure?

 

[Jonti]

Heh!

I'm outahere. Enjoy yourselves, folks!

 

[max_freakout]

Are you saying "Cogito ergo sum" (so knowledge of the world is impossible 'cos we've started by assuming a sort of disembodied consciousness)?

im suggesting 'I think therefore i am' is equivalent to 'i think that i know, therefore i am'

or something like that, the justification for the existence of epistemology (why do we need it in the library?), is the belief in the mirage of consciousness

Or are you saying "I, in fact, doesn't exist" (so knowledge of the world is impossible 'cos there's no-one to know stuff)?

knowledge is impossible, therefore there is no knower, the 'I' in the sentence 'i know that p' doesnt exist

 

[max_freakout]

Are you sure?

no of course not, how could i possibly be sure? How could you be sure?

 

[max_freakout]

Radical doubt is marvellously effective in sending philosophy students completely barmy.

i went barmy thinking about this yesterday

 

[bluestreak]

no of course not, how could i possibly be sure? How could you be sure?

Oooh, I feel all enlightened now.

 

[Aldebaran]

people couldnt imagine knowledge to be anything

You use language to make an argument while ignoring that it is only a matter of language.
A word used has nothing to do with the core of what we talk about.
People don't need the word "knowledge" to imagine possessment of what it is supposed to mean to those who do use it . Even people who don't know the word "knowledge" will live under the delusion of having what is understood by using it.

salaam

 

[Aldebaran]

im suggesting 'I think therefore i am' is equivalent to 'i think that i know, therefore i am'

Only... It isn't the equivalent.


salaam.

 

[max_freakout]

You use language to make an argument while ignoring that it is only a matter of language.

every philosophical argument is 'only a matter of language'

 

[max_freakout]

Only... It isn't the equivalent.

i think it is, knowledge is the justification for being


or maybe, the justification for being a philosopher/epistemologer

 

[Aldebaran]

Not so. You can have arguments with yourself. I wouoldn't classify thoughts under "language".

salaam

 

[bluestreak]

Alright, so we all admit that you can't know anything for sure. Which means that even that knowledge is uncertain... but anyway... the way I live is working on balance of probability. How do you guys survive in a world where no knowledge can be truly known?

 

[max_freakout]

Not so. You can have arguments with yourself. I wouoldn't classify thoughts under "language".

salaam

but this isnt just any type of thinking

it is specifically discursive thinking, which is language

 

[max_freakout]

Alright, so we all admit that you can't know anything for sure.

i disagree, nobody 'admits' this, because it is logically impossible to admit this! How could you be sure?

 

[max_freakout]

Even people who don't know the word "knowledge" will live under the delusion of having what is understood by using it.

No they wont, because nothing whatsoever is understood by using this word

it is completely impossible, it cannot exist

 

[bluestreak]

i disagree, nobody 'admits' this, because it is logically impossible to admit this! How could you be sure?

But you said... lots of times... but..

 

[max_freakout]

But you said... lots of times... but..

forget about what 'i say', what do you say?


there is no way out of this black-hole except willfull ignorance


do not look directly at it, or you will be annihilated

 

[Santino]

I've already admitted that I don't have 100% certainty about anything, but I do have very firm beliefs based on good reason, and where these beliefs are correct/true, then I have knowledge. And no amount of anyone saying 'But you don't KNOW that those beliefs are true' or that 'You don't know that you know these things' changes that.

 

[bluestreak]

Me, I say that it's a funny old thing, is life, and no mistake. The more I learn, the less I really know. Now, mine's a pint of the export.

 

[Aldebaran]

i think it is, knowledge is the justification for being
or maybe, the justification for being a philosopher

Not at all.

Sum res cogitans.
I am a thinking thing (being) .

Je pense ---> donc je suis (cogito ---> ergo sum. I think ---> hence I am).

Ego sum ---> ergo existo ---> certum est. Quandiu autem? ---> Nempe quandiu cogito.
I am ---> (hence) I exist ---> this is certain. (But) How often? ---> As often as I think.


There is no "knowledge" needed for being a thinking thing... You "are" as often as you think you are.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

Alright, so we all admit that you can't know anything for sure. Which means that even that knowledge is uncertain... but anyway... the way I live is working on balance of probability. How do you guys survive in a world where no knowledge can be truly known?

Why not? It is a very exiting existance. Never boring

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

No they wont, because nothing whatsoever is understood by using this word

it is completely impossible, it cannot exist

You just used it, which made it existing for the time you used it, even if only existing in the abstract. Do you argue the abstract is non-existant?

salaam.

 

[max_freakout]

You just used it,

'I' couldnt possibly have 'used' it, how could I?