max_freakout
Nothing matters
'i think i am' is exactly the same as 'i think i know that i am'
the 'being', in this context, is precisely 'being certain'
Epistemology
- Thread starter bodach
- Start date
'i think i am' is exactly the same as 'i think i know that i am'
the 'being', in this context, is precisely 'being certain'
max_freakout
Nothing matters
because this is impossible, and this is knowledge
what do you mean 'where'?
This is 'nowhere'? How can you be sure it isnt nowhere? You can't
nothing is stopping you from believing, as i said much earlier in the thread, you can believe anything
but basic logic is stopping you from knowing
the fact that 'you cant know if you know'
-->implies that 'you can't know'
-->knowledge is impossible, it can't exist *even as a concept*
max_freakout
Nothing matters
Absolutely, David Lewis expressed this in his paper 'elusive knowledge'
to extend it further, you can say
when reason becomes perfect, i realise i know nothing
this is 'wisdom' for Socrates, which is a transcendental concept
Clarify if you mean the word itself or what it is supposed to mean.
No. It means: I think, therefore I am, and as long as I think I am, I am.
It is suggestion of knowledge of being while being conscience. If you sleep you have no such conscience. Do you know what - or if - you are, then?
salaam.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
what is the difference? words refer to things, the word 'knowledge' refers to knowledge
i am saying that the word 'think' equates to 'believe', which equates (in some mystical sense) to 'know'
no, this would be impossible, how could you?
You don't know the difference? The why do you try to use it as an argument?
Belief can't equate " to know" in no matter which sense. They are quite the opposite of eachother.
You do realise that you just killed off your own argument, do you?
(why do you ask "how could you" when I just explained the impossibility?)
salaam.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
There is no difference
......... says the epistemologist
why do we need epistemology? You tell me
i am not 'doing' anything
knowledge is impossible, end of story, you could never know
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
You're being obtuse now. I meant 'where' in the sense of 'in those cases which'.what do you mean 'where'?
This is 'nowhere'? How can you be sure it isnt nowhere?
max_freakout
Nothing matters
True, but as I have repeatedly said, it just happens that in those cases where my well-founded beliefs are true, I know those things. Frustrating, isn't it?
Max, I know you have had this big revelation about the impossibility of knowledge and you seem to be trying to get the rest of us to understand it, but the fact is that I do understand it, I just don't think that it's all that revelatory. So we can't have godlike certainty about anything? Big deal. It so happens that we all carry around with us beliefs that help us live and that reflect how the world is. So let's move on and discuss how we form those, and which methods are most reliable in producing well-founded true beliefs which we'll 'knowledge'.
What makes you think our beliefs reflect how the world is?
Jonti
what the dormouse said
To be fair, the impact of Radical Doubt can be very disorienting. Sent me quite loopy for a while, and I was by no means alone. Philosophy can be a bitch.
I'm not sure I even believe it anymore; I think the reality is likely to be rather more nuanced. And it does seem to have its roots in Cartesian thinking -- how can a disembodied mind have knowledge of the world? Well, duh, it can't, not if "mind" and "matter" are different substances.
There's an implicit metaphysic behind Radical Doubt. My suspicion is that there are flawed, but unquestioned, assumptions in that metaphysical framework.
I'm not sure I even believe it anymore; I think the reality is likely to be rather more nuanced. And it does seem to have its roots in Cartesian thinking -- how can a disembodied mind have knowledge of the world? Well, duh, it can't, not if "mind" and "matter" are different substances.
There's an implicit metaphysic behind Radical Doubt. My suspicion is that there are flawed, but unquestioned, assumptions in that metaphysical framework.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
I think that is what Sartre (and Heidegger) believed. That there are flawed and unquestioned assumptions in the metaphysical framework.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
A reasonable first answer would be "the material success of those beliefs in engaging with the world".
max_freakout
Nothing matters
Right!
There is a line in Sartre's Being and Nothingness which got me thinking, he says:
"to know that one believes, is no longer to believe"
max_freakout
Nothing matters
You dont know that there are any of 'those cases', there might not be
there's nothing frustrating about knowledge being completely impossible, it's the end of all frustration
the word 'godlike' is unnecessary, you are using a loaded word, with other aggressive language on purpose
the truth is, you cant have any certainty, about anything
Which brings me back to myy point which started this conversation;
Why do we need epistemology?
Why are we having this debate, when it is so obvious that knowledge is impossible, and none of us know anything?
You can believe anything
You can't know anything
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Serious answer for a second 
: this stuff is one of the reasons why I decided not to bother with Philosophy academically outside of ethics. Ethics fascinates me, because it deals with practical uses of thought. When it comes down to it you may just be a brain in a jar, unable to truly know anything, but your everyday reality is so much more. It's really not that relevent to your life, wondering what it's possible to know - it's what you do with the knowledge that counts. Obviously it's useful to develop a value-theory of knowledge so that you can identify and 'grade' the knowledge you receive or generate, which is of far more interest to me in the field of epistemology.
: this stuff is one of the reasons why I decided not to bother with Philosophy academically outside of ethics. Ethics fascinates me, because it deals with practical uses of thought. When it comes down to it you may just be a brain in a jar, unable to truly know anything, but your everyday reality is so much more. It's really not that relevent to your life, wondering what it's possible to know - it's what you do with the knowledge that counts. Obviously it's useful to develop a value-theory of knowledge so that you can identify and 'grade' the knowledge you receive or generate, which is of far more interest to me in the field of epistemology.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
But I think you are still interpreting the idea of scepticism through the traditional analytic framework which ultimately derives from the cogito. Sartre is so far away from that, that scepticism as we normally think of it does not really apply.
Sartre says the above quote because he believes the for-itself is a nothingness.
I get the idea that you have read Sartre, but you do not understand his philosophical project. Have you read much Heidegger, btw?
max_freakout
Nothing matters
Before we can even begin to discuss that question, we need to know how we can know if our beliefs are 'true'
but we can't possibly know this
because knowledge is impossible
But if there are cases like that, then I have knowledge. How many more times do you want me to say it? If I'm mistaken, then I don't know. If I'm not mistaken, then I do know. I don't know if I know, but I still know.
Why can't you even acknowledge what my position is and that it is consistent?
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
Serious answer for a second
If you take the Heideggerian/Sartrean view, the problems (such as how do we know we are a Brain in a jar) are bypassed because those mistakes exist because of our flawed assumptions about consciousness and stuff.
Then epistemology becomes incredibly relevant to your life, because we are no longer trapped inside our own skulls. Consciousness is out there, it is the world.
Apologies if that reads a little badly.
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
Well, I personally don't know I'm a brain in a jar. I'm pretty damn sure that I'm a meat puppet with the illusion of consciousness. however, there's always outside possibilities. How do I know what I do? By looking at the evidence and applying a little bit of logic, a little bit of extrapolation, and a large amount of what-the-hell. In the end the type of knowledge debate i need is still about quality of, not nature of.
But I won't distrupt the thread especially. The bits of it that aren't comedy are interesting. well, even the comedy is interesting, in its own way.
But I won't distrupt the thread especially. The bits of it that aren't comedy are interesting. well, even the comedy is interesting, in its own way.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
right, Sartre was not an epistemologist, as i said earlier in the thread, i really think this standard and *obvious* argument for epistemological scepticism, is in fact a cover for a much deeper existential issue, which dare not speak its name
exactly, i think that this is the hidden existential implication of epistemological sceptisism
i have very thoroughly read and understood Being and Nothingness, and less thoroughly Being and Time.
I am using insight from Being and Nothingness to understand this position of scepticism
max_freakout
Nothing matters
can i conclude from your position, that any knowledge is purely accidental, and that there might not even be any?
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
I think to properly understand Sartre, you need to have a good grasp of Heidegger, and Husserl as well.
Dillinger4
Es gibt Zeit
I think max would do well to read Wittgenstein as well, thinking about it.
max_freakout
Nothing matters
I understand Husserl's phenomenological epoque, as a model of dissociative-state epistemology. What he said about 'discovering the transcendental ego' follows perfectly from the sceptical viewpoint i am arguing from on this thread
