# Epistemology



## bodach (Feb 22, 2008)

Which book should I read first


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 22, 2008)

this is the best epistemology book in the world:

Sosa, E. and Kim, J. eds. 1999. Epistemology: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwell


everything you could possibly need to know

but that isnt my answer to the question, dont read that one firt it's too advanced, it will put you off the subject

i need to find the one im thinking of, an introductory book which is a great read, cant rememebr the titel, picture of a moose on the cover, i'll be back.......


----------



## bodach (Feb 22, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> this is the best epistemology book in the world:
> 
> Sosa, E. and Kim, J. eds. 1999. Epistemology: An Anthology. Oxford: Blackwellback



So was epistemology evolved in 1999. Or is epistemolgy another word evolving.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 22, 2008)

bodach said:


> So was epistemology evolved in 1999. Or is epistemolgy another word evolving.




afaik, no startling developments ave occured in the field since 1999


tbh, modern epistemology is very dry


----------



## bodach (Feb 22, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> afaik, no startling developments ave occured in the field since 1999
> 
> 
> tbh, modern epistemology is very dry



So epistemology is dead.  Bollocks, I paid £10 for it. But was it my money?


----------



## Santino (Feb 22, 2008)

'An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology' by Jonathan Dancy. Nice and clear.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 22, 2008)

I found it, it's this one:







A Guide through the Theory of Knowledge. By Adam Morton


a very easy to read straightforward introduction to all the main issues


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 22, 2008)

bodach said:


> So epistemology is dead.  Bollocks, I paid £10 for it. But was it my money?




it isnt dead, until everybody either admits that knowledge is impossible and the sceptic ha won, OR, some philosopher comes up with the final definitive theory of knowledge

Neither of these things have happened yet, therefore there is still work to be done in this field


----------



## Jonti (Feb 22, 2008)

That's coming at things from the wrong end, which happens a lot to philosophers.  Of course we know stuff. We just don't understand how that is possible!

We don't really need a _"final definitive theory of knowledge"_  -- just to have some kind of a clue about how knowledge is possible at all would be good!


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 22, 2008)

Jonti said:


> That's coming at things from the wrong end, which happens a lot to philosophers.  Of course we know stuff. We just don't understand how that is possible!



I disagree, *anything* you think you know, could turn out to be false

what you are saying, implies that the sceptical position has no basis, yet if this was true, there would be no need for epistemology!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 22, 2008)

> anything you think you know, could turn out to be false


Including your claim, right?

What you have said is already making a claim to a kind of (certain, timeless, irrefutable ...) knowledge!


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 22, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Including your claim, right?
> 
> What you have said is already making a claim to a kind of (certain, timeless, irrefutable ...) knowledge!





This is exactly what socrates was getting at when he said "the wise man knows that he knows nothing"

It isnt 'my claim', it is the general claim of epistemological sceptisism

it is *true*, that *anything* you know could turn out to be false, *including* the assertion that anything you know could turn out to be false

Wisdom (according to Socrates) is to grasp this contradiction, modern epistemology, however, does not accept this,and instead seeks to prove how you could know something for certain, but this hasnt been proven yet, therefore the sceptical position remains unchallenged


----------



## Santino (Feb 22, 2008)

Just because it could turn out that I am wrong about something does not mean that I don't know it. Otherwise you are conflating knowledge with godlike certainty. As Wittgenstein might have said (or not, I'm a bit hazy on him) the very idea of knowledge presupposes the possibility of being wrong.


----------



## Santino (Feb 22, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> This is exactly what socrates was getting at when he said "the wise man knows that he knows nothing"
> 
> It isnt 'my claim', it is the general claim of epistemological sceptisism
> 
> ...


I don't think this was what Socrates was saying at all. I think he was just asserting that we all think we know shit that we don't, and if we were more thoughtful about things we would realise that.

The sceptical position will always remain unchallenged, because it's not a position, it's an attitude. It will always be possible to say 'Ahh... but is it?' to any system of knowledge.


----------



## bodach (Feb 22, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> I found it, it's this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok. 

I went to Inver Snecky and got Audi, R. (2006). Epistemology - A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Routledge. 
isbn: 0 415 28109 1

I suppose one person's theory of knowledge isn't the same as another person's.


----------



## Santino (Feb 22, 2008)

bodach said:


> I suppose one person's theory of knowledge isn't the same as another person's.


No one, not even philosophers, really walks around applying a theory of knowledge to everyday things though. Epistemology, like most contemporary philosophy, is really just an awareness of the limits of our ways of thinking. Epistemology teaches us to be careful how we talk about knowledge and certainty, and to avoid making claims that we can't support.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 22, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> it is *true*, that *anything* you know could turn out to be false, *including* the assertion that anything you know could turn out to be false


I suppose what you've just written could turn out to be a falsity then? It may not be true at all, despite what you say!


----------



## bodach (Feb 22, 2008)

Alex B said:


> No one, not even philosophers, really walks around applying a theory of knowledge to everyday things though. Epistemology, like most contemporary philosophy, is really just an awareness of the limits of our ways of thinking. Epistemology teaches us to be careful how we talk about knowledge and certainty, and to avoid making claims that we can't support.



Actually, what I'd like to do is apply epistemology to Scottish travel literature of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Authors such as Martin Martin, Thomas Pennant, Boswell and Johnson, Dorothy Wordsworth and Elizabeth Grant of Rothiemurchus. Our 'knowledge' of that era is restricted by what information we have.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 22, 2008)

Alex B said:


> Just because it could turn out that I am wrong about something does not mean that I don't know it.



Yes it does! If you dont know that you coudlnt turn out to be wrong about a particular proposition, then you do not know that you know tat proposition, this is what distinguishes knowledge from belief 

In order to know a proposition, the proposition must be true, if it isnt true, then i dont know it


from the dictionary, knowledge means:


> the fact or state of knowing; the perception of *fact or truth*; clear and certain mental apprehension





> Otherwise you are conflating knowledge with godlike certainty.



i dont know about 'godlike' but knowledge definitely requires absolue certainty (an easier way of putting this, is to say that knowledge requires TRUTH)


knowledge IS certainty!


----------



## Santino (Feb 22, 2008)

bodach said:


> Actually, what I'd like to do is apply epistemology to Scottish travel literature of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Authors such as Martin Martin, Thomas Pennant, Boswell and Johnson, Dorothy Wordsworth and Elizabeth Grant of Rothiemurchus. Our 'knowledge' of that era is restricted by what information we have.


I'm not sure what you mean by applying epistemology to literature. A study of epistemology won't give you any new methods of working out whether we can know things. It sounds like you need a more practical guide to reading historical material, which you are more likely to find in the History section than the Philosophy section of your local bookshop/library/internet.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 22, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I suppose what you've just written could turn out to be a falsity then? It may not be true at all, despite what you say!



this is the grand conundrum that lies at the heart of epistemology, without it, there would be no need for epistemology in the first place



1.) any proposition could be false

2.) statement 1 applies to statement 1


----------



## bodach (Feb 22, 2008)

If epistemology is a philosophical concept, surely it can be applied to anything, even 17th to 19th century iterature?


----------



## Santino (Feb 22, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> Yes it does! If you dont know that you coudlnt turn out to be wrong about a particular proposition, then you do not know that you know tat proposition, this is what distinguishes knowledge from belief
> 
> In order to know a proposition, the proposition must be true, if it isnt true, then i dont know it
> 
> ...


Of course knowledge needs to be true, but it doesn't need to be 100% certain. Consider: I have in my mind a firm belief of what my date of birth is, based on memories of various things (including my family telling me, seeing various documents etc). I accept the physical possibility that I am wrong, due to being lied to or having a dodgy memory, but - assuming that I am not wrong - do I now know my own birthday?

The point about knowledge presupposing the possibility of being wrong is this: the only way that belief and truth are 100% guaranteed to coincide are when the very act of knowing and the thing known are the same. So, for Descartes we can be certain about the contents of our beliefs because you can't believe that it is raining and at the same time believe that you don't believe it's raining. But to know (in this strict sense) anything outside your own mind would only be possible for God, for whom believing something is the same thing as it being true. As long as belief is a correspondence between two things - a state of my mind, and a fact in the world - the possibility of there being a mistake is inherent in the very fact that they are two separate things.


----------



## Santino (Feb 22, 2008)

bodach said:


> If epistemology is a philosophical concept, surely it can be applied to anything, even 17th to 19th century iterature?


Epistemology is a purely abstract, theoretical study of the way we understand belief and knowledge. It is not a 'concept'. 

Can you give an example of what you want to say about Scottish travel literature?


----------



## Santino (Feb 22, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> this is the grand conundrum that lies at the heart of epistemology, without it, there would be no need for epistemology in the first place
> 
> 1.) any proposition could be false
> 
> 2.) statement 1 applies to statement 1


Again, I disagree. I don't think this is 'at the heart' of epistemology at all.


----------



## bodach (Feb 22, 2008)

The authors that I mentioned above all wrote about their travels in Scotland between 1695 and 1850. They all came from very different social backgrounds, so therefore, their experiences would all vary. So what they wrote would be influenced by this. But the 'knowledge' that they put into words is not a definitive knowledge but an influenced 'knowledge'. 

I'll come back to it later, my head hurts too much just now with all these thoughts going through my head.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 22, 2008)

Alex B said:


> Of course knowledge needs to be true, but it doesn't need to be 100% certain.




To know a proposition requires the truth of the proposition, to know that one knows a proposition, requires absolute certainty that the proposition is true




> Consider: I have in my mind a firm belief of what my date of birth is, based on memories of various things (including my family telling me, seeing various documents etc). I accept the physical possibility that I am wrong, due to being lied to or having a dodgy memory, but - assuming that I am not wrong - do I now know my own birthday?




you answered your own question, you *assume* you know your own birthday, because you *assume* that you are not wrong, but this assumption is itself not certain (because you dont know that this assumption is a valid one)

you *dont* know your birthday, because you might have been lied to about it. you believe that your birthday is on a certain date, but this is not knowledge

a more general way of putting this, is to say that you dont know anything, because you dont know that the sceptic isnt wrong




> As long as belief is a correspondence between two things - a state of my mind, and a fact in the world - the possibility of there being a mistake is inherent in the very fact that they are two separate things.



...therefore, knowledge is impossible


----------



## Santino (Feb 22, 2008)

You're expounding a pefectly consistent point of view, that knowledge (as you understand it) is impossible, but it does nothing. If you choose to define knowledge as that which we cannot be wrong about then, surprise suprise, you'll discover that we don't know anything.

But here's the thing: You don't really believe that. You don't believe that you don't know anything. You're not just pretending to know things so that people don't think you're a nutter. Furthermore, everyone else thinks they know things. We argue about whether we are right or wrong about things. We make decisions based on how much we know and what we know. And people with a robust and well-justified set of beliefs tend to achieve things that those without cannot.

Ok, let's accept it though. Let's act AS IF we accept that we can't know anything. What, then, shall we call the firm belief that I have of my birthday? Let's call it *knowledge, and then we can have a new section of the library devoted to *epistemology in which we study how we can have *knowledge about things.

This *knowledge can be analysed thus:

I *know proposition 'P' if and only if:
- P is true
- I have sufficient reason to believe P (the exact nature of this reason being the subject of most epistemology books)

This has the rather exciting consequence that, if I have a good reason to believe that my birthday is on May the Fourth, then:
     if my birthday IS on May the Fourth, I *know when my birthday is
but
     if my birthday IS NOT on May the Fourth I don't *know, I am mistaken.

In other words, whether or not I *know something is dependent on how the world is, and is partly a matter of luck. I can see why this upsets people, but there it is.

To go back to knowledge for a minute (i.e. knowledge as complete certainty). Let's be clear about how impossible it is. It's isn't just that no one happens to know anything, or that we haven't yet worked out how to know things, it's that it is conceptually nonsensical to talk of anyone ever knowing anything. For belief to be absolutely certain, for belief B to be logically equivalent to fact F, would entail them being one and the same thing, the subject and object would be identical. But, conversely, the idea of knowledge entails the idea of a subject and an object, a knower and a fact. So this idea of knowledge is empty because it is self-contradictory.


----------



## Santino (Feb 22, 2008)

bodach said:


> The authors that I mentioned above all wrote about their travels in Scotland between 1695 and 1850. They all came from very different social backgrounds, so therefore, their experiences would all vary. So what they wrote would be influenced by this. But the 'knowledge' that they put into words is not a definitive knowledge but an influenced 'knowledge'.
> 
> I'll come back to it later, my head hurts too much just now with all these thoughts going through my head.


I don't think this is epistemology so much as... thinking. Being aware of how people interpret things. One thing is for sure, an introduction to epistemology will not help you to investigate this. Epistemologists argue about things like coherence and correspondence, _a priori_ and _a posteriori_ reasoning. It is essentially a dry, technical discipline that will not give you any insight into the mind of a 18th century writer or the reliability of their travel journals.


----------



## bodach (Feb 22, 2008)

Alex B said:


> It is essentially a dry, technical discipline that will not give you any insight into the mind of a 18th century writer or the reliability of their travel journals.



But if my epistemological view is based on the books that I've read from that period, is that the 'knowledge'?


----------



## Santino (Feb 23, 2008)

bodach said:


> The authors that I mentioned above all wrote about their travels in Scotland between 1695 and 1850. They all came from very different social backgrounds, so therefore, their experiences would all vary. So what they wrote would be influenced by this. But the 'knowledge' that they put into words is not a definitive knowledge but an influenced 'knowledge'.





bodach said:


> But if my epistemological view is based on the books that I've read from that period, is that the 'knowledge'?


I think you're getting too hung up on the idea of 'knowledge'.

As I understand it, you want to argue that the different social backgrounds of these authors affected the way they interpreted their experiences and the way they presented those experiences in their writings. I think you can do that without ever having to invoke epistemology, or having to talk about different kinds of 'knowledge'. Contemporary literary theory tends to assume that writers are biased, and - in a sense - 'locked into' their own points of view, so I don't think you need to build that argument from the ground up.

I don't think anyone is going to have to be persuaded that writing from the 17th and 18th century is not a ''definitive' knowledge, whatever that is.

Perhaps what would be more useful is research into the social attitudes of each author the kind of broad world-view that they and their social group had. Re-constructing this world-view is a partly epistemological project, but only in the broadest sense. For example, if the author Bob McFictional tended to distrust poor Scots and assume them to be liars, this would affect how he experienced Scotland, but this is a social fact about Mr McFictional and his peers, not a part of some philosophical epistemological system.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 23, 2008)

There is no knowledge, only the suggestion thereof.

salaam.


----------



## Santino (Feb 23, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> There is no knowledge, only the suggestion thereof.


Enlightening.


----------



## bodach (Feb 23, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> There is no knowledge, only the suggestion thereof.
> 
> salaam.





Alex B said:


> Enlightening.



Now that's interesting. 

I kind of agree with Aldearan, but when Alex B mentions 'Enlightening', I stop. Is it the 'enlightened' people who are making the suggestions.


----------



## Santino (Feb 24, 2008)

I was being sarcastic.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Alex B said:


> You're expounding a pefectly consistent point of view, that knowledge (as you understand it) is impossible, but it does nothing. If you choose to define knowledge as that which we cannot be wrong about then, surprise suprise, you'll discover that we don't know anything.



Please explain what you mean by 'it does nothing'? 

Epistemology springs into existence, for the purpose of denying this "_perfectly consistent point of view_"

OF COURSE knowledge is 'that which we cannot be wrong about'! If we could be wrong about it, it *obviously* wouldn't be knowledge 

You aren't 'choosing' to define it this way, how *else* could it possibly be defined? 




> From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge:
> Philosophical debates in general start with Plato's formulation of knowledge as "justified true belief". There is however no single agreed definition of knowledge presently, nor any prospect of one, and there remain numerous competing theories.





the sentence '*I know a fact which could be wrong*' is a logical contradiction-in-terms

Conclusion - I don't know any facts

I don't even know if i don't know any facts

and so on ad infinitum.......





> But here's the thing: You don't really believe that. You don't believe that you don't know anything. You're not just pretending to know things so that people don't think you're a nutter. Furthermore, everyone else thinks they know things. We argue about whether we are right or wrong about things. We make decisions based on how much we know and what we know. And people with a robust and well-justified set of beliefs tend to achieve things that those without cannot.



I can believe *anything*, but anything i believe could turn out to be wrong, it is impossible for me to know if any belief is true or false. Therefore I dont really know anything, _how could_ you or I possibly know if any particular belief is true or false?




> Ok, let's accept it though. Let's act AS IF we accept that we can't know anything. What, then, shall we call the firm belief that I have of my birthday? Let's call it *knowledge, and then we can have a new section of the library devoted to *epistemology in which we study how we can have *knowledge about things.



Nobody can act AS IF they accept that they don't know anything! Epistemology, that section in the library, exists *just in order* to deny that we can't know anything, or can you tell me another reason it exists?



> This *knowledge can be analysed thus:
> 
> I *know proposition 'P' if and only if:
> - P is true
> - I have sufficient reason to believe P (the exact nature of this reason being the subject of most epistemology books)




BUT you can never know if 'P is true', your first condition for *knowledge', is true or false



> This has the rather exciting consequence that, if I have a good reason to believe that my birthday is on May the Fourth, then:
> if my birthday IS on May the Fourth, I *know when my birthday is
> but
> if my birthday IS NOT on May the Fourth I don't *know, I am mistaken.
> ...



right but this concept of '*knowledge', is just the same as the concept of 'belief'

And belief is not knowledge, belief is belief, so why would you want to come up with a separate word for it? Whether you call it '*knowledge', or 'knowledge2', or 'that special, magical type of knowledge which is not really knowledge and is the same belief'????? 

You believe what your parents told you about the date you were born, you see it on your birth certificate etc, but there are any number of situations you could imagine, where this might turn out to be wrong, use your imagination, maybe something your parents never told you, is that you were born at 5 minutes past midnight on May 4th, so really you were born on May 5th, maybe you were adopted with forged certificates, who knows?



why dont you just call it belief, and any belief can be wrong



> To go back to knowledge for a minute (i.e. knowledge as complete certainty). Let's be clear about how impossible it is. It's isn't just that no one happens to know anything, or that we haven't yet worked out how to know things, it's that it is conceptually nonsensical to talk of anyone ever knowing anything. For belief to be absolutely certain, for belief B to be logically equivalent to fact F, would entail them being one and the same thing, the subject and object would be identical. But, conversely, the idea of knowledge entails the idea of a subject and an object, a knower and a fact. So this idea of knowledge is empty because it is self-contradictory.



I agree, as i said earlier, you can believe anything, but you cant know anything

any particular belief, can be either true or false


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

> you cant know anything


 

So how do you know this?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

> Epistemology, that section in the library, exists just in order to deny that we can't know anything, or can you tell me another reason it exists?


And this, how do you know this?

I'd say the epistemology section in the library exists because it is a mystery how it is we can have knowledge of the world, a mystery that we are some way from solving.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> So how do you know this?



I don't, and neither do you, unless you care to explain *how*?


you can have direct epistemological awareness of facts in the world by some magical miracle?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

Hang on, you're the one who made the claim ... 





max_freakout said:


> ... you cant know anything
> 
> ...


It looks to me that you are the one who is claiming direct epistemological awareness of facts about the world by some magical miracle.  All I'm doing is asking how you managed the trick.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I'd say the epistemology section in the library exists because it is a mystery how it is we can have knowledge of the world, a mystery that we are some way from solving.




EXACTLY, you define the goal of epistemology as 'some place in the future', one day, maybe next year, some philosopher will discover how we can know things 


that is ridiculous, you can't know anything!! It isnt a mystery, it's a simple fact, which you are denying to yourself, in order to justify your existence, by claiming that one day, someone will achieve the impossible, and work out some miraculous way by which one can know things


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Hang on, you're the one who made the claim ...




Erm, 

hang on, no i didnt, it is totally impossible to 'make' such a claim.......


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

"wisdom, is knowing that i know nothing" - Socrates


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> ... it's a simple fact ...


Yes, yes, you keep on saying this.  

You are making a factual claim about our relationship to the world (or are you just playing word games?).  

I'm asking, but how do you know that your factual claim is a true one? You seem to me to be claiming to have knowledge of the sort you claim is impossible in the first place.

Verrrry odd


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I'm asking, but how do you know that your factual claim is a true one? You seem to me to be claiming to have knowledge of the sort you claim is impossible in the first place.
> 
> Verrrry odd




You tell me! Tell me how you can know anything, im not 'claiming to have knowledge', im stating the simple fact that you can't know anything


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

max_freakout;7153609]... as i said earlier... you cant know anything ...[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Jonti said:


> So how do you know this?





max_freakout said:


> I don't ...


heh!


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> heh!





So tell me your opinion, do you agree with me that you can't know anything (as it is *so obviously* true yet you seem to be denying for some strange reason)?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

I'm only asking you questions in the hope of leading you to see the inconsistency of your position.  To be fair, 
I think the contradiction does have pretty deep roots.

Anyway, you've now told me that you don't know that you can't know anything.  Fair enough. Please stop saying otherwise.

Perhaps instead you could start wondering how it may be possible to know stuff; what kind of world must this be,for knowledge of it to be possible?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> So tell me your opinion, do you agree with me that you can't know anything (as it is *so obviously* true yet you seem to be denying for some strange reason)?


I think our dialogue has shown it is impossible to make that assertion without contradiction.

My conclusion is that the assertion is false.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I think our dialogue has shown it is impossible to make that assertion without contradiction.
> 
> My conclusion is that the assertion is false.




So what is *your* assertion? Do you know anything?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

The assertion we are discussing at the moment is the your claim that knowledge of the world is impossible.  It's self-contradictory because it makes a _factual_ claim about our relationship to the world. 

It seems to me that leaves no alternative but to admit the possibility of knowledge.  I know that knowledge is somehow possible, because the contrary position (that it is not) leads immediately to a contradiction.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> The assertion we are discussing at the moment is the your claim that knowledge of the world is impossible.  It's self-contradictory because it makes a _factual_ claim about our relationship to the world.



*
IT ISN'T MY CLAIM!!!!! I AM NOT MAKING A CLAIM!!!!!*













How could i be making this claim, it is impossible to make this claim 




> It seems to me that leaves no alternative but to admit the possibility of knowledge.  I know that knowledge is somehow possible, because the contrary position (that it is not) leads immediately to a contradiction.




But equally, the position that knowledge *is* possible, *also* leads to a contradiction

If knowledge is possible, as you are claiming, then how do you know this to be true? 

how do you know, that you know this to be true?

and so on......

therefore,  it is impossible to know anything


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

Is that a fact?

Anyway, you've now conceded my point and made a further claim ... 






			
				max_freakout said:
			
		

> the position that knowledge is possible, _*also*_ leads to a contradiction
> (emphasis added)


What contradiction do you see in the claim that _"knowledge is possible"_?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Is that a fact?



Of course it is, it's totally obvious, you're just denying it for the sake of denying it, you couldnt possibly justify it



> Anyway, you've now conceded my point and made a further claim ... What contradiction do you see in the claim that _"knowledge is possible"_?




ive already explained, knowledge is impossible

'i know that p'

but what if p isn't true?

how do i know? I don't

therefore knowledge is impossible


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> Of course it is, it's totally obvious, you're just denying it for the sake of denying it, you couldnt possibly justify it


No, it's as far from being totally obvious as it's possible to get.  

It's self-contradictory, and you've already conceded that.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> No, it's as far from being totally obvious as it's possible to get.




this is simply a statement defining the 'goal' of epistemology

but epistemology has no goal, it is absurd and contradictory that you could possibly *know* anything, therefore, knowledge is impossible



> It's self-contradictory, and you've already conceded that.




there is no mystery to epistemology, it is totally simple and unavoidable

"wisdom is knowing that i know nothing" - Socrates


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

I can only suggest that you start over at post #37 and work forward.  Go round the loop a few times until you see the contradiction involved in  saying that it is a fact that one cannot make a factually true claim about the world.

You'll notice you conceded the point a couple of times


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Perhaps instead you could start wondering how it may be possible to know stuff; what kind of world must this be,for knowledge of it to be possible?




Why? Since it is so obvious that knowledge is impossible


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

That's a type of knowledge claim, right?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> see the contradiction involved in  saying that it is a fact that one cannot make a factually true claim about the world.




You have only captured *half* of it

Please tell me what is your definition of a 'fact'? The definition i am using, is a proposition which is *true*

it is also *impossible* (ie contradictory) to make a *factually false* claim about the world, for exactly the same reason


that reason is, simply, because knowledge is impossible


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> That's a type of knowledge claim, right?





it is a 'fact'

ie, a proposition which is true

the proposition:
'knowledge is impossible'


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I can only suggest that you start over at post #37 and work forward.




take me out of the picture.....


im asking *you*, how is knowledge possible? Surely it isnt?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Think about it..........


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> ... it is also *impossible* (ie contradictory) to make a *factually false* claim about the world...


Funnily enough, I'd say that's rather a good example of a false claim about the world 

I'd say the claim that the moon is made of cheese is false.

I agree that one cannot be _certain_ that the moon is not made of cheese  but how does that mean it is not correct to assert that it is not made of cheese?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> im asking *you*, how is knowledge possible? Surely it isnt?


Well, I think it must be possible. As we've discussed, to assume the contrary leads to an immediate contradiction.

But I'm afraid I don't know how it works.  What is clear to me is that knowledge is something that minds have. So an answer to the question would depend on a coherent and sensible philosophy of mind; how it arises in material bodies; what it does; the nature of awareness, that sort of thing.


----------



## Santino (Feb 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> Please explain what you mean by 'it does nothing'?


It does nothing because you've set up a definition that can never be satisfied. It tells us nothing about the world, about minds, about knowledge.


max_freakout said:


> Epistemology springs into existence, for the purpose of denying this "_perfectly consistent point of view_"
> 
> OF COURSE knowledge is 'that which we cannot be wrong about'! If we could be wrong about it, it *obviously* wouldn't be knowledge


No. If I know something, I'm not wrong about it, because a part of knowledge is that the thing known is true. But, I may think I know things that are false, in which case I am wrong.


max_freakout said:


> You aren't 'choosing' to define it this way, how *else* could it possibly be defined?


Just in the way that I did it. As consistent as yours, and closer to the way that most people use the word 'knowledge'.



max_freakout said:


> the sentence '*I know a fact which could be wrong*' is a logical contradiction-in-terms


I agree, and I never said that.


max_freakout said:


> I can believe *anything*, but anything i believe could turn out to be wrong, it is impossible for me to know if any belief is true or false. Therefore I dont really know anything, _how could_ you or I possibly know if any particular belief is true or false?


Then please please please tell me what the difference between, on the one hand, the well-formed robust beliefs that allow me to walk to work, cook, construct bridges that don't collapse and send men to the moon* and, on the other hand, any other shit you may care to believe that isn't based on evience and reason.


max_freakout said:


> Nobody can act AS IF they accept that they don't know anything! Epistemology, that section in the library, exists *just in order* to deny that we can't know anything, or can you tell me another reason it exists?


You've lost me now. 


max_freakout said:


> BUT you can never know if 'P is true', your first condition for *knowledge', is true or false


Read carefully. the conditions for me knowing P are that a) P is true, and that b) I believe P for a good reason. Whether or not I know that I know P is irrelevant.


max_freakout said:


> right but this concept of '*knowledge', is just the same as the concept of 'belief'


No, it's different because it is based on evidence, reason, coherence with other beliefs and other things.


max_freakout said:


> You believe what your parents told you about the date you were born, you see it on your birth certificate etc, but there are any number of situations you could imagine, where this might turn out to be wrong, use your imagination, maybe something your parents never told you, is that you were born at 5 minutes past midnight on May 4th, so really you were born on May 5th, maybe you were adopted with forged certificates, who knows?


Read my post. I only KNOW it if it's true. If I'm mistaken then I don't know it. Why do you have such a problem with this?



*Not necessarily carried out by me personally.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Funnily enough, I'd say that's rather a good example of a false claim about the world



how do you know it's factually false? You don't, it could be true or false




> I'd say the claim that the moon is made of cheese is false.I agree that one cannot be _certain_ that the moon is not made of cheese  but how does that mean it is not correct to assert that it is not made of cheese?



'being correct to assert' is not the same as 'knowing', because you could never possibly know if you were correct or not, the moon _might_ be made of cheese, but equally, it might *not* be,

as you yourself say, you *cannot* be certain

knowing = being certain

therefore knowledge is impossible


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Well, I think it must be possible. As we've discussed, to assume the contrary leads to an immediate contradiction.



But as we also discussed, to assume that knowledge IS possible, *also* leads to a contradiction, the reason being, you could never know if knowledge was possible




> But I'm afraid I don't know how it works.  What is clear to me is that knowledge is something that minds have. So an answer to the question would depend on a coherent and sensible philosophy of mind; how it arises in material bodies; what it does; the nature of awareness, that sort of thing.



no matter which way you look at it, knowledge is impossible, you contradict yourself talking about how it is 'clear to me' despite the fact you are totally unable to explain it, because you are denying to yourself the simple and obvious truth, that knowledge is impossible

you waffle on about the nature of awareness, material bodies etc, just to hide from the truth


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> But as we also discussed, to assume that knowledge IS possible, *also* leads to a contradiction, the reason being, you could never know if knowledge was possible...


Not quite. We can never know if a particular claim constitutes knowledge, that's all.

And are you really saying that knowledge is independent of a knowing mind?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Alex B said:


> It does nothing because you've set up a definition that can never be satisfied. It tells us nothing about the world, about minds, about knowledge.




there is no other possible definition which distinguishes between certain knowledge, and mere belief

unless you can suggest one?



> No. If I know something, I'm not wrong about it, because a part of knowledge is that the thing known is true. But, I may think I know things that are false, in which case I am wrong.



but anything you believe could be false, you could be wrong about *anything *you think you know, therefore you dont know that you know anything



> Just in the way that I did it. As consistent as yours, and closer to the way that most people use the word 'knowledge'.



for you to know that p, p must be true, but you could never know if p is true or not

most people use the word knowledge *wrongly*, because they are actually talking about *belief*, but they use the word 'knowledge'



> Then please please please tell me what the difference between, on the one hand, the well-formed robust beliefs that allow me to walk to work, cook, construct bridges that don't collapse and send men to the moon* and, on the other hand, any other shit you may care to believe that isn't based on evience and reason.



there is no difference, in the sense that anything you think you know could be wrong, even the most well-formed, robust belief you have, could be proven wrong



> Read carefully. the conditions for me knowing P are that a) P is true, and that b) I believe P for a good reason. .



Right, so for any given proposition, how would you ever be able to tell if it satisfies condition (a) or not? 

You wouldnt, because you could never be certain

knowledge is impossible


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Not quite. We can never know if a particular claim constitutes knowledge, that's all.



why not?


Because it is impossible to know anything?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

No, because one can always be mistaken.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> No, because one can always be mistaken.



what's the difference?


one can always be mistaken = one can never know anything


these are 2 ways of saying the same thing, as i said much earlier in the thread, you can believe anything, but you can never know anything


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

I think I'm right in saying that you would allow that knowledge is a true belief (?).  

Then, the fact that a particular belief turns out to be false, does not imply that all beliefs are false.  Some of them could still be true beliefs.

Despite our undoubted fallibility, some of our beliefs may yet be true. We just don't know which ones


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I think I'm right in saying that you would allow that knowledge is a true belief (?).



Im not sure, i agree that knowledge must be 'true', but im not sure if it is 'belief' 



> Then, the fact that a particular belief turns out to be false, does not imply that all beliefs are false.  Some of them could still be true beliefs.



Some of them *could* still be, but equally, all or any of them might *not* be, the fact is, you have no way of knowing, you are totally in the dark about epistemic certainty



> Despite our undoubted fallibility, some of our beliefs may yet be true. We just don't know which ones



our fallibility is absolute, and knowledge is impossible, THIS is a '*true fact*', paradoxically 

you can be certain, that knowledge is impossible, epistemology isnt mysterious


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> "wisdom, is knowing that i know nothing" - Socrates



Socrates underscoring my reasoning that there is no knowledge, only the suggestion thereof. 
Maybe I must be dead for a few centuries before people start to think about it 

salaam.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 24, 2008)

Alex B said:


> I was being sarcastic.



Of course you were. What else is left in abscence of an answer.
Now prove me wrong, mr. Arrogant.

salaam.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> ... one can always be mistaken = one can never know anything ...


No, this is just wrong, I'm afraid.

Of course people are fallible. 

But that does not mean they are *always* mistaken, that one can *never* know anything.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

Alde, I've been attempting to show (in dialogue with max_freakout) that the claim we can know nothing is contradictory.

Have you any thoughts on our conversation?


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 24, 2008)

even if you thought you knew something, and it turned out to be true, you still didnt know it in the first place. 
even if it happened to be correct, you didnt know for certain that you were right to begin with.

also i cant think of an example where you could ever have a belief completely validated afterwards.
there is always the possibility that you are wrong.

saying 'i know that i know nothing' is a complex paradox, rather than a belief and as such is able to transends itself.


----------



## bodach (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Have you any thoughts on our conversation?



I have.  Why do some people put words in 'bold'.  I'm not that fucking stupid.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> But that does not mean they are *always* mistakenQUOTE]
> 
> the arguement doesnt say people are *always* mistaken, just that they might be.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 24, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Alde, I've been attempting to show (in dialogue with max_freakout) that the claim we can know nothing is contradictory.
> 
> Have you any thoughts on our conversation?



Didn't read all posts... I'll try to do it tomorrow (well, it is morning but first I need to find a bed for a few hours)

salaam.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 24, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> even if you thought you knew something, and it turned out to be true, you still didnt know it in the first place.
> even if it happened to be correct, you didnt know for certain that you were right to begin with.
> 
> also i cant think of an example where you could ever have a belief completely validated afterwards.
> ...




Fallibility+idiocy=?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

I'm reminded of Godel's Theorem in mathematics.  He showed that in arithmetic there are things which are true, but which one cannot prove to be true.

In a similar vein, it seems to me that we may know true things about the world, even though we cannot prove them; and we may not even be able to say which of the beliefs we have about the world are in fact true, and which are in fact false.

I can know I own a cat, without being sure of which cat it is.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 24, 2008)

bodach said:


> I have.  Why do some people put words in 'bold'.  I'm not that fucking stupid.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Alde, I've been attempting to show (in dialogue with max_freakout) that the claim we can know nothing is contradictory.
> 
> Have you any thoughts on our conversation?





 i already knew this 


i have shown, that the claim that we CAN know thiings, is *ALSO* contradictory


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

Oh, no you haven't!


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> But that does not mean they are *always* mistaken




I did not make this claim, this is a straw man you are arguing against.....


the claim i am making, is that you could never know, in any partcular instance, whether or not you were mistaken

and therefore, knowledge is completely impossible


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> the arguement doesnt say people are *always* mistaken, just that they might be.




exactly, saying 'always mistaken' is the strawman

you couldnt possibly know if your attribution of 'knowledge' was mistaken or not

because knowledge is impossible


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

bodach said:


> I have.  Why do some people put words in 'bold'.  I'm not that fucking stupid.



what is the bold button for?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

If a person is not mistaken about _whatever_ we say that person knows it.

This is not difficult stuff.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> also i cant think of an example where you could ever have a belief completely validated afterwards.




this is an important point to illustrate what i am saying


the expression 'completely validated' is meaningless, no such validation could ever be possible


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> Socrates underscoring my reasoning that there is no knowledge, only the suggestion thereof.
> Maybe I must be dead for a few centuries before people start to think about it




i had a bit of a zen moment yesterday, and i realised that in that famous quote from socrates, the word 'wisdom' has a transcendental meaning


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I'm reminded of Godel's Theorem in mathematics.  He showed that in arithmetic there are things which are true, but which one cannot prove to be true.




have you read any of Douglas Hofstadter's books? He said, that what Godel's theorem does, is take Bertrand Russel's principia mathematica, and 'turn it around to look at itself', which russel claimed was impossible (or something like that anyway)


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> If a person is not mistaken about _whatever_ we say that person knows it.
> 
> This is not difficult stuff.



but there is no way of knowing if you are mistaken or not in any particular instance (ie, regarding any particular proposition)



it isnt difficult, it's *totally impossible*


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> saying 'i know that i know nothing' is a complex paradox, rather than a belief and as such is able to transends itself.




i think "i know that i know nothing"


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


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

I think this news will come as a considerable relief to your readers.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

you could approach this subject from the other direction, and ask "what is the point of epistemology?"


an honest answer to this question will necessarily reveal the same (impossible to resolve) paradox that i am highlighting


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

Oh, no you're not!





> there is no way of knowing if you are mistaken or not in any particular instance


True. But I say there may still be instances where one is not mistaken, and you have not, cannot, shown otherwise.

Just saying you have, does not make it so.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> have you read any of Douglas Hofstadter's books? He said, that what Godel's theorem does, is take Bertrand Russel's principia mathematica, and 'turn it around to look at itself', which russel claimed was impossible (or something like that anyway)


Yes, I've read the Eternal Golden Braid (about Godel, Escher and Bach).  And I've read and understood Godel's Proof by Nagel and Newman.  I think you'd enjoy it.

He proved that there are true statements in arithmetic that cannot be proven; untrue statements that cannot be disproved; and statements we cannot even decide either way. 

All very  and quite devastating to (Russell and Whitehead's) epistemology of mathematics.  Of course, mathematicians serenely carry on doing math and getting results. One take on Godel is that he showed syntax is not enough; that there is some semantic content in maths.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> there may still be instances where one is not mistaken, and you have not, cannot, shown otherwise.




ok, so you cou;ld maybe call such an instance, "accidental knowledge", it is knowledgge just by accident, ie you dont *know* it's knowledge, but it 'just happens to be true', and it is therefore, 'true belief'

but, this type of instance might be non-existent, you dont know if it actually exists or not


Also, you say 'have not' and 'cannot'

i disagree that there could be such a case where you 'cannot' show otherwise, i think that *anything* _could_ be disproved, in the future


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Hofstadter's 'godel, escher, bach' is completely beyond me, but i read the new one 'i am a strange loop' and found it extremely illuminating


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

The "Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose is also good.  Hofstadter is argueing that the mind/brain is "nothing but" an electronic data processing machine. More exactly, that a sufficiently complex piece of data processing kit, programmed in the right way, would be conscious in the same way that  the mind/brain is conscious.

Penrose disagrees with that, giving his reasons for rejecting the "consciousness is nothing but calculation" theory (of strong AI) that Hofstadter has popularised. Like Hofstadter's efforts, Penrose's books also have lots of fun maths to enjoy.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

From 'I am a strange loop':

"what we call "consciousness" is a kind of mirage, it must be a very peculiar kind of mirage, to be sure, since it is a mirage that perceives itself, and of course it didnt _believe_ it was perceiving a mirage, but no matter - it still _is_ a mirage" - Douglas Hofstadter


this relates perfectly to what i am saying about epistemology, the *requirement* for epistemology is this mirage of consciousness, t the extent that you believe there is a requirement for this section in the library, is the extent to which you believe this mirage to be real.


the very fact that a concept called 'knowledge' exists, is proof that 'I' don't exist, because knowledge is impossible, it cannot exist, even as a concept, the only way out of the contradictory nature of the concept 'knowledge', is to admit that there is no 'I', there is no *knower*


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

I've forwarded this thread to a philosophy lecturer I know.  She replies that she may use it to demostrate fallacious arguments to undergraduates.

I was never one for epistemology really.  Knowledge is flawed.  End of.  seems pretty simple really.  Can't see a convenient equation for working out how flawed any individual statement is, good thing we have critical faculties, move on etc etc.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I've forwarded this thread to a philosophy lecturer I know.  She replies that she may use it to demostrate fallacious arguments to undergraduates.



what did she mean fallacious arguments? 

i got a first in a dissertation i wrote about this

every argumenton this thread is entirely sound and coherent

it all amounts to one thing, you could never know.



> I was never one for epistemology really.  Knowledge is flawed.  End of.  seems pretty simple really.  Can't see a convenient equation for working out how flawed any individual statement is, good thing we have critical faculties, move on etc etc.



im starting to get a picture of what the real problem is, knowledge is not flawed, it is deeper than that, it is *completely impossible*, it couldnt possibly exist

BUT, nobody wants to admit this to themselves! There is a 'hidden', devastating existential implication, to the impossibility of knowledge


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

The "illusion" of consciousness 

There's a way out of the tangle, I think, but it does require that one takes consciousness seriously as a scientific phenomena. The world does contain conscious bodies.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

> im starting to get a picture of what the real problem is, knowledge is not flawed, it is deeper than that, it is completely impossible, it couldnt possibly exist


I think this conclusion may be true in some worlds; it must depend on the nature of the actual world.

Which means it cannot be advanced without assuming some kind of knowledge about the nature of the world and the nature of consciousness.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> There's a way out of the tangle, I think




*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


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> im starting to get a picture of what the real problem is, knowledge is not flawed, it is deeper than that, it is *completely impossible*, it couldnt possibly exist



You had to study on what I said now already twice?




			
				me said:
			
		

> There is no knowledge, only the suggestion thereof.



Should be logical to anyone capable of logical thinking. 

salaam.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I've forwarded this thread to a philosophy lecturer I know.  She replies that she may use it to demostrate fallacious arguments to undergraduates.


Well, she'll have to ask permission of the copyright owners (the posters) first. 

From the FAQ ...





> 2. Copyright
> 
> Copyright in each post remains with the author of that post; urban75 holds both the "database right" and a separate "compilation" copyright in entire threads and in the boards as a whole.
> 
> ...



Of course she is always free to study the material and recast the arguments in her own words.  And I am happy for her to use my posts verbatim, but would ask she change my handle to spare my blushes.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> *of course* you do!
> 
> "I think, therefore I am"
> 
> ...


Or perhaps there is something wrong with the implicit assumptions of Cartesian dualism?


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Well, she'll have to ask permission of the copyright owners (the posters) first.



Yes she indeed should. She can also come here and try to prove me wrong. 

salaam.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti, I have to leave now, I'm going to print this thing and read it later. I hope the thread doesn't grow too much before I can come back to it ; Remeber, dyslexic minds tend to get overheated very aesily.

salaam.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

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


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> You had to study on what I said now already twice?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





what is the *conclusion* though?

Because even the 'suggestion there*of*' is problematic, you could ask, 'of what?'

And, why do so many people deny this?

I think the real mystery or mirage is the question 'why do we require epistemology?'

why are we having this discussion? _How could we _be having this discussion? What are we talking about if there is no knowledge?


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

Influx of philo students at U75 mmmm...

I'm already getting a headache 

salaam.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

Hmm, well I doubt it would be verbatim and sourced.

I just don't know!  How unironic.  

I wish I knew for sure that I didn't know anything.  If I could just know that for sure I could be ready to develop as a philosopher.  Instead I'm stuck here suspecting that I know that I know nothing for sure.  My brain may blow a fuse.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> what is the *conclusion* though?



I gave you the conclusion

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. 

salaam


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i think "i know that i know nothing"
> 
> 
> is in fact 'I' trying to insist that it exists, when in fact it doesnt.......





max_freakout said:


> *of course* you do!
> 
> 
> "I think, therefore I am"
> ...


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 (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


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




i hope by now you understand epistemological sceptisism


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

Of course I understand it.  

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


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

Heh!

I'm outahere. Enjoy yourselves, folks!


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Are you sure?





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


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


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




i went barmy thinking about this yesterday


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


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


 
Oooh, I feel all enlightened now.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

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

salaam


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

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 (Feb 25, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

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 (Feb 25, 2008)

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 (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 25, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> You just used it,




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


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> You "are" as often as you think you are..




'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 (Feb 25, 2008)

Alex B said:


> I've already admitted that I don't have 100% certainty about anything,



because this is impossible, and this is knowledge



> but I do have very firm beliefs based on good reason, and where these beliefs are correct/true, then I have knowledge.



what do you mean 'where'? 

This is 'nowhere'? How can you be sure it isnt nowhere? You *can't*





> 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.



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 (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> The more I learn, the less I really know.



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


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


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



Clarify if you mean the word itself or what it is supposed to mean.



> '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'



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 (Feb 25, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> Clarify if you mean the word itself or what it is supposed to mean.



what is the difference? words refer to things, the word 'knowledge' refers to knowledge



> 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.



i am saying that the word 'think' equates to 'believe', which equates (in some mystical sense) to 'know'




> Do you know what - or if - you are, then?



no, this would be *impossible*, how could you?


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> what is the difference? words refer to things, the word 'knowledge' refers to knowledge



You don't know the difference? The why do you try to use it as an argument?    



> i am saying that the word 'think' equates to 'believe', which equates (in some mystical sense) to 'know'



Belief can't equate " to know" in no matter which sense. They are quite the opposite of eachother.




> no, this would be *impossible*, how could you?



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 (Feb 25, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> You don't know the difference? The why do you try to use it as an argument?



There is no difference



> Belief can't equate " to know" in no matter which sense. They are quite the opposite of eachother............




......... says the epistemologist

why do we need epistemology? You tell me





> You do realise that you just killed off your own argument, do you?



i am not 'doing' anything



> (why do you ask "how could you" when I just explained the impossibility?)



knowledge is impossible, end of story, you could never know


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

The philosophy forum awayday.


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> what do you mean 'where'?
> 
> This is 'nowhere'? How can you be sure it isnt nowhere?


You're being obtuse now. I meant 'where' in the sense of 'in those cases which'.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Alex B said:


> You're being obtuse now. I meant 'where' in the sense of 'in those cases which'.





right, but you cant know if there *are* any 'cases which', there might not be


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> right, but you cant know if there *are* any 'cases which', there might not be


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'.


----------



## phildwyer (Feb 25, 2008)

Alex B said:


> It so happens that we all carry around with us beliefs that help us live and that reflect how the world is.



What makes you think our beliefs reflect how the world is?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

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.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

Heh, pd, I was wondering when you'd find the thread. Have you ploughed through it all, or did that not seem to be necessary?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti 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 think that is what Sartre (and Heidegger) believed. That there are flawed and unquestioned assumptions in the metaphysical framework.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

phildwyer said:


> What makes you think our beliefs reflect how the world is?


A reasonable first answer would be "the material success of those beliefs in engaging with the world".


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I think that is what Sartre (and Heidegger) believed. That there are flawed and unquestioned assumptions in the metaphysical framework.




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 (Feb 25, 2008)

Alex B said:


> 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?



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





> So we can't have godlike certainty about anything? Big deal.



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




> 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'.



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 (Feb 25, 2008)

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.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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"



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 (Feb 25, 2008)

Alex B said:


> which methods are most reliable in producing well-founded true beliefs which we'll 'knowledge'.



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


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> You dont know that there are any of 'those cases', there might *not* be


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 (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> 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.



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 (Feb 25, 2008)

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.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> 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.



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 




> Sartre says the above quote because he believes the for-itself is a nothingness.




exactly, i think that this is the hidden existential implication of epistemological sceptisism




> get the idea that you have read Sartre, but you do not understand his philosophical project. Have you read much Heidegger, btw?



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 (Feb 25, 2008)

Alex B said:


> 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?




can i *conclude *from your position, that any knowledge is purely accidental, and that there _might not _even be any?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 25, 2008)

I think to properly understand Sartre, you need to have a good grasp of Heidegger, and Husserl as well.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

I'd say, yes, as a logical possibility. 

But I'd also say it is a logical possibility that there might be; and there might also be some knowledge which is not purely accidental.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 25, 2008)

I think max would do well to read Wittgenstein as well, thinking about it.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I think to properly understand Sartre, you need to have a good grasp of Heidegger, and Husserl as well.





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


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I think max would do well to read Wittgenstein as well, thinking about it.





Right there's a philosopher i know almost nothing about, i glanced at Tractatus but couldnt make anything of it.

Im not finished with Sartre yet though


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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



Heidegger critqued that, saying how we can separate (disassociate) ourselves from the world in order observe it?

Thats where the idea of Dasein, or Being-in-the-world, comes from.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> Right there's a philosopher i know almost nothing about, i glanced at Tractatus but couldnt make anything of it.
> 
> Im not finished with Sartre yet though



I think maybe wittgenstein could answer at least some of the problems you are facing!


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

Tbh, he was right, whatever other fault you can find with Heidegger he's not wrong about that.


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> can i *conclude *from your position, that any knowledge is purely accidental, and that there _might not _even be any?


If it is knowledge, then the contents of the knowledge (the propostion that is believed) is true, so it can't turn out that it might not be true. But it is not possible to determine from within (so to speak) that this is the case. 

The knowledge is by no means purely accidental, but it is contingent on a certain set of events happening (for example, the senses relaying accurate data to the brain, the brain processing correctly, and no 'interference' getting in the way).

An analogy (these always go well in internet discussions): if I shoot a bullet at someone, it is IN SOME VERY LOOSE SENSE an accident if it hits them, since the bullet might have failed to work, a bolt of lightning might have struck and deflected the bullet, the victim might be wearing kevlar under their shirt and so on. But if the bullet does hit them, I wouldn't claim that I didn't intend to shoot them, even while acknoweldging the possibility that once I pulled the trigger it was partly luck/accident that it hit them. Please note: this analogy intended only to clarify the sense of 'accidental', not any other aspect of knowing, epistemology, scepticism or any related discipline. Your statutory rights are not affected. Warranty void outside EU.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I think maybe wittgenstein could answer at least some of the problems you are facing!





im not facing any problems


knowledge is impossible, this is manifestly obvious


it is the people who deny this who have a 'problem', the problem of justifying epistemology

Wittgenstein makes no difference to that


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> im not facing any problems
> 
> 
> knowledge is impossible, this is manifestly obvious
> ...


 

((((wittgenstein)))


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> im not facing any problems
> 
> 
> knowledge is impossible, this is manifestly obvious
> ...



How about you have a read of the tractatus. 

And you are still completely misinterpreting Sartre to prove your own points that 'knowledge' is 'impossible'.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> im not facing any problems
> knowledge is impossible, this is manifestly obviousit is the people who deny this who have a 'problem', the problem of justifying epistemology
> 
> Wittgenstein makes no difference to that


Bollocks - "How can we have absolute knowledge" is like asking "how do I know that I'm in pain"?

It doesn't have a definitive answer, because it is a question devoid of a proper function.  

But that doesn't mean that "knowledge" as such is impossible - just certain ways of thinking about what might count as knowledge.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 25, 2008)

Oh and by problems, I meant problems in justifying yourself. Your arguments are paper thin, maybe reading some more philosophers might help you, one way or the other.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Heidegger critqued that, saying how we can separate (disassociate) ourselves from the world in order observe it?
> 
> Thats where the idea of Dasein, or Being-in-the-world, comes from.


And, of course, if we start with Dasein, or Being-in-the-world, or better, the fact that conscious bodies (such as oneself) exist in the world, then we may, just may, avoid Radical Doubt.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> And, of course, if we start with Dasein, or Being-in-the-world, or better, the fact that conscious bodies (such as oneself) exist in the world, then we may, just may, avoid Radical Doubt.



*That* is the whole point, and the reason why Max is getting it entirely wrong.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> And you are still completely misinterpreting Sartre to prove your own points that 'knowledge' is 'impossible'.



I am not using anything Sartre said as a premise in my arguments, so it is out of the question that i am misinterpreting him, but i have not misinterpreted him anyway, what he said makes very good sense to me. Please tell me where you think i have misinterpreted him


Knowledge IS impossible! That has got *nothing whatsoever *to do with Sartre, or Wittgenstein, it is epistemological sceptisism, stated explicitly and unambiguously


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> *That* is the whole point, and the reason why Max is getting it entirely wrong.



im not getting anything 'wrong', because there is clearly nothing to get wrong

knowledge is impossible, there is no intelligent choice but to *admit this*, it is self-verifying, you couldnt possibly *know*

The sceptic wins


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> And, of course, if we start with Dasein, or Being-in-the-world, or better, the fact that conscious bodies (such as oneself) exist in the world, then we may, just may, avoid Radical Doubt.



what do you mean by 'start with'?


and by saying 'of course', you are just restating the original problem, how do you know?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Oh and by problems, I meant problems in justifying yourself. Your arguments are paper thin, maybe reading some more philosophers might help you, one way or the other.





im not making any arguments, as i have said before, reading philosophers wont help

knowledge is impossible, you couldnt possibly disagree with this, unless you are in denial

epistemology has no justification


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 25, 2008)

*sigh*


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 25, 2008)

You would be an interesting chap if you didn't have such a closed mind.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> *sigh*





Dillinger4 said:


> You would be an interesting chap if you didn't have such a closed mind.





As i said earlier, denial of epistemological sceptsism, is willfull ignorance, it is *obviously* true


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 25, 2008)

*sighs again*

*goes out*


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 25, 2008)

i cant believe that there is a whole study of this.  people trying to scrape together bits of reassurance that they can know something. i guess it shows how much people want this comfort. but its a shame to be clinging to your blanket on such a lovely sunny day! 

you dont need to hang onto the belief of definate knowledge. you wont disappear completely without it.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> what do you mean by 'start with'?


Well, one has to start somewhere. I think where I start is not the same as where you start. 

So tell me, what's your starting point?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> i cant believe that there is a whole study of this. :O people trying to scrape together bits of reassurance that they can know something. i guess it shows how much people want this comfort. but its a shame to be clinging to your blanket on such a lovely sunny day!



exactly, Socrates said what needed to be said, wisdom is knowing that i know nothing

epistemology is a thin sheet covering a gaping abyss




> you dont need to hang onto the belief of definate knowledge. you wont disappear completely without it.




yes you will


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Well, one has to start somewhere. I think where I start is not the same as where you start.
> 
> So tell me, what's your starting point?





a 'starting point' is just another way of saying, the deluded and illogical belief that knowledge is actually possible


----------



## Kizmet (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> why are we having this discussion? _How could we _be having this discussion? What are we talking about if there is no knowledge?



Belief.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> yes you will



shhh! thats a secret


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> a 'starting point' is just another way of saying, the deluded and illogical belief that knowledge is actually possible


No, that's your _conclusion_, something you (ahem) think you know.

What I mean is that Descartes started with "Cogito ergo sum". Heidegger with Dasein.  In that sense, where do you start?


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> There is no difference



Yes there is. There is the word itself, and there is the meaning attributed to it. Those are distinct.



> ......... says the epistemologist



No, says Aldebaran.



> why do we need epistemology? You tell me



I'm not even talking about it. I talk about a very simple thing anyone should know without thinking: Belief is not knowledge and can't be knowledge or there would not be the requirement for belief to exist.
And since knowledge doesn't exist, only the suggestion thereof, belief is all there is.

You killed your argument but you don't want to believe it which leads you to think you know you didn't kill it.
I don't need to know that to see what you did 

Example: I had to edit this post 3 times because Dyslex 3 times made me write the word "quote" wrong and 3 times I didn't see it before I entered the submit button.
Q: Is that knowledge of what I did?
A: No. 

salaam.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> To be fair, the impact of Radical Doubt can be very disorienting.



Why? If you don't doubt anything and everything you mind stopped at a certain point, to become self-satisfied 

(I think Descartes started with "sum res cogitans", but I'm not sure. I'm not that well read in Western philosophy, only inctroduction courses to it.)


salaam.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

> Example: I had to edit this post 3 times because Dyslex 3 times made me write the word "quote" wrong and 3 times I didn't see it before I entered the submit button.
> Q: Is that knowledge of what I did?
> A: No.


Hang on, humour me here.

I got the clear and distinct impression you do know what you did, and that now I know what you did as well.  'Cos you told me.

I find it basically a semantic quibble.  I'm not too fussed about using the term "true beliefs" instead of "knowledge".  But why bother? We have the word 'knowledge' for a reason; we know (heh!) what it means, and we know that absolute copper-bottomed certainty isn't part of the meaning.

The world is an uncertain place. What's the big deal?


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Hang on, humour me here.
> 
> I got the clear and distinct impression you do know what you did, and that now I know what you did as well.  'Cos you told me.



Ah.... You're wrong. You don't know, you believe me. 
I saw it and that was an experience needed to believe I wrote it wrong. That is not having knowledge, it is experience leading to belief, on its turn giving the suggestion of knowledge.
Would I have knowledge, I wouldn't need experience nor belief. 

salaam.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> Why? If you don't doubt anything and everything you mind stopped at a certain point, to become self-satisfied
> 
> (I think Descartes started with "sum res cogitans", but I'm not sure. I'm not that well read in Western philosophy, only introduction courses to it.)
> 
> ...


Oh, for sure, the questioning mind is essential to the life of reason.  But that's not the same as the Radical Doubt of Descartes' Meditations (originally written in latin - enjoy!).


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*breathes*

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

*dies*


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> Ah.... You're wrong. You don't know, you believe me.
> I saw it and that was an experience needed to believe I wrote it wrong. That is not having knowledge, it is experience leading to belief, on its turn giving the suggestion of knowledge.
> Would I have knowledge, I wouldn't need experience nor belief.
> 
> salaam.


Yeah, I thought that's what you'd say. 

Perhaps you expect my rejoinder that, if you want, we can use the word knowledge to mean "true belief"?  I don't really find that satisfactory, but I can see it's very difficult to argue against.

What about maths, though?  Would you not say there is such a thing as mathematical knowledge?


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> What about maths, though?  Would you not say there is such a thing as mathematical knowledge?



Pfft, maths.  Stop clinging to such desperate reassurance.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

Whaaaa... seducing me again with link ot the most sublime language on earth... Here goes the rest of my night (again). Latin is a curse for Dyslex... I'm going to lose weight again. 

*anticipates headaches and nausea by slamming head at PC screen*

salaam.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

<chuckles>

My math is far from certain!


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Perhaps you expect my rejoinder that, if you want, we can use the word knowledge to mean "true belief"?  I don't really find that satisfactory, but I can see it's very difficult to argue against.



No. Naked truth would be better but still not even coming close.



> What about maths, though?  Would you not say there is such a thing as mathematical knowledge?



If I say that for my dyslexic mind 1+1 equals 3 (to keep it simple, my math teachers are all in the madhouse and still screaming for a reason) what would you make of that?

salaam.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> The philosophy forum awayday.






I think that should be on top of the forum. (Where is The Ed when you need him....)


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

I'm not sure which one i am though


----------



## Santino (Feb 25, 2008)

Max, you seem to think that we can't accept that knowledge is impossible, when the fact is that we don't care.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I'm not sure which one i am though



No, you can't know it. 



salaam.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

Alex B said:


> Max, you seem to think that we can't accept that knowledge is impossible, when the fact is that we don't care.



Don't give away the trade secrets dude.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Alex B said:


> Max, you seem to think that we can't accept that knowledge is impossible, when the fact is that we don't care.



this thread shows that you wont accept that knowledge is impossible, because if you agreed, we wouldnt be having the discussion

if you didnt care, we wouldnt be having the discussion

and epistemology exists because modern philosophy thinks it is a very important subject to discuss


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

but if you say that knowledge is impossible, you're saying you know something.  How can you say knowledge is impossible when it might be possible.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Oh, for sure, the questioning mind is essential to the life of reason.  But that's not the same as the Radical Doubt of Descartes' Meditations (originally written in latin - enjoy!).




im pretty much thinking along Descartes' lines of radical doubt, his argument that dreams and madness are a source of doubt, holds a lot of weight


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> No, that's your _conclusion_, something you (ahem) think you know.
> 
> What I mean is that Descartes started with "Cogito ergo sum". Heidegger with Dasein.  In that sense, where do you start?




i see what you mean

in that case I start, *and* (most importantly) conclude, with this:

knowledge is impossible

this ^ is obviously a true statement


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> but if you say that knowledge is impossible, you're saying you know something.  How can you say knowledge is impossible when it might be possible.




no by saying knowledge is impossible, i am stating an obvious truth

knowledge is obviously impossible, how could it be possible? there is no mystery to epistemology

but there is a devastating existential implication to this, which is why noone wants to admit it (i suspect)


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> knowledge is impossible
> 
> this ^ is obviously a true statement



You you know that to be a fact?


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

(what is this, the fifth time we've done this lovely bit of circular thinking)


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> You you know that to be a fact?



OF COURSE NOT!!!!


How could i? Knowledge is impossible


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

it is impossible to admit (the obvious truth that) that knowledge is impossible

that is why we are having this conversation


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

So you admit that knowledge may be possible, yet you keep repeating that knowledge is impossible.  Why do you do that?


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> but if you say that knowledge is impossible, you're saying you know something.  How can you say knowledge is impossible when it might be possible.



Because there is no knowledge but the suggestion thereof.
Counts for everything. (Hence also for my conclusion and I'm still waiting for it to be proven wrong.)

salaam.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

Well, fair enough.  That's similar to my POV on the issue I laid out earlier. Except mine adds the caveat that it doesn't really matter!


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> no by saying knowledge is impossible, i am stating an obvious truth



There is no truth possible without knowledge, let alone an "obvious" truth.
Would it obvious everyone would know it.

salaam.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Well, fair enough.  That's similar to my POV on the issue I laid out earlier. Except mine adds the caveat that it doesn't really matter!



read my tagline 

that has been my tagline the whole time ive been posting on urban


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Well, fair enough.  That's similar to my POV on the issue I laid out earlier. Except mine adds the caveat that it doesn't really matter!



It depends on what you want to use it for. I use it to remind myself that I know nothing. That doesn't exclude that neverthless my suggestions of knowledge or aspects thereof can be of use.

salaam.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 25, 2008)

Yes, but it's not _right_.  It's not that NOTHING matter, it's that it doesn't matter whether we can truly know anything. While it MAY be that every experience of either of ours is an illusion, we may just be part of the matrix or whatever, the simple truth is that, to all intents and purposes the illusion is real.  Assuming that there is no knowledge except the bits we decide are facts is shoddy thinking.  You, me, everyone else in this world are either living a real life or sharing a mass illusion.  The effects are the same.  Stuff really does matter.  It matters tor a number of reasons: 

1. You're a brain in a jar and everyone else's consciousness is an illusion, so your actions only truly impact on your own psyche.  Result - you still need to live with yourself.  

2. There is a divine controller of some sort who will call you to account once this physical life is over.  Therefore your actions need to be considered in light of their auditing process.

3. There is no shared illusion, we are all independent agencies to the degree our society and upbringing allows us and our action impact on each other.  Therefore stuff matters because of the sanctions our community and society and indeed our own flesh and bone can put on us.

There are more but those are the important ones.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> There is no truth possible without knowledge, let alone an "obvious" truth.
> Would it obvious everyone would know it.



i would say it the other way round

theres no knowledge without truth

that's why knowledge is impossible


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i would say it the other way round
> 
> theres no knowledge without truth



That is not correct. You can't turn it the other way round. 
I challenge you to find out why. 



I'm off now... (I'm not in your time zone)

salaam.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> That is not correct. You can't turn it the other way round.
> I challenge you to find out why.




i'll think about that 

there can't be truth


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Yes, but it's not _right_.  It's not that NOTHING matter, it's that it doesn't matter whether we can truly know anything. While it MAY be that every experience of either of ours is an illusion, we may just be part of the matrix or whatever, the simple truth is that, to all intents and purposes the illusion is real.  Assuming that there is no knowledge except the bits we decide are facts is shoddy thinking.  You, me, everyone else in this world are either living a real life or sharing a mass illusion.  The effects are the same.  Stuff really does matter.  It matters tor a number of reasons:
> 
> 1. You're a brain in a jar and everyone else's consciousness is an illusion, so your actions only truly impact on your own psyche.  Result - you still need to live with yourself.
> 
> ...


*applauds*

An agent, a Dasein, is of the world and shapes the world, acting upon it in various ways. As potters know their craft of shaping clay, so agencies know their craft of changing their world.

But that of course is to start with one's being-in-the-world. Another possible place to start is with Radical Doubt. One's assuming a different kind of metaphysic, that's all.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 25, 2008)

*also applauds*


----------



## Jonti (Feb 25, 2008)

> ...but there is a devastating existential implication to this, which is why noone wants to admit it (i suspect)


Certainly is. But one continues living right way through an existential crisis, to emerge as a being-in-the-world. 

And people have conceded far more than you allow. One can certainly be mistaken about any particular of the world; but one cannot say one knows nothing. It's just unsayable. That's not exactly useful, but it's not trivial either. Language is important, and we are talking in terms of information, of having information about the world, a world in which we are intimately engaged, and in which we act. One might even know things; but if so it's likely we can't be sure what.

None of this is a remedy for for the devastating existential implications of radical doubt, for all of the preceding paragraph also applies to Descartes' line on dreams and madness. But an existential crisis doesn't last for ever, so who cares?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 25, 2008)

I definitely feel my own 'existential crisis' (urgh) has passed. 

Jonti, you put it better than I ever can. I agree with what you are saying here.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 25, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Certainly is. But one continues living right way through an existential crisis, to emerge as a being-in-the-world.



Beautiful 



> And people have conceded far more than you allow. One can certainly be mistaken about any particular of the world; but one cannot say one knows nothing. It's just unsayable. That's not exactly useful, but it's not trivial either. Language is important, and we are talking in terms of information, of having information about the world, a world in which we are intimately engaged, and in which we act. One might even know things; but if so it's likely we can't be sure what.
> 
> None of this is a remedy for for the devastating existential implications of radical doubt, for all of the preceding paragraph also applies to Descartes' line on dreams and madness. But an existential crisis doesn't last for ever, so who cares?




Yeah who cares?


i suppose my point was, the existential crisis is actually *true*, knowledge *really is* impossible

but we arent going to get to the bottom of that here...........


----------



## Jonti (Feb 26, 2008)

I can offer you a "some things are unsayable, and the existential crisis is temporary" in exchange.

Best I can do!


----------



## Santino (Feb 26, 2008)

Serious question Max: do you distinguish between the non-knowledge belief I have that I live in Flat no.5, and the non-knowledge belief that the Holocaust didn't happen? (I'm not trying to say that if you don't believe in knowledge then you're a Nazi, by the way.)

And, to go back to the earlier argument: I only believe knowledge is possible when it is the particular *knowledge I have previously defined (i.e. is not certain). The knowledge that you are railing against is not some pre-existing phenemonon that we are trying to determine the nature of, it is entirely a human construct. You haven't discovered something about the world, you have just analysed a word in such a way as to make it an empty concept. With a more nuanced and, in my case, contingent definition we can come up with a rich and useful description of *knowledge, a part of which can be a discussion about how we should form beliefs about religion, politics, social science, New Age beliefs, jurisprudence and so on. Are you really arguing that we shouldn't distinguish between good and bad justification for belief?


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Yes, but it's not _right_.  It's not that NOTHING matter, it's that it doesn't matter whether we can truly know anything.



Depends. It doesn't matter for you personally if you don't want to think further about its implications. It doesn't affect your daily life or your  approach to the world then. 
On the other hand you have people convinced they have knowledge and convinced they have to push that self-suggestion onto others. You find them in all sorts, shdaes and grades. I oppose them for as long as I can remember being able to think.

I'm not talking about illusions, Im' talking about knowledge. You switch the subject to an entirely different issue. (suggestion and self-suggestion of having knowledge is not illusion, in any case not in the interpretation you gave it)

salaam.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

I'm not sure I get what you mean?  you mean the peddling of lies and propaganda etc?


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I'm not sure I get what you mean?  you mean the peddling of lies and propaganda etc?



No, those ware willingly created distortions only affecting the gullible or those too lazy to think for themselves. 
I mean people who are really convinced they and they alone have knowledge (of what is the truth, for example). You can't debate with such people about their conviction (unless you have arguments that knock them off their feet from the very start) and most of te time they want everyone to think like they do. Sometimes by all means possible.

Knowledge is not an illusion because somewhere it resides, out of reach for the human mind. That is the only problem  

salaam.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

Alex B said:


> Are you really arguing that we shouldn't distinguish between good and bad justification for belief?



yes!! they are only good and bad according to that particular justification. anything could be true. 

on the surface you can still go about making your laws and adjusting them, but be aware you cant truely justify yourself, because:

you can never know the results of your actions
you have no absolute knowledge
and all you have are your beliefs 

now this doesnt mean that you stop making laws, just that you feel a bit less self righteous about them, and more humble and open to critisism. and i dont think thats a bad thing!

so my answer is- you can continue to superficially distinguish good and bad justification of belief (whatever is meant by that)- but i would prefer the laws of my country to be laid down by someone who doesnt take these good and bad justifications so deep into their heart that they become less compassionate.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

Jonti said:


> *applauds*
> 
> An agent, a Dasein, is of the world and shapes the world, acting upon it in various ways. As potters know their craft of shaping clay, so agencies know their craft of changing their world.
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 26, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Certainly is. But one continues living right way through an existential crisis, to emerge as a being-in-the-world.



I never had an existential crisis and most possibly I shall never encounter one as long as I am in full possion ofmy brain functions.
It can only happen if for some reason you develop a fear and next allow that to  become totally overwhelming your psyche.
Take some prozac, I would say  

salaam.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> [working with clay is a very subtle art



Yes it is. I have seen it done, and the same with glass and cristal. It is not "knowledge". It is highly developed intuition. 

salaam.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> Yes it is. I have seen it done, and the same with glass and cristal. It is not "knowledge". It is highly developed intuition.
> 
> salaam.



yes, thats what i meant. i was just referring back to the previous comment by calling it 'knowledge'. its not knowledge, its feel-edge


----------



## Santino (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> now this doesnt mean that you stop making laws, just that you feel a bit less self righteous about them, and more humble and open to critisism. and i dont think thats a bad thing!


But - and I really hate to do this - your justification for this belief is entirely at odds with your own _soi-disant_ relativism about justification and is, by your own argument, EXACTLY as valid as a belief that the Holocaust did not happen or that the moon is made of green cheese.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

Feel-edge.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> No, those ware willingly created distortions only affecting the gullible or those too lazy to think for themselves.
> I mean people who are really convinced they and they alone have knowledge (of what is the truth, for example). You can't debate with such people about their conviction (unless you have arguments that knock them off their feet from the very start) and most of te time they want everyone to think like they do. Sometimes by all means possible.
> 
> Knowledge is not an illusion because somewhere it resides, out of reach for the human mind. That is the only problem
> ...


 
Ah, yes, I think I see what you mean.  It was the semi-mystic stuff that confused me.

All I can really say is "yes, if you like" to that post, I guess.  It doesn't really seem to be a measured response to my argument, more a casual addendum.  I can't really tell if you're agreeing with me that we should assume that reality is not an illusion, or if you're disagreeing with my assertion that stuff matters.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

This so-called intuition is a type of knowledge FFS...  *weeps*


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

Alex B said:


> But - and I really hate to do this - your justification for this belief is entirely at odds with your own _soi-disant_ relativism about justification and is, by your own argument, EXACTLY as valid as a belief that the Holocaust did not happen or that the moon is made of green cheese.



what justification?


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Ah, yes, I think I see what you mean.  It was the semi-mystic stuff that confused me.
> 
> All I can really say is "yes, if you like" to that post, I guess.  It doesn't really seem to be a measured response to my argument, more a casual addendum.  I can't really tell if you're agreeing with me that we should assume that reality is not an illusion, or if you're disagreeing with my assertion that stuff matters.



There is nothing mystical about my arguments, it is pure logical reasoning. 

Stuff matters if you want it to matter and most of the time that is even a necessity caused by your confrontation with it. 
That doesn't mean that your reality is the reality of others. You only approach it as if it is (because you are forced to live it,we can't escape what we shape as our reality) while the approach of the others is always different than yours, subtle as that sometimes may be. 

salaam.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> what justification?



*puts hand on head*


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

You realize now why Athens found Socrates so fucking irritating.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> This so-called intuition is a type of knowledge FFS...  *weeps*



No it isn't. Knowledge is an eternal absolute, a beginning and endmark, unchangeable. That is why it is out of reach for the human mind and hence should be treated as non-existent. 

salaam.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> This so-called intuition is a type of knowledge FFS...  *weeps*



but you can intuit something and it isnt necessarily correct. knowledge implies being correct.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

Does it?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 26, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> I never had an existential crisis and most possibly I shall never encounter one as long as I am in full possession of my brain functions ...


It's surprisingly common (if also something of an affectation) among young philosophy students who _experience_ the full force of the radical doubt perspective (coming at things from a Cartesian angle, you understand).

I'm looking forward to your assessment of Where Descartes Went Wrong -- no hurry of course.  This is the philosophy forum


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> You realize now why Athens found Socrates so fucking irritating.


 

I love you


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> but you can intuit something and it isnt necessarily correct. knowledge implies being correct.


 
I suspect that the term "knowledge" includes things you think you know.  Intuition would definitely come under that.


----------



## Santino (Feb 26, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> No it isn't. Knowledge is an eternal absolute, a beginning and endmark, unchangeable.


Is it fuck.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I suspect that the term "knowledge" includes things you think you know.  Intuition would definitely come under that.



okay, im talking about knowledge as in 'the things you know'

of course you can *think* you know something. im not arguing against that. people think all sorts of things.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

Almost every single problem posed on this thread disappears once you reject the flawed assumptions upon which they rest. As Heidegger and Sartre did. 

*goes back to lurking*


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

I might go through this thread a make a list of all the things people suggest knowledge may (or may not be).  The vast range of ideas has, if nothing else, given me a practical display of why empiricism is a major branch of philosophy.

Still an ethicist, mind


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 26, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I'm looking forward to your assessment of Where Descartes Went Wrong -- no hurry of course.  This is the philosophy forum



mmm... luring me back to Dyslex torture? You really want me to write on that? Well, maybe in a month or so. And in a thread made for it 
I'm sure he went wrong somewhere, don't we all, in the eyes of others?

salaam.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I might go through this thread a make a list of all the things people suggest knowledge may (or may not be).  The vast range of ideas has, if nothing else, given me a practical display of why empiricism is a major branch of philosophy.
> 
> Still an ethicist, mind



a) thinking you know things : not impossible

b) knowing you know things : impossible

i think its b we are talking about. sometimes people get sulky because they dont like the idea of b, so they start talking about a to change the subject!


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I'm looking forward to your assessment of Where Descartes Went Wrong -- no hurry of course.  This is the philosophy forum



I am just quoting this, because I am going to come back later on this evening and try and give some answers.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 26, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Almost every single problem posed on this thread disappears once you reject the flawed assumptions upon which they rest. As Heidegger and Sartre did.



I'm still waiting to have my conclusion(s) proven wrong. Please don't hesitate to explain 

salaam.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 26, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> ... I mean people who are really convinced they and they alone have knowledge (of what is the truth, for example)...


This puts me in mind of the Modern Radicals; and the other many weird Cults or "mind-control rackets" that exist all over the world.  I know one cult that actually calls its teachings (which are a mish-mash of very badly taught Kriya and Bhakti Yoga, some Hinduism, and loads of  Messianism) "Knowledge".

In any kind of discussion those guys tend to explain you just "don't get it". Well, how could you ... you don't have Knowledge so of course you don't understand ...


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> I'm still waiting to have my conclusion(s) proven wrong. Please don't hesitate to explain
> 
> salaam.



I will give it a go, but this evening. I am supposed to be working today.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 26, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I am just quoting this, because I am going to come back later on this evening and try and give some answers.



If you are going to discuss that can you make a thread for it? Easier to jump in it when I'm done with the Dyslex torture reading. 

salaam.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> a) thinking you know things : not impossible
> 
> b) knowing you know things : impossible
> 
> i think its b we are talking about. sometimes people get sulky because they dont like the idea of b, so they start talking about a to change the subject!


 
Well, I think that epistemology covers both, being as it is _the study of knowledge_.  Isn't it?

You were the one who started on intuition though...


----------



## Jonti (Feb 26, 2008)

I think it's worth a thread too; but no reason not to post here as well if it's relevant

*Goes  to find copy of Descartes' Meditations


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> a) thinking you know things : not impossible
> 
> b) knowing you know things : impossible
> 
> i think its b we are talking about. sometimes people get sulky because they dont like the idea of b, so they start talking about a to change the subject!




spot on 


i'm interested in the implications of (b)

(a) is just boringly trivial, i have said it many times in this thread, you can believe _anything_

but you cant know anything


----------



## Jonti (Feb 26, 2008)

Here we go again ...

I know I can't say "I know nothing". But I'm not sure what that logical restriction means.  Perhaps Wittgenstein could help


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

Descartes said the only certain thing is that *I exist*


this is wrong, and in fact the opposite is true

The only certain thing is that knowledge is impossible

yet in order for this to be true, it follows logically that *I dont exist*!


i cannot possibly exist, because know;edge is impossible

so Descartes should perhaps have said:

"I think, therefore I am *not*"


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Well, I think that epistemology covers both, being as it is _the study of knowledge_.  Isn't it?
> 
> You were the one who started on intuition though...



im not arguing that espistemology doesnt exist. of course people *think* they know things. they make studies of why they *think* they know things.

im just saying that nobody really knows.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Here we go again ...
> 
> I know I can't say "I know nothing". But I'm not sure what that logical restriction means.  Perhaps Wittgenstein could help



would someone who is familiar with Wittgenstein please tell me what light he shone on this problem?

he was not in any way an epistemologer ,none of his words appear in the epistemology books mentioned at the start of this thread, his are was logic, and this problem is explicitly a problem of epistemology, so i suspect he will not help us

I am saying, that the question "why is there an epistemology section at the library?" is something of a mystery, because we have no need for epistemology, as knowledge is obviously impossible


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

An interesting critique of the Cartesian fundamental.  

See, I agree with Rene that the only single piece of knowledge that i know for a fact is that there is an 'I', which I am aware of because the 'I' thinks.  What that 'I' may be and the accuracy of the thoughts are another matter.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

You have such a basic grasp of philosophical thought. You barely even understand the cogito and its implications.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> Descartes said the only certain thing is that *I exist*
> 
> 
> this is wrong, and in fact the opposite is true
> ...



Don't think you've quite grapsed the cartesian method there my old chum. As i've demonstrated to you before.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> An interesting critique of the Cartesian fundamental.
> 
> See, I agree with Rene that the only single piece of knowledge that i know for a fact is that there is an 'I', which I am aware of because the 'I' thinks.  What that 'I' may be and the accuracy of the thoughts are another matter.



The problem with Descartes is that the cogito just creates a whole other lot of problems.

Like we know our own minds exist through doubt, but what about the outside world? What about other minds, in a subject/subject relation? How can a mind reflect on itself without changing itself? All the problems on this thread, especially max's claim that knowledge is impossible ETC are based on this false assumption. 

Argh! 

I really should be doing other stuff.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> I am saying, that the question "why is there an epistemology section at the library" is something of a mystery, because we have no need for epistemology, as knowledge is obviously impossible


 
Except that isn't the case, because for most people, knowledge is a clear and obvious everyday occurance, it's only philosophers who examine the unexamined innit.  Also, the very statement "knowledge is obviously impossible" is surely an empistemological statement, covering as it does, a philosophical viewpoint on knowledge.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Don't think you've quite grapsed the cartesian method there my old chum. As i've demonstrated to you before.



He seems to miss ALL the nuances of the philosophy he is talking about, and just uses it to show why he believes he is right about whatever he is saying.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> The problem with Descartes is that the cogito just creates a whole other lot of problems.
> 
> Like we know our own minds exist through doubt, but what about the outside world? What about other minds, in a subject/subject relation? How can a mind reflect on itself without changing itself? All the problems on this thread, especially max's claim that knowledge is impossible ETC are based on this false assumption.


 

Well, yes, quite.  However, as I see it, cogito ergo sum doesn't account for anything else, it's simply a reduction to the minimal amount of knowedge possible.  It's not my field especially though, so I may be missing some vital point.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

Alex B said:


> Serious question Max: do you distinguish between the non-knowledge belief I have that I live in Flat no.5, and the non-knowledge belief that the Holocaust didn't happen?



for the strict purposes of this argument there is no difference, neither of these examples are 'knowledge', because there is no such thing as knowledge



> And, to go back to the earlier argument: I only believe knowledge is possible when it is the particular *knowledge I have previously defined (i.e. is not certain)



*knowledge isnt 'knowledge'

why not just call *knowledge 'belief'? Because that is what it is, and you can believe anything




> The knowledge that you are railing against is not some pre-existing phenemonon that we are trying to determine the nature of, it is entirely a human construct.



I am not railing against anything, im am stating a plainly obvious truth, humans *couldnt possibly* have constructed a concept of knoweldge!




> You haven't discovered something about the world, you have just analysed a word in such a way as to make it an empty concept. With a more nuanced and, in my case, contingent definition we can come up with a rich and useful description of *knowledge, a part of which can be a discussion about how we should form beliefs about religion, politics, social science, New Age beliefs, jurisprudence and so on. Are you really arguing that we shouldn't distinguish between good and bad justification for belief?





what i am saying has nothing to do with *knowledge

this point is about knowledge, there is no type of knowledge which isnt certain


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> He seems to miss ALL the nuances of the philosophy he is talking about, and just uses it to show why he believes he is right about whatever he is saying.






read the thread again, 'believing to be right' = knowing

and i am saying knowledge is impossible

and you are saying i believe myself to be right 


how could i possibly *know*? I is you, not i, who is claiming knowledge


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Except that isn't the case, because for most people, knowledge is a clear and obvious everyday occurance, it's only philosophers who examine the unexamined innit.  Also, the very statement "knowledge is obviously impossible" is surely an empistemological statement, covering as it does, a philosophical viewpoint on knowledge.





you are going back to the start of the argument 

Are you claiming that knowledge is possible?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

*Sigh*

You saying something enough doesn't make it true, or correct, or right, or whatever it is you want it to be. 

All I am seeing is a massive lack or argument and a huge use of circular arguments. Knowledge seems almost definitely impossible for you, tbh. It really shows.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> You saying something enough doesn't make it true, or correct, or right, or whatever it is you want it to be.
> 
> All I am seeing is a massive lack or argument and a huge use of circular arguments. Knowledge seems almost definitely impossible for you, tbh. It really shows.





Forget about 'you', stop wasting you posts filling them up with aggressive crap about 'you'

what about *you*? Do *you* think knowledge is possible? how is it possible?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

Yes, I think I do. But not in the straw man definition you have put up.

I will cover it in my thread later on about Descartes, Husserl, Heidegger and Sartre.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Yes, I think I do. But not in the straw man definition you have put up.



I HAVENT PUT UP ANY DEFINITION!!!!

please tell me which definition you understand

what is knowledge? 

you 'think' you do? what do you mean by that? that you might not?

there is *no* definition because knowledge is impossible, there is no such thing


----------



## jonH (Feb 26, 2008)

what the fucks a definition


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

Like I have said, Philosophy as we generally know it rests on some pretty shaky foundations, and within the house built upon it, knowledge is not possible, no. 

But that is not to say it is impossible. I don't think, anyway.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

jonH said:


> what the fucks a definition




a definition of knowledge *isn't anything*


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

Right, I am off out now. laterz


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Like I have said, Philosophy as we generally know it rests on some pretty shaky foundations, and within the house built upon it, knowledge is not possible, no.
> 
> But that is not to say it is impossible. I don't think, anyway.




So to summarize your position:

"knowledge is not possible"

AND

"I don't think knowledge is not impossible"

 


this highlights the problem with having a position.....


----------



## jonH (Feb 26, 2008)

The more I know the more I know I don't know

Life is for Love, Time that we may do DMT (know God)


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> You saying something enough doesn't make it true, or correct, or right, or whatever it is you want it to be.



this is true of any statement.

therefore knowledge is impossible.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 26, 2008)

max doesn't have a definition for "knowledge". 'Cos, you see it's *impossible!*

I think he means it's logically impossible (whatever it is).  As a fully paid up member of the even-more-awkward squad, I think I'm inclining towards the view that it's an empirical question anyway.

We may turn out to have the kind of direct connection with the stuff of the world that "knowledge" demands; or we may not.  It all depends on the way the world actually is.

But it is logically contradictory to say "knowledge is impossible" (being as that phrase purports to refer to a fact about us and our relationship with the world).  And Wittgenstein was a logician. So although it may turn out to be an empirical question, a little read of a few of his aphorisms may help.  

Then again, it may not.  I was just kind of hoping that "Whereof we cannot speak*, thereof we must be silent" would appeal to max_freakout 

* 'cos _*it's impossible!!*_


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> you are going back to the start of the argument
> 
> Are you claiming that knowledge is possible?


 
No, but claims that knowledge isn't possible ARE STILL EPISTEMOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS.

Besides which, I would claim that some knowledge is possible:  the knowledge of my own self-awareness.  I don't know for sure the nature of that self-awareness, but I am self-aware.


----------



## jonH (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I am self-aware.



almost


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I think he means it's logically impossible (whatever it is).




It isnt anything! How could it be?


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

jonH said:


> almost


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> It isnt anything! How could it be?


 
Oh dear.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

has anyone actually given an arguement why knowledge is possible yet??


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

I just don't know anymore


----------



## articul8 (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> has anyone actually given an arguement why knowledge is possible yet??



Asking why knowledge is possible is like asking why pain hurts - knowledge in the de-absolutised sense is simply a condition of our being in the world.  It would be entirely impossible to function as a human being if we didn't operate with certain rudimentary forms of knowledge.  We "know" that the way to alieviate thirst is by taking a drink.  We "know" that searing pain suggests something not is not quite right!  

It's a classic fallacy to argue that because it is impossible to have some archimidean viewpoint of absolute knowledge, that all knowledge is therefore impossible.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

articul8 said:


> It would be entirely impossible to function as a human being if we didn't operate with certain rudimentary forms of knowledge.  We "know" that the way to alieviate thirst is by taking a drink.  We "know" that searing pain suggests something not is not quite right!



this is feel-edge!


----------



## articul8 (Feb 26, 2008)

Aha - classic mistake of narrow Cartesian englightenment understanding of reason to try to sever it from affectivity.  

No knowledge without the body!


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

articul8 said:


> Asking why knowledge is possible is like asking why pain hurts - knowledge in the de-absolutised sense is simply a condition of our being in the world.
> 
> It's a classic fallacy to argue that because it is impossible to have some archimidean viewpoint of absolute knowledge, that all knowledge is therefore impossible.



Extreme pain, thirst and emotion are just feelings and beliefs.
do you think animals have knowledge?

are you saying that we can 'know' things in an *unknowing* sort of a way, but we cant really know anything?


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

A Challenger Appears :d


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

if absolute knowledge is impossible then it is also impossible to have any certain knowledge.

if you have something that you think you know, where is its foundation? what is this ''knowledge'' standing on?


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

articul8 said:


> Aha - classic mistake of narrow Cartesian englightenment understanding of reason to try to sever it from affectivity.
> 
> No knowledge without the body!




 i didnt say that. i just said pain and emotion are feelings.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

So clearly what is needed here is a definition of knowledge.


----------



## bodach (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> So clearly what is needed here is a definition of knowledge.





I've been away from this thread for a few days now, and this is where you lot are.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> do you think animals have knowledge?



In rudimentary forms I guess, yes.  But certain human concepts are grounded in common experiences bound by our condition as a species, so it certainly doesn't follow that human knowledge and animal "knowledge" are qualititatively similar.  As Wittengenstein said, if a Lion could speak we couldn't understand what he was saying!



> are you saying that we can 'know' things in an *unknowing* sort of a way, but we cant really know anything?


I don't think there is a difference between "knowing" and "really knowing".  To "know" something is just to find a particular description of something to be compelling given the available information.  "Knowledge" holds in a particular place and particular time - that doesn't mean that it is infallable or unconditionally true for all places and times.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

bodach said:


> I've been away from this thread for a few days now, and this is where you lot are.


 
There are no winners on the internets, bodach, only lots of varieties of loser.


----------



## bodach (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> There are no winners on the internets, bodach, only lots of varieties of loser.



But what's a winner, and what's a loser. Why can't there be varieties of winners?


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> So clearly what is needed here is a definition of knowledge.



a) thinking you know things : not impossible

b) knowing you know things : impossible

i think its b we are talking about. a is very boring to discuss because people can believe what they like.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

*head meets desk*


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

articul8 said:


> In rudimentary forms I guess, yes.



so you arent sure whether animals know anything? 

or if you are sure, please could you explain it?


----------



## bodach (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> *head meets desk*



Are you sure it's not the other way round.  I'm assuming it's your head that's moving.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

articul8 said:


> To "know" something is just to find a particular description of something to be compelling given the available information.  "Knowledge" holds in a particular place and particular time - that doesn't mean that it is infallable or unconditionally true for all places and times.



i see a difference in knowing something, and being persuaded to believe by forcefulness of argument.

many of the beliefs held 1000 years ago seem laughable now, and this will happen again in the future. there is no truth, only currently held beliefs and knowledge is therefore impossible.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> a) thinking you know things : not impossible
> 
> b) knowing you know things : impossible
> 
> i think its b we are talking about. a is very boring to discuss because people can believe what they like.



Look at you, parroting max, almost word for word.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

It could be.  My knowledge is flawed.  I know nothing but uncertainty.  And pain, cos me teeth are giving me gyp.  Unless they're someone else's teeth.  I havne't quite got there yet.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Look at you, parroting max, almost word for word.


 

I actually went back and checked to see if that was a direct cuntpaste.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> i see a difference in knowing something, and being persuaded to believe by forcefulness of argument.
> 
> many of the beliefs held 1000 years ago seem laughable now, and this will happen again in the future. there is no truth, only currently held beliefs and knowledge is therefore impossible.



Instead of pretending, you should just quote max's posts.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> this is feel-edge!



Feel-edge. That word means nothing to me. You have just made it up, and it doesn't actually mean anything. I am not surprised you think there is no such thing as knowledge, because you live in some kind of content free world that you have just decided is true on a whim.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> So clearly what is needed here is a definition of knowledge.



I gave it. 

Knowledge is an eternal absolute, a beginning and endmark, unchangeable. 
That is why it is out of reach for the human mind and hence should be treated as non-existent. 

salaam.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> so you arent sure whether animals know anything?
> 
> or if you are sure, please could you explain it?



I don't (can't by definition) know everything that they 'know' because "know" pertains only to those forms of truth-claims that are comprehensible in terms of human experience.  This is not, though, the same as saying that only humans know things.  It is just that what humans know (of animals), they know from their perspective as humans.

It certainly doesn't mean that it is impossible to assert that animals know things.  It simply doesn't make sense to say that when an animal screams it doesn't necessarily "know" that it is in pain


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> has anyone actually given an arguement why knowledge is possible yet??



the worlds 'Knowledge' and 'Possible' have lost all meaning in this context. They are just empty buzz words that you just keep banging on about, without actually putting forward any realistic philosophical argument that is not entirely circular.

They are dead words in your mouth, falling out stillborn into a world that doesn't give a fuck about bullshit parroted made up opinions based on entirely nothing.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 26, 2008)

Aldebaran's definition of knowledge:

Knowledge is an eternal absolute, a beginning and endmark, unchangeable. 
That is why it is out of reach for the human mind and hence should be treated as non-existent. 

salaam


----------



## Jonti (Feb 26, 2008)

> there is no truth, only currently held beliefs


Is that a fact?

Is it a fact that's a belief?  So it's a fact it isn't a fact, iyswim.

And can I have some of what you're smoking, please?


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 26, 2008)

Dillinger, what about proving me wrong on all I posted in this thread 

salaam.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

I don't think it is out of reach of the human mind.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> Dillinger, what about proving me wrong on all I posted in this thread
> 
> salaam.



Right. I have half an hour, then I have got to go out again. But I am going to have a go at posting that thread now.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> I gave it.
> 
> Knowledge is an eternal absolute, a beginning and endmark, unchangeable.
> That is why it is out of reach for the human mind and hence should be treated as non-existent.
> ...


 

Well, I think you're wrong.

I think that knowledge is

that which is known as true or believed to be true.

Epistemology is the study or knowledge, what it is, how we get it, the value and quality of knowledge, truth, understanding, intuition etc etc.

Your mystic stuff isn't really useful.  For example, I know how to make a cup of tea.  This knowledge may be an illusion if you think reality is different to how it appears to be, but the basic premise of combining hot water, tea, milk, and one lump is pretty damn close to a fact.  Knowable, understandable, unchangeable.  the technology changes, so if we invented a new method of heating water perhaps that method would become unknowable to some.  The process of growing tea or sugar might not be knowable to someone with no knowledge of how plant management works.  The trickiest thing is what makes life?  but the fact of the nice cuppa remains.
IYSWIM.

Philosophy doesn't ahve to be mystic, it can be practical too.  the mystic stuff is just intellectual wanking IMO.  you say to the average cunt on the street "knowledge is impossible" he'd probably give you a slap and steal your wallet, safe in the knowledge that you won't pick him out the line up due to not having any knowledge.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> the worlds 'Knowledge' and 'Possible' have lost all meaning in this context. They are just empty buzz words that you just keep banging on about, without actually putting forward any realistic philosophical argument that is not entirely circular.
> 
> They are dead words in your mouth, falling out stillborn into a world that doesn't give a fuck about bullshit parroted made up opinions based on entirely nothing.



yes its based on Nothing, and as such you are unable to challenge it. thats the power of the void.  any other concept of knowledge could be easily challenged. even if you think you know, theres always a possiblity that you dont. so everything rests on mystery, Nothingness. 

if people didnt care about this, then what are they doing on this thread?


----------



## bodach (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> yes its based on Nothing, and as such you are unable to challenge it. thats the power of the void.  any other concept of knowledge could be easily challenged. even if you think you know, theres always a possiblity that you dont. so everything rests on mystery, Nothingness.
> 
> if people didnt care about this, then what are they doing on this thread?



I've a problem with the concept of what nothing is when you get an advert that says, 'Nothing acts faster that Anadin' 'Nothing beats the power of ...'


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

bodach said:


> I've a problem with the concept of what nothing is when you get an advert that says, 'Nothing acts faster that Anadin' 'Nothing beats the power of ...'


 
To which the answer is "so why not use nothing"


----------



## bodach (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> To which the answer is "so why not use nothing"



That wouldn't go down well with the makers of Anadin.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2008)

No philosophgy is a secular mysticism that only cool people are allowed to do. Linguistic paradoxes and all that.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I don't think it is out of reach of the human mind.



you dont *think* it? 

i thought you said knowledge is within our reach. now you sound less certain, are you?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> ye even if you think you know, theres always a possiblity that you dont



More bollocks.  I "know" these hard white things in my mouth that are fixed to my gums are my teeth.  It makes no sense whatsoever to doubt it.  How could I be wrong about this?  Are they someone elses?  Are they my toenails?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2008)

Maybe they are Pierces'?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> you dont *think* it?
> 
> i thought you said knowledge is within our reach. now you sound less certain, are you?



Not really, but STFU anyway, because you are just babbling.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> yes its based on Nothing, and as such you are unable to challenge it. thats the power of the void.  any other concept of knowledge could be easily challenged. even if you think you know, theres always a possiblity that you dont. so everything rests on mystery, Nothingness.
> 
> if people didnt care about this, then what are they doing on this thread?



I am doing this thread because your ignorance is fucking irritating. 

What is the "power of the void"?

It truly is a nothing, because you have just made a load of stuff up.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Feel-edge. That word means nothing to me. You have just made it up, and it doesn't actually mean anything. I am not surprised you think there is no such thing as knowledge, because you live in some kind of content free world that you have just decided is true on a whim.



there is NO truth, no content, no knowledge 

you have to use your feel-edge.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> Dillinger, what about proving me wrong on all I posted in this thread
> 
> salaam.




http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=7164183#post7164183


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> there is NO truth, no content, no knowledge
> 
> you have to use your feel-edge.


 
Oh, I've got feelage right now


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

I am your idea is just bleating. A sheeple, if you will.


----------



## bodach (Feb 26, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> No philosophgy is a secular mysticism that only cool people are allowed to do.



What do you mean by that butchers? I would never say I'm cool. I will be one day, when I'm dead.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> What is the "power of the void"?



i dont know exactly, but it can be hinted at through poetry.

its the non-specific, un-pin-down-able mystery that is throughout all things.
the anti-knowledge. 

its the silence in your mind when confronted with something you cannot work out.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> its the silence in your mind when confronted with something you cannot work out.


 

well, that's certainly anti-knowledge all right.

of course, most of us call that silence _ignorance_.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> i dont know exactly, but it can be hinted at through poetry.
> 
> its the non-specific, un-pin-down-able mystery that is throughout all things.
> the anti-knowledge.
> ...



Oh. 

Right. 

_Deep_.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> well, that's certainly anti-knowledge all right.
> 
> of course, most of us call that silence _ignorance_.



do you think zen is stupid?


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 26, 2008)

Zen?  It's alright I guess.  It serves a purpose.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 26, 2008)

"Mind and body are one", as articul8 said in #321. 

i-am-your-idea, I suggest you check the link below, then go spend a few months there. 
When you come back you may  know something about zen. OK?

http://www.throssel.org.uk/


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

Jonti said:


> "Mind and body are one", as articul8 said in #321.
> 
> i-am-your-idea, I suggest you check the link below, then go spend a few months there.
> When you come back you may  know something about zen. OK?
> ...



that looks cool! did you go?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 26, 2008)

Yes, indeedy, a long time ago now.  I found it most worthwhile. 

If you feel drawn to buddhism/zen (and if the "spiritual" pseuds that snipe and sneer on these boards disgust you) you will likely find it invaluable as well.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Yes, indeedy, a long time ago now.  I found it most worthwhile.
> 
> If you feel drawn to buddhism/zen (and if the "spiritual" pseuds that snipe and sneer on these boards disgust you) you will likely find it invaluable as well.



nah, i love the abuse!  that does look interesting tho. my dads into zen, so i've got heaps of books on the subject- but it would be nice to go to a place like that and just soak up the atmosphere.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 26, 2008)

Yeah, go have a good soak. Total immersion for a few works or so would be good.  Somewhat authoritarian, and precious in parts, but at least you don't get hit with a stick during the zazen sessions.

Which you do, for hours each day, between walking meditation, eating meditation, washing up meditation, gardening meditation. You get the picture, I'm sure


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> has anyone actually given an arguement why knowledge is possible yet??



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


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> So clearly what is needed here is a definition of knowledge.



You cannot define knowledge, because it is impossible

knowledge cannot exist, _even as a concept_


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> I gave it.
> 
> Knowledge is an eternal absolute, a beginning and endmark, unchangeable.
> That is why it is out of reach for the human mind and hence should be treated as non-existent.
> ...



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?


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> knowledge cannot exist, _even as a concept_



 even as a concept?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I think that knowledge is
> 
> that which is known as true or believed to be true.


 
that is a totally redundant definition of knowledge, because it completely overlooks the most important thing about knowledge which is what makes it *different from* belief




> Epistemology is the study or knowledge, what it is, how we get it, the value and quality of knowledge, truth, understanding, intuition etc etc.



epistemology is only concerned with whether knowledge exists, and what it is


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> even as a concept?



no concept of knowledge could possibly exist

what would it be?


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 see what you mean. if you believe knowledge is possible, then knowledge is different from belief. but if you think knowledge is impossible, then saying 'i know' is the same as saying 'i believe'

but whats to stop knowledge existing as a useful concept in a story?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

bodach said:


> That wouldn't go down well with the makers of Anadin.



because nothing isnt anything

knowledge isnt anything


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> but whats to stop knowledge existing as a useful concept in a story?




I think logic stops knowledge existing as a useful concept in a story? Why should a story be any different from reality? Why would knowledge be able to exist ina story if it cant exist in reality?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 26, 2008)

*yawn*


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> yes its based on Nothing, and as such you are unable to challenge it. thats the power of the void.




Lol


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 26, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> I think logic stops knowledge existing as a useful concept in a story? Why should a story be any different from reality? Why would knowledge be able to exist ina story if it cant exist in reality?



like all words it has potential for poetic meaning, regardless of whether its a non-concept or not.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 26, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> like all words it has potential for poetic meaning, regardless of whether its a non-concept or not.



i think it is a very _special_ kind of non-concept


----------



## Kizmet (Feb 27, 2008)

It's all relative...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 27, 2008)

Everyone's naming their uni texts.

If I can dig mine out, I'll name it, too.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i think it is a very _special_ kind of non-concept


So would need a very special sort of poem ... 





> We turn to see the spangled gleams of distant suns
> Set far off in deepest velvet black.
> So, unmoving, turn again, upon a point of dark,
> Inside to no-when-where.
> ...


----------



## articul8 (Feb 27, 2008)

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 (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

articul8 said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

Alex B said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

_Resistance is useless!_


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


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


 

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


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

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 (Feb 27, 2008)

*waits for more bleating*


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

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 (Feb 27, 2008)

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 (Feb 27, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

er...

no wait.  I can't be bothered.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

Alex B said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

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 (Feb 27, 2008)

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


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

fractionMan said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

fractionMan said:


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



Shame.


----------



## fractionMan (Feb 27, 2008)

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


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

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.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

articul8 said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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 (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

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


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

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


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

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


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

The skeptic knows the limits of the sayable.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> The skeptic knows the limits of the sayable.


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


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> The skeptic knows the limits of the sayable.




and can see beyond them into the abyss


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> and can see beyond them into the abyss


Quite.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> 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 (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> "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 (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> 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


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 27, 2008)

So, who came first on the philosophy biscuit then?


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

Hard to say.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

So, you wish to discuss the meaning of something you accept is unsayable, but that you think it nevertheless true, eh, grasshopper?





> The Tao which can be expressed in words is not the eternal Tao; the name which can be uttered is not the eternal name. Without a name it is the Beginning of Heaven and Earth; with a name it is the Mother of all things. Only one who is ever free from desire can apprehend its spiritual essence; he who is ever a slave to desire can see no more than its outer fringe. These two things, the spiritual and the material, though we call them by different names, in their origin are one and the same. This sameness is a mystery — the mystery of mysteries. It is the gate of all wonders.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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
> ...


 
OK, so you agree that _knowledge is impossible_ is not something that is sayable, because it may not be true.

Then you say that is it true that _knowledge is impossible_.


So are you aware of the inconsistency of this position?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> So, you wish to discuss the meaning of something you accept is unsayable, but that you think it nevertheless true, eh, grasshopper?




No

i do not "think that it is true"

because thinking that something is true, is no different from knowing it

and i am saying knowledge is impossible

therefore i am clearly stating, by implication, that *nothing is true*


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> OK, so you agree that _knowledge is impossible_ is not something that is sayable, because it may not be true.
> 
> Then you say that is it true that _knowledge is impossible_.
> 
> ...




there is no inconsistency, except to the extent that you try to deny that it is true

it is *obviously* true

it is however *impossible* to admit this


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> OK, so you agree that _knowledge is impossible_ is not something that is sayable, because it may not be true.


No, that's not the reason it is unsayable. 

It's unsayable because it cannot be expressed in a symbolic system without contradiction.

Symbolic systems have their limitations, is all.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

Yet admit it you do.

Jonti, fair point, that's what I was aiming at!


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> No, that's not the reason it is unsayable.
> 
> It's unsayable because it cannot be expressed in a symbolic system without contradiction.
> 
> Symbolic systems have their limitations, is all.




another way of putting it is:

it is *impossible to believe* that knowledge is impossible


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

Yes, he does rather. Tiresome, isn't it?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Yet admit you do.




Forget about me, what about *you*? do you admit it?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Yes, he does rather. Tiresome, isn't it?



It really is.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> So are you aware of the inconsistency of this position?




why is it inconsistent?

*Because knowledge is impossible!* 


it is impossible to 'adopt' this position

or to 'have' it

or to 'believe' it

it is an impossible position!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> another way of putting it is:
> 
> it is *impossible to believe* that knowledge is impossible


Oh, I dunno. It's impossible to say it, that's for sure.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> So, who came first on the philosophy biscuit then?


 


bluestreak said:


> Hard to say.


 


max_freakout said:


> Forget about me, what about *you*? do you admit it?


 
No.  I don't yet know enough to know that knowledge is impossible.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

I know I exist, if that's any help.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> a reasonable claim is NOT the same as knowledge!



Yes it is - if a claim is contradicted by the weight of available evidence then it is "unreasonable".  If not, then it is effectively "known" until such time as there is reason to consider otherwise.  



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



This is the kind of absurdity that results in philosophers setting themselves false problems.  Of what possible benefit would it be to me to seriously consider this to be a possibility?  I am able to digest things which need to be efficiently masticated prior to swallowing - I couldn't do this if I didn't have teeth.  I KNOW this. 

The trouble is, you have introduced the language game of seperating "knowing" from "real knowing" a simple category mistake which IS OF NO USE WHATSOEVER to the way people life their lives.  If I have every reason to believe I have teeth, than it makes sense to say that I know I have teeth.  Asking whether these teeth are "real" teeth has no practical application.  

If you want to continue this silly language game of asking whether we can every have some absolute metaphysical "knowledge" then no doubt it will keep yourself and fellow mystical obscurantists entertained.  But it will be of no consequence to anybody ever!

Which is why Wittengenstein went beyond his position in the Tractatus and gave the world his Philosophical Investigations - essentially an explanation of why philosophers ask themselves questions which result in absurd and useless answers.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 27, 2008)

I'd like to go and test this theory of knowledge being impossible out on someone in the 3rd world:

'Hey, you might *think* you have knowledge that you're starving, but _in fact_ knowledge of any kind is impossible, and therefore so is truth, so you don't actually *know* you are starving, it's only a hypothesis'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 27, 2008)

articul8 said:


> Which is why Wittengenstein went beyond his position in the Tractatus and gave the world his Philosophical Investigations - essentially an explanation of why philosophers ask themselves questions which result in absurd and useless answers.


Yeah, but Wittgenstein thought you needed language to think. He got the foundation of his philosophy wrong.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

You do need language to be the kind of beings in the world that we are.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 27, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> I'd like to go and test this theory of knowledge being impossible out on someone in the 3rd world:
> 
> 'Hey, you might *think* you have knowledge that you're starving, but _in fact_ knowledge of any kind is impossible, and therefore so is truth, so you don't actually *know* you are starving, it's only a hypothesis'



While in fact the only thing it is, is experience. 

salaam.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> You do need language to be the kind of beings in the world that we are.


I do not think language necessarily gives us any privileged position. It is merely a very powerful tool with which to conceptualise.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

... an undeniable experience.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I do not think language necessarily gives us any privileged position. It is merely a very powerful tool with which to conceptualise.


The possession of language utterly transforms the human consciousness.  Oliver Sachs is well worth a read on this topic as well, particularly around the congenitally deaf and sign language.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 27, 2008)

Here is what Wittgenstein has to say about Skepticism:



> Skepticism is _not_ irrefutable, but palpably senseless, if it would doubt where a question cannot be asked.
> For doubt can only exist where there is a question; a question only where there is an answer, and this only where something _can be said_



(_Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus_ 6.51)


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> ... an undeniable experience.



For the individual, at that very moment. You might feel hunger while I don't under the same circumstances and in the same conditions. A doctor may declare us both healthy while you experience you are starving.
I think the only insight in knowledge we ever will get is at the moment of our death, but of that I am not even remotely certain.

salaam.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

And if can't be said, we should really keep shtum.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

Where shall i have lunch?

Anyone know of a good cheap veggie place in Soho?


----------



## articul8 (Feb 27, 2008)

such knowledge is impossible, apparently


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 27, 2008)

As if anything exists anyway



You should look for somewhere in hyperspace instead.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

Please don't worry about that. I'm hungry


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 27, 2008)

I don't know Soho. I do know my own kitchen, in which I shall make beans on toast.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

And if anyone tells me I'm not hungry, I'll 'ave 'em with a nice bottle of Chianti


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

Red Veg, FTW.  Berwick Street IIRC, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> The possession of language utterly transforms the human consciousness.


How?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

Perfect!  but it's at 95 Dean Street.

I'm outahere.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> And if anyone tells me I'm not hungry, I'll 'ave 'em with a nice bottle of Chianti



its the emotional fear of what might happen without the belief of knowledge that keeps it in place. everything is based on feel-age.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> The possession of language utterly transforms the human consciousness.



I would contend that it is perfectly possible to use language in the total absence of what is commonly described as human consciousness. A person experiencing a psychotic episode is essentially doing this. 

I would also contend, through personal introspection, that 'human consciousness' can exist without language.

In fact, your statement seems dangerously close to 8-ball's giraffe position - 'we must be special, just look at our necks'


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> its the emotional fear of what might happen without the belief of knowledge that keeps it in place. everything is based on feel-age.


 
So how do you survive without knowledge?  You appear to be able to know how to use a compluter at least.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> So how do you survive without knowledge?  You *appear to be able to know how to use a compluter at least*.



Nah, he/she/it just randomly hits the keys, the feelage, and hopes that one day a coherent idea will come out.


----------



## Santino (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> its the emotional fear of what might happen without the belief of knowledge that keeps it in place. everything is based on feel-age.


I love the fact that even in the absence of even the possibility of knowledge you can know this.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

Alex B said:


> I love the fact that even in the absence of even the possibility of knowledge you can know this.



i dont know it. knowledge is impossible. those are just beliefs.


----------



## Santino (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> that knowledge is not the same thing as belief
> 
> knowledge is entirely different from belief, but *how*? What makes it different?


BECAUSE. IT. IS. WELL-GROUNDED. AND. TRUE.

Or are you just not reading the fucking words I used?


----------



## Santino (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> i dont know it. knowledge is impossible. those are just beliefs.


Then don't spout it as if you know it. And don't even THINK about hinting at it through poetry.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> So how do you survive without knowledge?  You appear to be able to know how to use a compluter at least.



i believe i can use a computer. how things appear is not necessarily how they are. you can have strong beliefs, but you cannot have definate knowledge.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

Alex B said:


> BECAUSE. IT. IS. WELL-GROUNDED. AND. TRUE.



because its true??  lol


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> because its true??  lol



Is a question with no answer a question at all?


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> i believe i can use a computer. how things appear is not necessarily how they are. you can have strong beliefs, but you cannot have definate knowledge.


 
You have a strong belief that you can use a computer and the words magically end up fuelling my aneurysm?  Horseshit.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> You have a strong belief that you can use a computer and the words magically end up fuelling my aneurysm?  Horseshit.



how could it be anything but that? this is what im led to believe, but there is no way of being sure. 

we have no way of knowing what the nature of reality is. everything is saturated with mystery, if you deny this you are the one in the cave. 

you are in the dark about the mystery.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

You're in the dark about the nature of sanity, love.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> how could it be anything but that? this is what im led to believe, but there is no way of being sure.
> 
> we have no way of knowing what the nature of reality is. everything is saturated with mystery, if you deny this you are the one in the cave.
> 
> you are in the dark about the mystery.



What utter bollocks.

Why don't you stop breathing, or step off a building, to show how utterly correct you are insofar as we 'know' nothing.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> You're in the dark about the nature of sanity, love.



the nature of sanity is felt, not known. thats obvious isnt it? its totally subjective. a mad person today, might not have been considered mad in the past. 

people, sane or otherwise would not even exist without the mystery. the stuff that you are made of is beyond your understanding, the things that you do are beyond your understanding. ultimately everything is beyond your understanding - thats just being human. we can never know anything, all we have are our beliefs. 

sometimes a belief is shared by many people, this does not magically turn it into knowledge.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

Top notch, more wisdom please.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> What utter bollocks.
> 
> Why don't you stop breathing, or step off a building, to show how utterly correct you are insofar as we 'know' nothing.



i dont know whether jumping off a building will kill me. there could be an afterlife, or the building might not be high enough, or i might fall into a cushion factory.

however, i still dont want to do it. 

animals are evidence that lack of knowledge doesnt mean you are bound to jump off buildings.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> animals are evidence that lack of knowledge doesnt mean you are bound to jump off buildings.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


>



im assuming that even if people think humans have knowledge, they still think other animals do not.

the arguement was 'so if you dont have any knowledge why not jump off a building?'

and so i was saying, although i dont KNOW what the result would be, i still dont want to do it. - in the same way an animal doesnt want to.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 27, 2008)

> i dont know whether jumping off a building will kill me.



If I decapitate you, you will die. Irrespective of whether there is an 'afterlife'. the thing that is you in the physical body/possible soul component you inhabit will cease to be. I can truthfully say that when you die, you will change states of being.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> im assuming that even if people think humans have knowledge, they still think other animals do not.



Big assumption.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 27, 2008)

I would imagine that animals aren't remotely troubled by 'nothing can be truly known, even not truly knowing something' discussions either.

On the hot savannah, a herd of zebra graze.

'So Barry, me and the lads were having a chat round the water hole last night'
'Oh yeah?'
'Yeah, one of them suggested that knowledge doesn't exist, that we can never ever 'know' something, only ever have a belief or first approximation, cos there's loads of stuff that *might* be out there that we can't see.'
'Wow, that's pretty mind blowing, Sid. So what happened then?'
'Well, Zizek, the bloke going on about this, went to prove it by going out onto the sav and jumping around a bit, you know, taunting the lions, on the basis that he didn't absolutely know they'd eat him and they didn't absolutely know he was prey'
'And what happened?'
'They ate him. Nice take down too, first chomp right into his jugular.'


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> I would imagine that animals aren't remotely troubled by 'nothing can be truly known, even not truly knowing something' discussions either.
> 
> On the hot savannah, a herd of zebra graze.
> 
> ...



 lol!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti]The possession of language utterly transforms the human consciousness.[/quote][QUOTE=littlebabyjesus said:


> How?


That seems to be what we find, emprically.   The answer seems to be "by enabling an inner voice".  

But do empirical results have anything to offer in this context, a context of Pure Philosophy? That would be to assume knowledge; but we are trying to decide whether the very idea is coherent, not do some kind of scientific investigation.

I'm happy to do natural philosophy myself; and am also fascinated by the philosophy of science.  So I'm happy to look at how things are.  To look and see what is the fate of a human, if that person has never had the opportunity to develop language.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

death and dying would seem like things you can be sure you know of.

but after you have told yourself 'i am dead' and believed this to be certain, and THEN still been alive, then you know you can never be certain of anything again.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

Instead, tell me what cannot be doubted.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Instead, tell me what cannot be doubted.


 
feelage, man, you can't doubt feelage.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 27, 2008)

Why not?


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

Because, unlike knowledge, feelage is real.  Obviously.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 27, 2008)

omgz! then it must be true.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 27, 2008)

What do you think of feeledge, max? Can it not be doubted?


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

Can we also clarfiy whether it is 'feelage' or 'feel-edge', as they appear to be interchangable terms and I'm not really comfortable as I'm not sure that the linguistic roots of -age and -edge allow it to be interchangeable.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

I don't doubt I exist. I don't doubt I feel hunger.

I don't really think I can doubt these things.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 27, 2008)

Yes, can we have a definition please? Because I have a bit of a feeling that you might have just made it up.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

Incidentally, fact fans*, the very word 'philosophy' means love of knowledge.  How ironic then, that max self-identifies as a philosopher and yet rejects the possibility of knowledge.


*I know, I know, _there are no facts to be a fan of, I merely believe the etymology of this word to be this when it could in fact mean abolutely anything else.  In fact, if I wasn't standing in the dark I'd be aware that philosophy actually means philo "feel" and sophy "age"._


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 27, 2008)

> _If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion._



- _An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding_, by David Hume.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

Hume eh?  Any good?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 27, 2008)

He is a skeptic as well, you know.



Its been a while since I dealt with Hume, but he is considered one of the greats.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea is being a bit naughty;  _feelage_ would be an OK term; just treat _feel-edge_ as a poetical device.

We see (experience) boundaries and change, because of the way our bodies work. The flat unchanging expanses between are insignificant in our minds. We feel the edges, so to speak.   The pun makes that point and the obvious; that direct experience cannot be doubted.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

What about matrix theory and all them fellas that suggest that experience can be doubted?  brain inna jar and all that?

Personally I subscribe to the notion that if we really are all wired into the matrix then the illusion IS reality and should be treated as such.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

that's just the interpretation;  the direct bit -- that there is experience -- cannot be doubted. Meditation One, I think; or did he psyche himself up first ...


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

Oh, I take the view that there is such a thing as reality.  Just that the depths of illusion and "madness" cannot be doubted.  A person who learns to remember their dreams (by keeping a bed side dream diary and using it immediately on waking)  can discover this for themself. Or read your Oliver Sacks (spelt correctly this time ).


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> feelage, man, you can't doubt feelage.



i never said that. of course you can doubt your feelings. i doubt everything. 

everything is open to doubt, nothing is knowable.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

You can play with language; or tell me what you cannot doubt.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> What about matrix theory and all them fellas that suggest that experience can be doubted?  brain inna jar and all that?
> 
> Personally I subscribe to the notion that if we really are all wired into the matrix then the illusion IS reality and should be treated as such.



illusion is reality. that sounds like a paradox to me!


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> You can play with language; or tell me what you cannot doubt.



there is nothing that isnt open to doubt. 

i can doubt everything. we cannot know the nature of reality.

its a matter of faith and what you believe in. during my everyday life i take reality as it appears to me, my personal experience of it. but philosophically speaking the only thing i know about it, is that i know nothing about it.

i could be a brain in a jar, but i have faith that i am not.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

You haven't answered.

I think it is unwise to draw strong conclusions from any area of science, its interpretations are always open to revision.  So of course I wouldn't want to draw any strong conclusions from the results of psychopathology.  The pure philosopical doubt tends to zero in the face of the results of natural philosophy and science (in its broadest sense of evidenced rational discouse).


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

"there is nothing that isnt open to doubt"  <--- this?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

"we cannot know the nature of reality."

Are you saying that to have knowledge we have to know the nature of reality? That's a pretty high bar you've set there!


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> illusion is reality. that sounds like a paradox to me!




It's a shocker innit.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

I suspect that max and i_am-max's_ideas are confusing philosophy with theosophy at times.  There is a lot of their stuff that tends towards the latter I think.  I'm no expert though, thoughts anyone?


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> that's just the interpretation;  the direct bit -- that there is experience -- cannot be doubted. Meditation One, I think; or did he psyche himself up first ...



Meditation One?  Sorry I don't get the reference, I'm afraid my philosophy is a bit hands on rather than academic.  I certainly agree with the statement "that there is experience cannot be doubted".


----------



## Belushi (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Personally I subscribe to the notion that if we really are all wired into the matrix then the illusion IS reality and should be treated as such.



Innit, also having seen the number of philosophy students who go doolaly I recomend not thinking about these things too hard!


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> i never said that. of course you can doubt your feelings. i doubt everything.
> 
> everything is open to doubt, nothing is knowable.



So you can doubt your own feelings, but not that you have them, is that what you're saying?  

And back to the paradox, nothing is knowable except that fact that nothing is knowable!


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

Belushi said:


> Innit, also having seen the number of philosophy students who go doolaly I recomend not thinking about these things too hard!



I've already been doolally so I think I've got a handle on that bit.  What stops you from going doolally IMO is knowing that it doesn't matter if reality is an illusion and that nothing is truly knowable because we have a shared reality and so we might as well get on with it.

There are, it is apparently said by old lags to new ones, two ways of doing your time: the hard way and the soft way.  "You're here, you're not going anywhere anytime soon, so why make it difficult on yourself"


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

aside:


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> And back to the paradox, nothing is knowable except that fact that nothing is knowable!




and even *that*, isnt knowable!!!


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> aside:



 thats brilliant!


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I suspect that max and i_am-max's_ideas are confusing philosophy with theosophy at times.  There is a lot of their stuff that tends towards the latter I think.  I'm no expert though, thoughts anyone?



not me, nothing i am saying goes beyond basic epistemology, nothing whatsoever to do with theosophy

i am simply expounding the position of the sceptic


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

> nothing is truly knowable because we have a shared reality


I'd have thought that would tend to help a community of language users to get a grip on things 

(Descartes' Meditations, the _cogito ergo sum_ one)


----------



## yield (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Meditation One?  Sorry I don't get the reference, I'm afraid my philosophy is a bit hands on rather than academic.  I certainly agree with the statement "that there is experience cannot be doubted".



Descartes' Meditations.

Edit: Damn I'm slow. As Jonti said.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

Alex B said:


> BECAUSE. IT. IS. WELL-GROUNDED. AND. TRUE.
> 
> Or are you just not reading the fucking words I used?




well-grounded i accept, but true? That is nonsense, how could you ever know it was true?


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> and even *that*, isnt knowable!!!



Exactly, however, the difference between you and most of the others on this thread seems to be that you accept that and turn towards mysticism and others support the testing of that statement.  You assume that Socrates was right and there's nothing more to say, others assume that he _may _(not WAS) have been wrong.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> thats brilliant!



isn't it.  and i think we ALL want to be one finding squirrels.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

Cheers Jonti and yield, I'll add that to the list of things I need to read.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Exactly, however, the difference between you and most of the others on this thread seems to be that you accept that and turn towards mysticism and others support the testing of that statement.  You assume that Socrates was right and there's nothing more to say, others assume that he _may _(not WAS) have been wrong.





no that is not my position

socrates was neither right nor wrong, he couldnt possibly have been either

he was 'wise'  and wisdom is a transcendental concept, knowing that you know nothing


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> He is a skeptic as well, you know.
> 
> 
> 
> Its been a while since I dealt with Hume, but he is considered one of the greats.




i absolutely love hume

it is questionable whether or not he was a sceptic

but he did have a 'sceptical solution' to the problem of induction/free will etc


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> What do you think of feeledge, max? Can it not be doubted?



it isnt *propositional knowledge *though, which is the concern of epistemology


i know that p

my feelage tells me that p


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> isn't it.  and i think we ALL want to be one finding squirrels.



i saw an albino squirrel the other day!


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> "we cannot know the nature of reality."
> 
> Are you saying that to have knowledge we have to know the nature of reality? That's a pretty high bar you've set there!



no, i was just commenting on things we dont can't know about. 

that would be a high bar!


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

I live in reality, and I'll be living in the future


----------



## bodach (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i absolutely love hume
> 
> it is questionable whether or not he was a sceptic
> 
> but he did have a 'sceptical solution' to the problem of induction/free will etc



It's important to remember that Hume was around at the time of Scottish Enlightenment, in fact partially responsible.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> What about matrix theory and all them fellas that suggest that experience can be doubted?  brain inna jar and all that?
> 
> Personally I subscribe to the notion that if we really are all wired into the matrix then the illusion IS reality and should be treated as such.





Hilary Putnam had an incredible insight related to this

he said something like if you were a brain in a vat, you couldnt possibly say "I am a brain in a vat" and *actually mean it*. because the 'vat' that you would be talking about, would be the concept 'vat' which the *real* vat had put into your brain, and not the real vat

but it's unclear how it countered sceptisism though, an illusion is not real


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> "there is nothing that isnt open to doubt"  <--- this?





that is the power of the void, nothingness


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> Hilary Putnam had an incredible insight related to this
> 
> he said something like if you were a brain in a vat, you couldnt possibly say "I am a brain in a vat" and *actually mean it*. because the 'vat' that you would be talking about, would be the concept 'vat' which the *real* vat had put into your brain, and not the real vat



hmm, not sure i agree with that, though i see where he is coming from.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Instead, tell me what cannot be doubted.





that there is nothing which cannot be doubted


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

Belushi said:


> Innit, also having seen the number of philosophy students who go doolaly I recomend not thinking about these things too hard!




if you think hard enough about the idea that knowledge is obviously impossible, you are inevitably drawn to the conclusion, that *nothing is true*, it follows logically


----------



## bodach (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> that there is nothing which cannot be doubted



Therefore, if nothing cannot be doubted, everything else is.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> that is the power of the void, nothingness


Pfft. More like a failure to recognise the limitations of syntactical structures.

The world is more than language can say. There's all sorts of ways to get someone to experience this, including meditations and linguistic tricks, but that's all there is to it really.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

> nothing is true, it follows logically


from?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> from?



from the sheer obviousness of knowledge being impossible


----------



## bodach (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> from the sheer obviousness of knowledge being impossible



How sheer is obvious, 90 degrees.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

max_freakout said:
			
		

> nothing is true, it follows logically from the sheer obviousness of knowledge being impossible


LOL

Great logic max!


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 27, 2008)

Max, I have a question, how did you come to this understanding of the obviousness.  why is true knowledge impossible?


----------



## Jonti (Feb 27, 2008)

will our insufficiently skeptical correspondent continue to spin on an empty point of logic ... ?


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Pfft. More like a failure to recognise the limitations of syntactical structures.
> 
> The world is more than language can say. There's all sorts of ways to get someone to experience this, including meditations and linguistic tricks, but that's all there is to it really.



the different wings of the paradox are only as limiting as you make them.


----------



## bodach (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> the different wings of the paradox are only as limiting as you make them.



that sounds a like a grasshopper thing.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 27, 2008)

bodach said:


> that sounds a like a grasshopper thing.



thanks mate! i stole the 'wings of the paradox' bit from cohen. he is very grasshopper-ish. 

i just read this by him-

'Sometimes just before I fall asleep, my mind seems to go out on a path the width of a thread and of endless length, a thread that is the same colour as the night. Out, out along the narrow highway sails my mind, driven by curiousity, luminous with acceptance, far and out like a feathered hook whipped deep into the light above the stream by a magnificent cast. Somewhere, out of my reach, my control, the hook unbends into a spear, the spear shears itself into a needle, and the needle sews the world together.'

he goes on like this, sewing bits of the world together, feeling the unity and that. then one of the characters says 'a smirk of universal acceptance is very disagreeable on the face of a young man.' !

reminded me of you lot on urban


----------



## bodach (Feb 27, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> thanks mate! i stole the 'wings of the paradox' bit from cohen. he is very grasshopper-ish.
> 
> i just read this by him-
> 
> ...



excellent post there.


----------



## Santino (Feb 28, 2008)

Max, this must be the third pr fourth time you have completely failed to grasp what I'm saying - not in some deep philosophical way, but just understanding the meaning of the words. This, combined with the the fact that you think Wittgenstein wasn't concerned with epistemology because he doesn't appear in your introduction to epistemology text, leads me to believe that you don't really know what you're talking about.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

*yawns*


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 28, 2008)

*edgy people*



Alex B said:


> This, combined with the the fact that you think Wittgenstein wasn't concerned with epistemology because he doesn't appear in your introduction to epistemology text, leads me to believe that you don't really know what you're talking about.



How is Wittgenstein concerned with epistem-edgy?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Here is what Wittgenstein has to say about Skepticism:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

I dont think you answered me before, I-am-your-idea.

Could you respond to whatever you think about that wittgenstein quote please?


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 28, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> the different wings of the paradox are only as limiting as you make them.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

Oh yes. There are no questions and answers. The very lack of their existence proves everything.

*yawn* though. That is the idiots way out.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I dont think you answered me before, I-am-your-idea.
> 
> Could you respond to whatever you think about that wittgenstein quote please?




wittgenstein does not direclty address epistemological sceptisism in that quote

personally i think there* is *a question to be asked in this case

the question is something like "how could knowledge be possible?"


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

Then there is an answer, something can be said. You have nothing to say. Literally.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Alex B said:


> the fact that you think Wittgenstein wasn't concerned with epistemology because he doesn't appear in your introduction to epistemology text,




i didnt say that, i have studied epistemology at great depth, and wittgenstein doesnt appear in ANY epistemology book, even the really advanced ones

remember this thread has been motivated by the existence of an 'epistemology' section in a good library, well you wont find wittgenstein in this section because he wasnt an epistemologer


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

FFS why I am back here arguing with you two AGAIN? I have real work to do.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> the question is something like "how could knowledge be possible?"



dont you remember? because its TRUE! 

lol


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i didnt say that, i have studied epistemology at great depth, and wittgenstein doesnt appear in ANY epistemology book, even the really advanced ones
> 
> remember this thread has been motivated by the existence of an 'epistemology' section in a good library, well you wont find wittgenstein in this section because he wasnt an epistemologer



Sometimes, books, in librarys, they deal with one area, and actually cover other areas at the same time.

Can you imagine it?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

I am leaving this thread.

You two cant think yourselves out of the sceptical box you have put yourselves inside. Because you are intellectually blind, you cannot see all the walls around you and are bleating "omg the box doesn't exist".


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Max, I have a question, how did you come to this understanding of the obviousness.  why is true knowledge impossible?





knowledge is impossible

calling it 'true knowledge' is pointless, there is no type of knowledge which *isnt* true, so you only need to call it 'knowledge'


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I am leaving this thread.
> 
> You two cant think yourselves out of the sceptical box you have put yourselves inside. Because you are intellectually blind, you cannot see all the walls around you and are bleating "omg the box doesn't exist".




as i said much earlier in this thread, the *only *way out of this is *willful ignorance
*
for example, saying "im leaving this thread" 


because knowledge _really is_ impossible


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Sometimes, books, in librarys, they deal with one area, and actually cover other areas at the same time.
> 
> Can you imagine it?





the epistemology section wont have anything by wittgenstein, ive looked......


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> the epistemology section wont have anything by wittgenstein, ive looked......



Max. 

You are so fucking stupid, I almost threw my computer out of the window in a rage.

Sometimes books in one section cover other sections as well. 

A philosopher like Wittgenstein affects much of philosophy.

And for what its worth, I agree, Epistemology is a complete dead end, filled with dunces who don't realize what they are encountering. It relies on numerous conceptions of mind plagued with problems that repeat themselves all over the place.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> And for what its worth, I agree, Epistemology is a complete dead end, filled with dunces who don't realize what they are encountering. It relies on numerous conceptions of mind plagued with problems that repeat themselves all over the place.



Right, but try telling that to an epistemologer, the discipline of epistemology continues regardless, banging its head against the wall, in denial of the simple fact that knowledge is impossible


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> Right, but try telling that to an epistemologer, the discipline of epistemology continues regardless, banging its head against the wall, in denial of the simple fact that knowledge is impossible



I am no epistemologer, but I know the feeling of banging ones head against a wall. 

In the slim confines of epistemology as you concieve it, knowledge is most certainly impossible.

If you go and read my Heidegger.. thread, you will see that such questions need not even exist. IMO obviously.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I am no epistemologer, but I know the feeling of banging ones head against a wall.



it hurts and it doesnt get you anywhere, but OTOH it can provide some temporary relief from problems





> In the slim confines of epistemology as you concieve it, knowledge is most certainly impossible.




not as 'I' conceive it, as *it is conceived*, there is no alternative conception of epistemology



> If you go and read my Heidegger.. thread, you will see that such questions need not even exist. IMO obviously.



I have, but it does not address the implications of the impossibility of knowledge


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> knowledge is impossible
> 
> calling it 'true knowledge' is pointless, there is no type of knowledge which *isnt* true, so you only need to call it 'knowledge'


 
Not the answer to the question I asked.

The question is "why is [true or otherwise] knowledge impossible"?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Not the answer to the question I asked.
> 
> The question is "why is [true or otherwise] knowledge impossible"?





because for any proposition p which you believe to be true, you couldnt know if p was true or not


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 28, 2008)

imagine people are talking about an impossible creature.

 'this creature is totally possible!'

 'how?'

 i dont know! it has to be true, doesnt it? sooo true. 

 'how so?'

 '... well, i dont know, but you dont seem to have any evidence to say it isnt!'

 'oh gee, i dont! you must be right!'


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 28, 2008)

nobody really knows of this creature. if the creature is called Knowledge, then nobody knows knowledge.

knowledge is impossible to know.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> because for any proposition p which you believe to be true, you couldnt know if p was true or not


 
Why not?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Why not?




Because it's impossible

how could you?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

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.


----------



## Kizmet (Feb 28, 2008)

*bites tongue*


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

*fully expects what will be posted next*


----------



## Kizmet (Feb 28, 2008)

*starts to bleed*


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> There are so many nuances missed out in this debate.



Because they have no impact at all on the subject of 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



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



> 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?




it is impossible to accquire, something that is impossible to acquire, this only confuses the issue



> What about a discussion about Realism or Idealism?




that distinction is irrelevant to this debate



> 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.



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 (Feb 28, 2008)

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 (Feb 28, 2008)

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.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

Oh, I see your tactic max. If you dont want to discuss it you dismiss it as irrelavent. Very clever.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> 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?




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 (Feb 28, 2008)

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


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

You cant prove a negative. This discussion is just like a 9/11 thread.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> 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 (Feb 28, 2008)

Its all relevant, you just cant bring yourself to discuss anything other than your repetitive bleating.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> 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.




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 (Feb 28, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Its all relevant, you just cant bring yourself to discuss anything other than your repetitive bleating.



you havent yet said HOW it's relevant, to the fact that knowledge is impossible


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

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 (Feb 28, 2008)

Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I am just fucking irritated by the repetition.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

I mean, you clearly dont see how one field of philosophy can possibly affect another. Its not all separate.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

You barely even show an understand of the arguments of almost every single philosopher mentioned.

All you know is your own ego.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> You cant prove a negative.




you can't _disprove_ a negative either


that's because (or perhaps *why*) knowledge is impossible


----------



## Santino (Feb 28, 2008)

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 (Feb 28, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I mean, you clearly dont see how one field of philosophy can possibly affect another. Its not all separate.




you *havent said* how disparate philosophical issues affect the core issue of epistemology


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

Alex B said:


> 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.



Somebody is going to have to move it into the epistemology section before max can decree it as relevant, I am afraid.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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


 
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 (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> you *havent said* how disparate philosophical issues affect the core issue of epistemology



Why should I spoon feed you?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Alex B said:


> 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.





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


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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



Oh yes, excellent conclusions made from all the Wittgenstein you have read.

Or is it just more spoon fed lazy thoughts from the epistemology textbook you own?


----------



## Kizmet (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> so my point is as 'proven' as it could possibly be



Not to my mind, max.

What you've done is to prove that 'certainty' cannot exist.

Knowledge is the possession of relative information.

There's no judgement on where it is correct or not. One can 'know' two completely contradictory things that cannot possibly co-exist, for example. It's possible to know that low cholesterol is good for you.. and also know that it is bad for you. You choose which to believe based on the perspective you have.

However this also means that _relative_ certainty is possible. Without this we wouldn't be able to operate.

Nothing is unsayable.. everything is relative. Certainty is impossible, knowledge is relative certainty of information.

Relative certainty is belief.

Knowledge is belief.


----------



## Santino (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> 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


Wide, sweeping and wrong-headed claims made by a poorly-informed person who claims to know nothing. Wonderful.

Who are these epistemologers of whom you speak? What do they believe? Names, addresses and quotations please.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Alex B said:


> Wide, sweeping and wrong-headed claims made by a poorly-informed person who claims to know nothing. Wonderful.



i said right at the start of the thread, that i am not making a claim




> Who are these epistemologers of whom you speak? What do they believe? Names, addresses and quotations please.



addresses? lol 


i am referring to every epistemologist, the people who make up the field of academic epistemology, for example, any of the authors in the books mntioned at the start of this thread


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Not to my mind, max.
> 
> What you've done is to prove that 'certainty' cannot exist.




are you claiming that knowledge is possible without certainty?

It isnt, the statement:

"I know p to be true, but p isnt certain to be true"

 is contradictory


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

Here's another contradictory statement ...
"I know knowlege is impossible"


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

Another ...
"it is obvious this sentence is untrue"


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

Another
"we can be certain of nothing"


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Here's another contradictory statement ...
> "I know knowlege is impossible"



You don't need to know what is. 

salaam.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

another 
"proposition logic has content -- it tells us things about the world that we don't assume in our premises"


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> You don't need to know what is.
> 
> salaam.


I don't need to know what is ....


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

All very amusing, I'm sure.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

Sorry, I'm laughing too much.

I need to work on my feelings of compassion for lame grasshoppers.


----------



## Santino (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> are you claiming that knowledge is possible without certainty?
> 
> It isnt, the statement:
> 
> ...


Fuck that, I think that all the time.

As for your claims, you have made dozens of claims about epistemologists, what they believe, why they believe it, and why they ought to believe something else. You're up to your neck in claims.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Here's another contradictory statement ...
> "I know knowlege is impossible"



that is why i am not making any claims


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

That's a claim, y'muppet.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> another
> "proposition logic has content -- it tells us things about the world that we don't assume in our premises"



proposition and other logic is a game play, it learns how to reason within a pre-defined frame. Nothing more. Never saw much fun in doing it, it is utterly boring. 

salaam.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

"This is not a sentence"

"This is not a claim"

"This statement is untrue"

"No statement can be true"

"No statement can be certain"

Heh!


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I don't need to know what is ....



No you don't. You only have to bring yourself to accept it. That means you learn how to step outside your pre-defined self-constructed, limited and limiting frame of reasoning. That is all there is to it.

salaam.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

Thanks for the lesson, but ...

"Learning is impossible" because "knowledge is impossible"

LOL


----------



## Kizmet (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> are you claiming that knowledge is possible without certainty?



*Absolute*ly.



> It isnt, the statement:
> 
> "I know p to be true, but p isnt certain to be true"
> 
> is contradictory



Because it's wrong. It should be

I know p. p isn't certain to be true. But I believe p to be true because of q r and s.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Thanks for the lesson, but ...
> 
> "Learning is impossible" because "knowledge is impossible"
> 
> LOL



Ha. I never said learning is impossible.
How do you come to connect that with "having knowledge is impossible " is anyone's guess. (Maybe you could check the other thread.) 

salaam.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> proposition and other logic is a game play, it learns how to reason within a pre-defined frame. Nothing more. Never saw much fun in doing it, it is utterly boring...


I also don't understand why max has repeatedly resorted to using propositional logic


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

Learning without knowledge, eh?

That's a good idea!


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 28, 2008)

Has Dillinger really been banned?


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I also don't understand why max has repeatedly resorted to using propositional logic



What the posts of other posters (whihc I only read fractional)  have to do with me and/or mine is also anyone's guess.

salaam.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Learning without knowledge, eh?
> 
> That's a good idea!



Look my explanation in the other thread. I'm not addicted to double posting.

salaam.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

It really comes down to whether you want to play empty word games of pseudo-profundity; or whether you want to learn about the world.

Amusing as word-games may be, I'm more interested in the real world.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 28, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Has Dillinger really been banned?


?
Maybe he asked for a temp ban because he said in his thread he is far behind with his thesis. 

salaam.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> It really comes down to whether you want to play empty word games of pseudo-profundity; or whether you actullay want to learn about the world.
> 
> Amusing as word-games may be, I'm more interested in the real world.



Itis not about word games. It is about what matters to get insight in the world *as is*. 

salaam.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> Ha. I never said learning is impossible.
> How do you come to connect that with "having knowledge is impossible " is anyone's guess. (Maybe you could check the other thread.)


I never said you did.  But the connection is obvious, if you give it a moment's thought.  If knowledge is impossible, then so is learning.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 28, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> ?
> Maybe he asked for a temp ban because he said in his thread he is far behind with his thesis.
> 
> salaam.


 
Cheers.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

Aldebaran;7172648]No you don't. You only have to bring yourself to accept it. That means you learn how to step outside your pre-defined self-constructed said:


> Pfft. More like a failure to recognise the limitations of syntactical structures.
> 
> The world is more than language can say. There's all sorts of ways to get someone to experience this, including meditations and linguistic tricks, but that's all there is to it really.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> Itis not about word games. It is about what matters to get insight in the world *as is*.
> 
> salaam.


Couldn't agree more


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> What the posts of other posters (whihc I only read fractional)  have to do with me and/or mine is also anyone's guess.
> 
> salaam.


This sounds as if you're saying that you don't post in response to what other people have said.  But that's not true, so I'm a bit confused as to what you're getting at.  Perhaps you feel folk don't respond to *your* posts? But that's not true either. I for one have highlighted several times where we are saying much the same thing as each other, but from different perspectives, and in very different ways.

Not to worry. How are you enjoying Descartes?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> It really comes down to whether you want to play empty word games of pseudo-profundity; or whether you want to learn about the world.
> 
> Amusing as word-games may be, I'm more interested in the real world.



imho, there is nothing at all 'pseudo' about the profundity at the heart of epistemology, to say that, is to entirely dismiss offhand the real value of philosophy


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I never said you did.  But the connection is obvious, if you give it a moment's thought.  If knowledge is impossible, then so is learning.



only if you define learning as 'acquisition of facts'


learning is the development of belief structures


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I never said you did.  But the connection is obvious, if you give it a moment's thought.  If knowledge is impossible, then so is learning.



Jonti: Learning leads to knowledge. 
Aldebaran: Learing induces suggestion of knowledge.

Look post 35 and 37 in the other thread (is going to die now that Dillinger banned himself) 

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=7172264#post7172264


salaam


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> That's a claim, y'muppet.



i have repeatedly insisted that i am NOT making a claim


to understand what i mean this, go back through the thread, and for every single place where you understand a claim to have been made

replace 'max_freakout claims...' with 'a sceptic would argue....'


it is *completely impossible*, for a person to make the claim that knowledge is impossible


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> Jonti: Learning leads to knowledge.
> Aldebaran: Learing induces suggestion of knowledge.



Absolutely, that is the perfect way to put it 


You could also add:

learning *properly understood*, develops belief structures


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I also don't understand why max has repeatedly resorted to using propositional logic





im using propositional logic, because the subject matter of modern epistemology is *propositional knowledge*, you hear that stated clearly in the first lecture of any undergraduate epistemology course


i know that p

p = any proposition


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> This sounds as if you're saying that you don't post in response to what other people have said.  But that's not true, so I'm a bit confused as to what you're getting at.



You posted as if I am responsible of how MF posts. I have nothing to see with his approach. 



> Perhaps you feel folk don't respond to *your* posts? But that's not true either. I for one have highlighted several times where we are saying much the same thing as each other, but from different perspectives, and in very different ways.



Well, sometimes but I don't think you follow my reasoning about what knowledge actual is (not what it means). 
It is of course a matter of language and remember this one is not even remotely mine, so I am constantly translating myself. It is a bit difficult with subjects like this, but I though I was clear enough 
(see? self-delusion at work)



> Not to worry. How are you enjoying Descartes?


Good. Feels like you gave candy to a child with a sick stomach  (not Descartes, the fact I'm reading Latin upsets Dyslex solmewhat more than usaul.)

salaam.


----------



## Santino (Feb 28, 2008)

More claims. I'm going to call Claims Direct, they'll sort this out.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> You could also add:
> 
> learning *properly understood*, develops belief structures



That I said already, but I think it is in the other thread. 

Information offers belief - or suggestion thereof - to be aquired. This can lead to the experience of suggested understanding. The cumulative result induces suggestion of knowledge.

salaam.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Alex B said:


> More claims. I'm going to call Claims Direct, they'll sort this out.



you are claiming that i am making claims, despite the fact i am repeatedly insisting that i'm not making claims


----------



## Santino (Feb 28, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> you are claiming that i am making claims, despite the fact i am repeatedly insisting that i'm not making claims


Is that a claim?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 28, 2008)

Alex B said:


> Is that a claim?




right, how could you *possibly know* if it was a claim or not?


the claim that i am not making a claim, is impossible, just as the knowledge that knowledge is impossible, is impossible


this is because the word 'claim' is really a veiled form of the word 'know'

you are merely restating the whole problem, with this insistence that there is a person, max freakout, who is 'making' a claim

this is *not *the case, because knowledge is impossible, you can't know anything, im not claiming to know anything, but it seems as if you are


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

> you are claiming that i am making claims, despite the fact i am repeatedly claiming that i'm not making claims


Fixed it for you.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I never said you did.  But the connection is obvious, if you give it a moment's thought.  If knowledge is impossible, then so is learning.



learning is not impossible. you can learn beliefs. 

or more accurately, you believe you can learn beliefs.

you can not be certain that the learning is taking place, or whether what you are learning is true


----------



## Jonti (Feb 28, 2008)

What cannot you doubt?


----------



## bodach (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> What cannot you doubt?



everything apart from doudt.


----------



## Kizmet (Feb 28, 2008)

Big Al says dogs can't look up....


----------



## bodach (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> What cannot you doubt?



everything apart from doubt.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 28, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Big Al says dogs can't look up....



He's not claiming it.  He knows it as a fact.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 28, 2008)

Jonti said:


> What cannot you doubt?



im interested to see where this is going 

what do you think you cannot doubt?


----------



## bodach (Feb 28, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> what do you think you cannot doubt?



everything else.


----------



## bodach (Feb 28, 2008)

Have I triple posted. So that's a triple thought.


----------



## Pip (Feb 29, 2008)

I thought this was a thing doctors do to women in labour where they cut the bit between their minge and their bum, and was all like "what the hell is this doing in the philosophy forum?"
As you were.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 29, 2008)

One thing I can say I know then, is that I'm glad I never need to give birth.


----------



## bodach (Feb 29, 2008)

Enid Laundromat said:


> I thought.



Me to.


----------



## bodach (Feb 29, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> One thing I can say I know then, is that I'm glad I never need to give birth.



How do you know.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 29, 2008)

Enid Laundromat said:


> a thing doctors do to women in labour where they cut the bit between their minge and their bum,



This.

If I've ever been more certain of anything, it only involves never watching 2girls1cup again...


----------



## Pip (Feb 29, 2008)

They use a big pair of scissors and cut right through.


----------



## Kizmet (Feb 29, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> This.
> 
> If I've ever been more certain of anything, it only involves never watching 2girls1cup again...



Motherhood would do you good,
if giving birth was a thing you could.
You'd feel the feminine sublime,
and
you'd have tits to play with all the time...


----------



## bodach (Feb 29, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> Motherhood would do you good,
> if giving birth was a thing you could.
> You'd feel the feminine sublime,
> and
> you'd have tits to play with all the time...



mmmmmmmmmmmm exponentially


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 29, 2008)

im sad that im female now


----------



## bodach (Feb 29, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> im sad that im female now


i'm feeling much better.


----------



## bodach (Feb 29, 2008)

Maybe the knowledge has arrived.


----------



## Kizmet (Feb 29, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> im sad that im female now



That-wasn't-my-idea.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 29, 2008)

Jonti said:


> What cannot you doubt?




that you can doubt anything


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 29, 2008)

So, what secret truth has been unearthed in the 701 posts on this thread then? Some deep truth of cosmic significance? Some new way to emancipate the global w/c in a peaceful yet effective revolution against the ruling classes?


----------



## Santino (Feb 29, 2008)

More like the student union bar during Week 2 of an undergraduate philosophy course.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> So, what secret truth has been unearthed in the 701 posts on this thread then? Some deep truth of cosmic significance? Some new way to emancipate the global w/c in a peaceful yet effective revolution against the ruling classes?



nothing is known, but noone wants to admit it to themselves, therefore, epistemology springs into existence


epistemology is a blanket people use to hide from the devastating truth


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 29, 2008)

You know what Max? Most people who actually think about this stuff get past this point pretty quickly cos they realise that while it's another useful element to add to one's interpretive filter, for all practical intents and purposes it's a completely pointless argument. 

It's not about hiding from the 'devastating truth' unless you're a psychedelic-fried fool - it's about realising that discussing something as self-evident as not being able to know everything for certain is stupid, and that for the purpose of living and existing in this reality I can say 'I know the sun will rise tomorrow'.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> You know what Max? Most people who actually think about this stuff get past this point pretty quickly cos they realise that while it's another useful element to add to one's interpretive filter, for all practical intents and purposes it's a completely pointless argument.



it is the argument which justifies the existence of epistemology


the only way a person 'gets past it' is by willfully denying its truth


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 29, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> it is the argument which justifies the existence of epistemology
> 
> 
> *the only way a person 'gets past it' is by willfully denying its truth*



Or just incorporates it into their view of the world and gets on with something more useful than 700 posts of dancing on a pin head, which is what you've done.


----------



## Kizmet (Feb 29, 2008)

It's more than a useful thing, though. It's a fundamental.

It would be better if people wouldn't just dismiss it but use it.

All it means is never be too sure of yourself.

Which, if you've ever read any Kipling, you'll know is good advice.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> Or just incorporates it into their view of the world and gets on with something more useful than 700 posts of dancing on a pin head, which is what you've done.




Not epistemologists, they dedicate their lives to systematically denying the impossibility of knowledge,


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 29, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> *It's more than a useful thing, though. It's a fundamental.*
> 
> It would be better if people wouldn't just dismiss it but use it.
> 
> ...



A simple and useful thing. Something in fact, that your mother might tell you...



max_freakout said:


> Not epistemologists, they dedicate their lives to systematically denying the impossibility of knowledge,



Then there is something deeply wrong with the world that someone can make a living out of doing this.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> then there is something deeply wrong with the world that someone can make a living out of doing this.




that is a major conclusion i have been getting at in this thread, there is no justification for epistemology, because the answer to epistemology is very simple, knowledge is impossible


nevertheless, epistemolgy is alive and thriving


----------



## Kizmet (Feb 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> A simple and useful thing. Something in fact, that your mother might tell you..



But your mother is usually an old wife.... and what's your normal opinion on old wives tales?


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 29, 2008)

> But your mother is usually an old wife.... and what's your normal opinion on old wives tales?



You see, it's tedious stuff like this that wins you no favours Kiz

'Don't eat apple cores, they'll give you appendicitis' - that's an old wives tale.
'Don't think you know everything' - that's parental advice. Along with other classics like 'If you fall and break your leg, dont' come running to me'



> that is a major conclusion i have been getting at in this thread, there is no justification for epistemology, because the answer to epistemology is very simple, knowledge is impossible



Whatever. You keep on with this kind of thing Max, and the rest of the world will get by without you. Perhaps everything we think of as knowledge is in fact a belief. But you know what - much of this 'belief' has such a low probability of anything happening contra- that for all intents and purposes, we can call it knowledge. 

That's enough for most people, yet you seem to be unable to grasp a very, very basic concept.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> Perhaps everything we think of as knowledge is in fact a belief. But you know what - much of this 'belief' has such a low probability of anything happening contra- that for all intents and purposes, we can call it knowledge.



you *cannot possibly know*, what the probability of any 'contra-belief' event occuring is


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 29, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> you *cannot possibly know*, what the probability of any 'contra-belief' event occuring is



OK Max, we all know nothing. I don't know that I breathe to get oxygen into my body. I don't know that I eat food to give my body fuel and other nutrients in order for it to keep going.

Your position is ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous in fact. It isn't some great revelation, because quite simply _this whole argument about whether you can know something is irrelevant_ for existing generally, on this planet.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> OK Max, we all know nothing. I don't know that I breathe to get oxygen into my body. I don't know that I eat food to give my body fuel and other nutrients in order for it to keep going.
> 
> Your position is ridiculous. Beyond ridiculous in fact. It isn't some great revelation, because quite simply _this whole argument about whether you can know something is irrelevant_ for existing generally, on this planet.




as i have said *many* times, *it isnt my position*, it is the position of the sceptic

I disagree that this position is 'irrelevant to existing', i think it is actually *highly *relevant to existing


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> So, what secret truth has been unearthed in the 701 posts on this thread then? Some deep truth of cosmic significance? Some new way to emancipate the global w/c in a peaceful yet effective revolution against the ruling classes?


 
No kyser, we were having a rather circular conversation about the role and value of the study of epistemology.  Not looking for anything else really.

Feel free to start a thread on wither of those subjects yourself though


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 29, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> as i have said *many* times, *it isnt my position*, it is the position of the sceptic
> 
> I disagree that this position is 'irrelevant to existing', i think it is actually *highly *relevant to existing



Max, this whole argument, for the purpose of eating, drinking, mating, meeting people etc is completely pointless. The only time it's relevant is in pointless discussions about it like this.

For 200,000 years human beings have gotten by without having to expend vast amounts of energy on an argument about whether knowledge is possibly or not.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> Max, this whole argument, for the purpose of eating, drinking, mating, meeting people etc is completely pointless. The only time it's relevant is in pointless discussions about it like this.
> 
> For 200,000 years human beings have gotten by without having to expend vast amounts of energy on an argument about whether knowledge is possibly or not.


It is not pointless though for the survival of the human species that we keep using our brain for other things than eating, drinking, mating, meeting people...

salaam.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 29, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> It is not pointless though for the survival of the human species that we keep using our brain for other things than eating, drinking, mating, meeting people...
> 
> salaam.



True, but I suspect that an argument about epistemology, and concluding that we can't 'know' anything, wouldn't be helpful in an arguement about say, global warming, would it?


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 29, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> It is not pointless though for the survival of the human species that we keep using our brain for other things than eating, drinking, mating, meeting people...
> 
> salaam.



you are so wisdom-ous!


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> True, but I suspect that an argument about epistemology, and concluding that we can't 'know' anything, wouldn't be helpful in an arguement about say, global warming, would it?



Of course it can; It would help both sides of the argument to conclude that they have no knowledge. Would that be accepted by all the most obvious conclusion would be: Always better to prevent than having to cure.
Would make these discussions as simple as you can get, no?

salaam.


----------



## kyser_soze (Feb 29, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> Of course it can; It would help both sides of the argument to conclude that they have no knowledge. Would that be accepted by all the most obvious conclusion would be: Always better to prevent than having to cure.
> Would make these discussions as simple as you can get, no?
> 
> salaam.



No, because someone could then say 'You don't KNOW about prevention being better than cure, so we don't have to do anything.'

Which would get you nowhere. Which is why this argument is bollocks...


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> No, because someone could then say 'You don't KNOW about prevention being better than cure, so we don't have to do anything.'
> 
> Which would get you nowhere. Which is why this argument is bollocks...



On which almost everyone with some form of sanity would reply: We don't need to know to have a belief in our experiences with what is the best option of both.

salaam


----------



## Santino (Feb 29, 2008)

I would be fascinated to learn the name of a single person who 'makes their living' from 'denying that knowledge is impossible'. Just one.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 29, 2008)

Alex B said:


> I would be fascinated to learn the name of a single person who 'makes their living' from 'denying that knowledge is impossible'. Just one.


 
Mrs BJ Smagma,
The Park Bench
Elms Drive
Preston

Although she actually makes her living frigging herself for pennies thrown by passing cackling chav, the only thing she can be heard to say ever is "knowledge is not impossible knowledge is not impossible knowledge is not buggeroff impossible"...


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> Max, this whole argument, for the purpose of eating, drinking, mating, meeting people etc is completely pointless. The only time it's relevant is in pointless discussions about it like this.



epistemology is pointless, this discussion has a point, insofar as it clarifies the pointlessness of epistemology, and asks why does epistemology exist?


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 29, 2008)

Alex B said:


> I would be fascinated to learn the name of a single person who 'makes their living' from 'denying that knowledge is impossible'. Just one.



then go through the list of authors who's papers appear in the books mentioned at the start of this thread, there are many of them, and a few have been named in the thread, such as Hilary Putnam, David Lewis, and a few others


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 29, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> True, but I suspect that an argument about epistemology, and concluding that we can't 'know' anything, wouldn't be helpful in an arguement about say, global warming, would it?




I think this has a very blunt and obvious impilcation for global warming 'arguments'

arguing about global warming, is *just as pointless* (if not moreso), as arguinfg about the impossiblility of knowledge


*because* knowledge is impossible


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 29, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> epistemology is pointless, this discussion has a point, insofar as it clarifies the pointlessness of epistemology, and asks why does epistemology exist?


 
actually, I think the only people who come out of this arguement with the belief that epistomology is pointless are exactly the same people who have come into it with the that argument and have completely failed to provide any evidence or rationale behind their arguments, nor indeed to be able to engage 90% of those in disagreement.

The answer is that epistomology exists because most intelligent people are interested in the nature of knowledge, what it is, where it comes from, if it exists etc etc.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 29, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> The answer is that epistomology exists because most intelligent people are interested in the nature of knowledge, what it is, where it comes from, if it exists etc etc.




But epistemology has been unable to show how knowledge could possibly exist

epistemology has been trying to prove that knowledge exists, but has failed

because knowledge is impossible


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 29, 2008)

Which you haven't proved in a way that can't be argued with.


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 29, 2008)

http://changingminds.org/techniques/resisting/broken_record.htm


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 29, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Which you haven't proved in a way that can't be argued with.





i dont need to prove that epistemology hasnt proven that knowledge is possible, because the burden is on epistemology to do the proving.

I have studied epistemology in great depth, and it absolutely *has not* achieved the impossible and proven the unprovable, epistemology *does not *address the sceptical position, and is instead set up purely for the purpose of *avoiding* facing up to sceptisism. If epistemology truly faced up to sceptisism, it would disprove its own logic and its reason for existing

Epistemology exists, in order to avoid facing the fact that is is completely unneccesary, because knowledge is impossible


----------



## bluestreak (Feb 29, 2008)

Is the job of epistemology to prove that knowledge is possible though?  Most people would describe epistemology like the dictionary does: a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.   Which it does very well.  For everyone except you, that is, who studies a different version than anyone else.


----------



## max_freakout (Feb 29, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Is the job of epistemology to prove that knowledge is possible though?  Most people would describe epistemology like the dictionary does: a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.   Which it does very well.  For everyone except you, that is, who studies a different version than anyone else.



i studied the books i mentioned at the start of the thread, which is standard, modern western epistemology, the same as everyone else

and while they investigate the origin, they *havent* discovered the origin, they havent identified the limits, or discovered the nature, of knowledge

this is because knowledge is impossible


----------



## Santino (Feb 29, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> I have studied epistemology in great depth


lollylollylulz


----------



## Jonti (Feb 29, 2008)

If there is _anything_ one cannot doubt, then one cannot doubt that knowledge is possible.


----------



## bodach (Feb 29, 2008)

Jonti said:


> If there is _nothing_ one cannot doubt, then one cannot doubt that knowledge is possible.



That works just as well.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 29, 2008)

LOL, yes!


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Feb 29, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> most intelligent people are interested in the nature of knowledge, what it is, where it comes from, if it exists etc etc.



i think wise people recognise the impossiblity of ever knowing something. like someone said, its the kind of helpful advice parents tell their children 'dont be too sure of yourself'. they recognise that all the beliefs they have, are just that. they are ALWAYS open to being wrong.

so yeah, intelligent people might be interested in what knowledge is, and spend their days trying to pin the butterfly down, but wise people know that they know nothing, and any attempt to pin a belief down as a Truth is a corruption of real truth which lies in the void.


----------



## Jonti (Feb 29, 2008)

Jonti said:
			
		

> What cannot you doubt?





max_freakout said:


> that you can doubt anything


That will do nicely. 

Can you think of anything else you cannot doubt?


----------



## bodach (Feb 29, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Can you think of anything else you cannot doubt?




If you can think, then you can doubt.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 1, 2008)

I don't doubt it.





> Whatever we want; whatever we please,
> Can play in our heads with consummate ease.


Heh!


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 1, 2008)

kyser_soze said:


> You see, it's tedious stuff like this that wins you no favours Kiz




Love it. 19 pages of the most mind-numbing and pointless shite. And a quick joke gets called tedious.

If that's how it's going to work, kyser, don't do me any favours.



> 'Don't eat apple cores, they'll give you appendicitis' - that's an old wives tale.
> 'Don't think you know everything' - that's parental advice. Along with other classics like 'If you fall and break your leg, dont' come running to me'


 
I guess what I'm saying is that, on some things, maybe some folk should listen to their mum a bit more. 

Although I figure apples cores should be ok....


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 1, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I don't doubt it.Heh!


 
That was Status Quo, wasn't it?

The 'b' side of Burning Bridges.. it was called Epistemology - white mens dominos.


----------



## bodach (Mar 1, 2008)

Thinks about epistemology of metaphors.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 1, 2008)

*suffers from quophobia - the irrational fear of status quo*


----------



## bodach (Mar 1, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> *suffers from quophobia - the irrational fear of status quo*



Or the irrational feel of being with your woman.


----------



## Santino (Mar 1, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> i think wise people recognise the impossiblity of ever knowing something. like someone said, its the kind of helpful advice parents tell their children 'dont be too sure of yourself'. they recognise that all the beliefs they have, are just that. they are ALWAYS open to being wrong.
> 
> so yeah, intelligent people might be interested in what knowledge is, and spend their days trying to pin the butterfly down, but wise people know that they know nothing, and any attempt to pin a belief down as a Truth is a corruption of real truth which lies in the void.


Your professed commitment to there being no knowledge is somewhat undermined by your sweeping judgements about what 'wise' people do. How adolescently arrogant.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

Jonti said:


> If there is _anything_ one cannot doubt, then one cannot doubt that knowledge is possible.




there lies the conundrum of epistemology


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

Jonti said:


> If there is _anything_ one cannot doubt, then one cannot doubt that knowledge is possible.




you can doubt if knowledge is possible, because you cannot know that knowledge isnt impossibe


----------



## Aldebaran (Mar 1, 2008)

Jonti said:


> If there is _anything_ one cannot doubt, then one cannot doubt that knowledge is possible.



I never said it is not possible, I said it exists out ot reach for the human mind, hence it should be treated as non-existent.

salaam.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> I never said it is not possible, I said it exists out ot reach for the human mind, hence it should be treated as non-existent.




this sounds self-contradictory

what does 'possible' mean?


----------



## Aldebaran (Mar 1, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> this sounds self-contradictory
> 
> what does 'possible' mean?



Jonti came up with that.

I said humans can't reach the point of knowledge because it exists out of reach of the human mind.  That is what I mean with "possible" in this context.

salaam.


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

*How its possible not to have any kind of knowledge than?*

İf knowledge is impossible ; how is it possible than emptying our head out of any content and having no context at all?


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> İf knowledge is impossible ; how is it possible than emptying our head out of any content and having no context at all?



im not sure i understand you, but the content of our heads are our beliefs.

so how is knowledge different from beliefs?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> İf knowledge is impossible ; how is it possible than emptying our head out of any content and having no context at all?



because context is no different to belief

it is possible to empty the head of all belief, because there is no truth

we are only *pretending* to know the truth, when you stop pretending, that is when context is lost


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

How can you stop pretending? By the way I don't know how you could jump into belief straight away? I was talking about how can you empty your head completely out of everything then?(Everything means every thing!)


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> How can you stop pretending?



By smoking salvia divinorum for example, you can put your mind in a situation where reference suddenly appears highly problematic, and all context dissolves




> By the way I don't know how you could jump into belief straight away?



you can believe anything, it's all relative




> I was talking about how can you empty your head completely out of everything then?(Everything means every thing!)



Salvia Divinorum the *ultimate* amnesia, to forget reference

conscious belief is a function of brain chemistry, and brain chemistry can be consciously altered


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

Lets say its true; but when the trip ends it all comes back to you!


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> Lets say its true; but when the trip ends it all comes back to you!



yes, but once you have experienced it once or twice, you are compelled to realise that you can trip *any* time you want to, whenever you will it to happen, it happens, reliably and predictably, the mind is profoundly *zapped* of all context. Just smoke Salvia divinorum


----------



## Aldebaran (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> How can you stop pretending? By the way I don't know how you could jump into belief straight away? I was talking about how can you empty your head completely out of everything then?(Everything means every thing!)



Does in your context God counts as "thing"? If not, I can zap my mind out of context whenever I want 

salaam.


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

What I mean is: to forget everything you know!


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> What I mean is: to forget everything you know!



like i said, salvia is the ultimate amnesia, everything you think you know is completely wrong anyway, because knowledge is impossible


----------



## Aldebaran (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> What I mean is: to forget everything you know!



I don't know God.. 

I know nothing...
(*gets visions of a character in some UK comedy show*)


salaam.


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

I don't know God.. 

I know nothing...


 So do you think God is your source of knowledge?


----------



## Aldebaran (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> So do you think God is your source of knowledge?



Not of my knowledge, I have none. (see my arguments on the issue "knowledge").

Of course when appraoching the issue "knowledge" and where it resides from theological point of view (which I didn't do) then God = knowledge. 

salaam.


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

I was not referring to any specific point of view. I simply say is it possible not to have any kind of knowledge? İncluding that you don't know?


----------



## Jonti (Mar 1, 2008)

The contents of my head: arteries, veins, blood, loads of various sorts of nervous tissues, billions of molecules in tens of thousands of varieties,  billions of atoms of just a few dozen varieties, electrons (ony one sort), protons (just the one sort again), baryons, quarks, whatever.

The content of our heads, indeed!


----------



## bodach (Mar 1, 2008)

innate inherent


----------



## Jonti (Mar 1, 2008)

This is confused ... 





> "you cannot know that knowledge isnt impossibe"



Readers can easily satisfy themselves that _If_ there is anything one cannot doubt, then one cannot doubt that knowledge is possible.

It's a conditional statement. The first step is to satisfy oneself about the reasoning. That checks out OK; there is no logical error. The conclusion does logically follow from the premise, just as a matter of pure reason, or logic.

So the conclusion can be established by showing the premise to be true.  And, I for one, can think of many things I cannot doubt. Direct experience is one of them.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 1, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> I never said it is not possible, I said it exists out ot reach for the human mind, hence it should be treated as non-existent.
> 
> salaam.


This is pretty much what everyone but the grasshoppers is saying, in many different ways.  A scientist might put it: Knowledge is something we strive for, but never quite achieve. We can never be certain.


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

İf there is anything one cannot doubt... 

What about a chronical sceptic's condition?


----------



## Jonti (Mar 1, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> ... conscious belief is a function of brain chemistry, and brain chemistry can be consciously altered


This from a poster whose main contribution to the thread is knowledge is impossible 

ffs!


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Knowledge is something we strive for, but never quite achieve. We can never be certain.



How can we strive for something if we can't know what it is we are striving for?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> İf there is anything one cannot doubt...
> 
> What about a chronical sceptic's condition?




the sceptic doubts *everything*

that is the being of the sceptic:

"I doubt, therefore I am"


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

To know what are you striving for is not the necessary condition of striving!


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> To know what are you striving for is not the necessary condition of striving!





no, but the *existence* of what you are striving for, is a necessary condition for the striving to have any *meaning*


so what is the meaning of epistemology? The meaning of the meaningless?


----------



## bodach (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> To know what are you striving for is not the necessary condition of striving!



How will I know when I know?


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

How will I know when I know?

  I guess that you wouldn't doubt anymore!


----------



## bodach (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> How will I know when I know?
> 
> I guess that you wouldn't doubt anymore!



I like the word 'guess'.


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> no, but the *existence* of what you are striving for, is a necessary condition for the striving to have any *meaning*
> 
> 
> so what is the meaning of epistemology? The meaning of the meaningless?



    İf you would know what are you striving for; you would't strive anymore!


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> How will I know when I know?
> 
> I guess that you wouldn't doubt anymore!




Im thinking of it the other way round

That you could *never* know when you know

the sceptic will never be defeated

because sceptisism justifies its own being, self-justifying paradox

and the existence of the sceptic reveals that epistemology is also self-justifying paradox


----------



## Jonti (Mar 1, 2008)

You know nothing, so why don't you keep quiet?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> İf you would know what are you striving for; you would't strive anymore!





if you knew that what you were striving for didn't exist, what would you do then?

Nothing?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

Jonti said:


> You know nothing, so why don't you keep quiet?




what about you?


----------



## bodach (Mar 1, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> if you knew that what you were striving for didn't exist, what would you do then?
> 
> Nothing?



Ok, bring nothing on.


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> Im thinking of it the other way round
> 
> That you could *never* know when you know
> 
> ...



     İn the case of knowing sceptic would stop doubting( As Rene did!)


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> İn the case of knowing sceptic would stop doubting( As Rene did!)



Rene stopped doubting because he convinced himself that it was certain that he existed

Therefore he was *not a sceptic*, he believed that he was certain to exist

He was denying the impossibility of knowledge, unlike Socrates


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

bodach said:


> Ok, bring nothing on.





if knowledge is impossible, then nothing is everything


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> if you knew that what you were striving for didn't exist, what would you do then?
> 
> Nothing?



    I don't think it would be a choice "not to do anything" Even suicide would be an attempt or "not to do anything!"


----------



## bodach (Mar 1, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> He was denying the impossibility of knowledge, unlike Socrates



Was he a catholic?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> I don't think it would be a choice "not to do anything" Even suicide would be an attempt or "not to do anything!"





suicide would be the *ultimate* proof to myself that i can 'do' something! 


There is no knower, and therefore no doer

it is impossible to 'do', because it is impossible to *know* that I am doing


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

to do nothing = not to do anything


----------



## Jonti (Mar 1, 2008)

> "I doubt, therefore I am"


Ah, here's something else that will do nicely. A sound premise; correct logic, result!


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

bodach said:


> Was he a catholic?



catholic or something like that.....

he was a 'church-fearer'


----------



## Jonti (Mar 1, 2008)

You know nothing max (you say it yourself), so just keep quiet, eh?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Ah, here's something else that will do nicely. A sound premise; correct logic, result!





That is Sartre

do i know that i doubt? How can i?


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> Rene stopped doubting because he convinced himself that it was certain that he existed
> 
> Therefore he was *not a sceptic*, he believed that he was certain to exist
> 
> He was denying the impossibility of knowledge, unlike Socrates



   Previously he was; and then he thought he knew that he wouldn't doubt anymore! And then we lost him as a valuable sceptic who could be contributing great beneficial knowledge to humanity...


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

Jonti said:


> You know nothing max (you say it yourself), so just keep quiet, eh?



Do you know anything?


----------



## Jonti (Mar 1, 2008)

> if knowledge is impossible, then nothing is everything


</ illogical grasshopper noise>


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> Previously he was; and then he thought he knew that he wouldn't doubt anymore! And then we lost him as a valuable sceptic who could be contributing great beneficial knowledge to humanity...





i dont think he was ever _really_ a sceptic!

He set  out to prove knowledge, not to be annihilated by impossibility of knowledge


----------



## Jonti (Mar 1, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> Do you know anything?


Of course I do you freakin' clown. Have you not understood anything at all?


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> suicide would be the *ultimate* proof to myself that i can 'do' something!
> 
> 
> There is no knower, and therefore no doer
> ...



    So how can you powerfully claim you could commit suicide as an act in this case?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> So how can you powerfully claim you could commit suicide as an act in this case?




you cannot act


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Of course I do you freakin' clown. Have you not understood anything at all?




How do you know that it is knowledge and not belief?


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> That is Sartre
> 
> do i know that i doubt? How can i?



   Because doubting is not having the real possession of knowledge and you have the side effects...


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> Because doubting is not having the real possession of knowledge and you have the side effects...




doubting is being uncertain if you know.......

which is not to know, to realize the impossibility of knowing


the side effect is insanity


----------



## Jonti (Mar 1, 2008)

Oh, one can always be mistaken.

How confident do you feel that you can even use logic correctly?


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

Jonti said:


> </ illogical grasshopper noise>



  To say that "nothing is everything is a knowledge!"


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Oh, one can always be mistaken.




about anything, because *knowledge is impossible*


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> To say that "nothing is everything is a knowledge!"



to know that one knows nothing


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> doubting is being uncertain if you know.......
> 
> which is not to know, to realize the impossibility of knowing
> 
> ...


    " to know the impossibility of knowledge is a knowledge" Therefore there would be nothing to doubt for...


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> " to know the impossibility of knowledge is a knowledge" Therefore there would be nothing to doubt for...





nothing and everything to doubt for


----------



## Jonti (Mar 1, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> about anything, because *knowledge is impossible*


Well, that's your theory.

But you know nothing.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 1, 2008)

its not a theory, is it?


----------



## Jonti (Mar 1, 2008)

So, what is it you cannot doubt?


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 1, 2008)

everything is wide open to be doubted


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i dont think he was ever _really_ a sceptic!
> 
> He set  out to prove knowledge, not to be annihilated by impossibility of knowledge



     Then it could mean he wasn't decent!


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> nothing and everything to doubt for



      İf you have a certain knowledge that "knowledge is impossible" Then why would you be doubting and what for?


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> Then it could mean he wasn't decent!



LOL!


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> İf you have a certain knowledge that "knowledge is impossible" Then why would you be doubting and what for?



its not certain knowledge, knowledge is impossible. 

its a spiralling paradox.


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> its not certain knowledge, knowledge is impossible.
> 
> its a spiralling paradox.



     I think its a statement pointing to some kind of truth that knowledge cannot be gained.


----------



## bodach (Mar 1, 2008)

flirting.


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 1, 2008)

"not knowable" is a statement to make adressing the certainity that nothing could ever be known...


----------



## Aldebaran (Mar 1, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Ah, here's something else that will do nicely. A sound premise; correct logic, result!




mmm.. except that doubting inevitably is the result of thinking.

salaam.


----------



## Aldebaran (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> I was not referring to any specific point of view. I simply say is it possible not to have any kind of knowledge? İncluding that you don't know?



Clustered recap of my posts in this thread on the issue "knowledge"(I posted that in Dillinger's thread but he is on study-ban)




			
				Aldebaran said:
			
		

> There is no knowledge, only the suggestion thereof.
> 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.
> 
> Knowledge is not an illusion because somewhere it resides, out of reach for the human mind. That is the only problem.
> ...



I never said or shall ever claim that conclusion=knowledge.
If you want, you can prove me wrong on all of it.

salaam.


----------



## bodach (Mar 1, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> mmm.. except that doubting inevitably is the result of thinking.
> 
> salaam.



can you have doubt without knowledge.


----------



## Aldebaran (Mar 1, 2008)

bodach said:


> can you have doubt without knowledge.



Of course. See post above yours.

salaam.


----------



## Aldebaran (Mar 1, 2008)

Jonti said:


> This is pretty much what everyone but the grasshoppers is saying, in many different ways.  A scientist might put it: Knowledge is something we strive for, but never quite achieve. We can never be certain.



The difference being that far too often scientists reasons that knowledge is within reach, if only humans strive long enough.

salaam.


----------



## bodach (Mar 1, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> The difference being that far too often scientists reasons that knowledge is within reach, if only humans strive long enough.
> 
> salaam.



Strive.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> "not knowable" is a statement to make adressing the certainity that nothing could ever be known...





Absolutely

*Nothing* is knowable


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> I think its a statement pointing to some kind of truth that knowledge cannot be gained.




it points to the truth that there cannot be truth


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 1, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> İf you have a certain knowledge that "knowledge is impossible" Then why would you be doubting and what for?




you cant have certain knowledge that knowledge is impossible!


----------



## bodach (Mar 2, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> you cant have certain knowledge that knowledge is impossible!



after 34 pages, max, you don't know.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 2, 2008)

bodach said:


> after 34 pages, max, you don't know.




we didnt know at page 1, this argument has been pointless, except to show that epistemology is pointless


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 3, 2008)

Oh I don't know, I've certainly gained some knowledge from this thread.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> *Nothing* is knowable


In which case, you cannot know that nothing is knowable.

Best keep quiet in such circumstances, eh - you'll just end up sounding silly.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

Max? Sound silly? Dont be absurd.

This thread:


----------



## Jonti (Mar 3, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> mmm.. except that doubting inevitably is the result of thinking.
> 
> salaam.


  
Excellent stuff, most excellent!

I've no doubt one can think too much. There is palpably more to us than just thought.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> This thread:





truth is always just out of reach- like that little dogs tail. we chase it about, but can never pin it down. and too much chasing makes you dizzy.

peaceful dogs give up chasing altogether and realise they are never going to get it.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In which case, you cannot know that nothing is knowable.




exactly


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Oh I don't know, I've certainly gained some knowledge from this thread.





*wisdom*, not knowledge


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> truth is always just out of reach- like that little dogs tail. we chase it about, but can never pin it down. and too much chasing makes you dizzy.
> 
> peaceful dogs give up chasing altogether and realise they are never going to get it.



It is a little like Ouroboros:


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

I wouldn't call it wisdom, max. 

All this thread has banged the phrase "knowledge is impossible" into my brain, without any discussion of why, what its implications are, etc etc. Nothing. I like talking about philosophy, not soundbites.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 3, 2008)

it is interesting that people have just thrown empty attacks at 'knowledge is impossible'
and nobody has explained why they think it is possible. 

if knowledge is impossible, then we have no need for evidence to back up the statement.

you, however believe knowledge is possible, so you ought to back that up with some facts!


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

I have said it before, I don't disagree with you. I just think its lazy to keep repeating yourself.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I wouldn't call it wisdom, max.



that's what socrates' called it




> All this thread has banged the phrase "knowledge is impossible" into my brain, without any discussion of why, what its implications are, etc etc. Nothing. I like talking about philosophy, not soundbites.




it is *obvious* why, because you could *never know*, what do you think the implications are?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> It is a little like Ouroboros:





it is exactly like ouroboros

the mysterious inevitability


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

Let me guess. That knowledge is impossible. So knowledge is impossible. But isn't knowledge impossible?

I reckon this thread has another ten pages of absolute tedious waffle left in it.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Let me guess. That knowledge is impossible. So knowledge is impossible. But isn't knowledge impossible?
> 
> I reckon this thread has another ten pages of absolute tedious waffle left in it.





i made the point i wanted to make ages ago, so im totally satisfied with this thread 


but it is clear some people are still denying the obvious


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

And I don't think Socrates would make any such claim. 

What do you think of Socratic Irony, Max?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i made the point i wanted to make ages ago, so im totally satisfied with this thread
> 
> 
> but it is clear some people are still denying the obvious



Woah woah woah.

Don't you be thinking I am one of those people. 

I will have you know I disagree with the entire project of Philosophy from Socrates onwards, and that any talk of knowledge being impossible is a category error made on the mistakes made in the past.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> And I don't think Socrates would make any such claim.



he made that *exact claim*, it is one of his most famous quotes, and i have repeated it many times in this thread





> What do you think of Socratic Irony, Max?




i think the whole technique of Plato's philosophy is completely incredible, and it has great implications for the subject of this thread


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I have said it before, I don't disagree with you. I just think its lazy to keep repeating yourself.



Questioning Max Freakout IS disagreeing with Max Freakout.  Report to The Abyss for retraining in the "Because I said so" school of question answering.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

Sorry, I have not seen it. I was under the Impression that Socrates asked questions, instead of making any kind of claim about the world. 

You don't have an opinion on Socratic Irony then? Shame.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Woah woah woah.
> 
> Don't you be thinking I am one of those people.
> 
> I will have you know I disagree with the entire project of Philosophy from Socrates onwards, and that any talk of knowledge being impossible is a category error made on the mistakes made in the past.





i very much agree with you, except i think that the category error lies in *our* attempts at understanding ancient greek philosophy and culture, not in any errors they made

it was a work of genius to point out that "wisdom is knowing that i know nothing"


im not sure philosophy _has had _a project since socrates


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 3, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> it is interesting that people have just thrown empty attacks at 'knowledge is impossible'
> and nobody has explained why they think it is possible.
> 
> if knowledge is impossible, then we have no need for evidence to back up the statement.
> ...



Good grief, how old are you, 12?

There are plenty of reasons why knowledge may be possible, many of which has been touched on this thread.  There are plenty of reasons why knowledge may not be possible, not a single one of which has been posited by either you or your master.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

Exactly. ^^


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2008)

Is this *really* the worst *philosophy* thread ever?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Sorry, I have not seen it. I was under the Impression that Socrates asked questions, instead of making any kind of claim about the world.




you must have done, it is the *central point* in 
plato's epistemology, socrates said, many many times, that wisdom is awareness of complete ignorance

he didnt just ask questions (except in certain limited dialogues)


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 3, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Is this *really* the worst *philosophy* thread ever?



Almost certainly.  

Thirty pages and not once has max offered a single piece of justification for his assertion.  Shame on us for continuing it really.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> There are plenty of reasons why knowledge may be possible, many of which has been touched on this thread.  There are plenty of reasons why knowledge may not be possible, not a single one of which has been posited by either you or your master.



there are no reasons why knowledge may be possible, because it isnt


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Is this *really* the worst *philosophy* thread ever?



By a country mile.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Thirty pages and not once has max offered a single piece of justification for his assertion.  Shame on us for continuing it really.




this assertion is *impossible to justify*, because it is claiming that *justification is impossible*

the burden is on those who think knowledge is possible, to say how it could possibly be, how they can refute the sceptic


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> there are no reasons why knowledge may be possible, because it isnt



I think you have said that a few times already, max. It still means fuck all. Its just some empty words. Appropriate really.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> there are no reasons why knowledge may be possible, because it isnt



Nice open questioning mind there.  You're an embarrassment to the very notion of philosophy.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I think you have said that a few times already, max. It still means fuck all. Its just some empty words. Appropriate really.



bluestreak disagrees with you and evidently thinks knowledge is possible somehow


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> this assertion is *impossible to justify*, because it is claiming that *justification is impossible*
> 
> the burden is on those who think knowledge is possible, to say how it could possibly be, how they can refute the sceptic



Nobody can refute the skeptic. But because you cannot refute a claim does not make it true. 

CF Scientific Method.

What do you think of 9/11 and conspiracy theories, max? do you think that being able to deny that the planes were holograms makes it true? 

I mean there is plenty of stuff we cannot refute. So what?

And even so, what difference do such claims actually make to human existence? What does it matter to anybody, whether an irrefutable claim is true or not?

I fully expect you not to engage with another post and repeat the same line again.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> bluestreak disagrees with you and evidently thinks knowledge is possible somehow



So what? I am not arrogant enough to say he is wrong. 

Skepticism is a the cave. And you have put yourself right in there.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> this assertion is *impossible to justify*, because it is claiming that *justification is impossible*
> 
> the burden is on those who think knowledge is possible, to say how it could possibly be, how they can refute the sceptic



Horseshit.  The burden is on _anyone _who posits a viewpoint to back theirs up.  The notion that there is a default setting that is scientific or philosophical fact and can not or could not be questioned is the philosophy of tyranny, idiocy, superstition, and monothought.  It is an anti-philosophic viewpoint, an anti-intellectual viewpoint, an anti-academic viewpoint.  It is one that dismisses enquiry, shuns experiment, and denies questioning.  


I will have no part in that sort of mindset I think.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

*also expects i-have-no-idea to come and perform some lapdog quip*


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 3, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Is this *really* the worst *philosophy* thread ever?



im enjoying it!


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

Me either bluestreak. It is completely cretinous, tbh. 

Its funny that those who argue they are open to the infinite possibility of nothingness are open to nothing else.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> bluestreak disagrees with you and evidently thinks knowledge is possible somehow




Woo-hoo.

You're either one of the best wind-up merchants we've had on here since ern was given his p45 or you're even thicker than any of us suspected.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> im enjoying it!



Simple minds innit.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> What do you think of 9/11 and conspiracy theories, max? do you think that being able to deny that the planes were holograms makes it true?



no, the only truth is there is no truth.

we can never know what happened.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> open to the infinite possibility of nothingness are open to nothing else.




 lol


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Simple minds innit.



naive anyway


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

You knows what I am saying, Max.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> naive anyway



Naive at best.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Nobody can refute the skeptic. But because you cannot refute a claim does not make it true.



the sceptic does not make a claim though, other people make unfounded, unjustifiable claims against the non-existent sceptical claims



> What do you think of 9/11 and conspiracy theories, max? do you think that being able to deny that the planes were holograms makes it true?




i think it is impossible to know




> And even so, what difference do such claims actually make to human existence? What does it matter to anybody, whether an irrefutable claim is true or not?



it matters to the epistemologist


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

What about the holocaust? Do you know it happened? Do you think you can deny that it did?

I am getting a bit of a feeling of misunderstood post-modern nihilism, now.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> What about the holocaust? Do you know it happened? Do you think you can deny that it did?




i cant deny that it happened (because that implies knowledge)

but i can certainly doubt that it happened

i can doubt that it didnt happen too


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Naive is best.



thanks


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 3, 2008)

So let me get this straight - the skeptic makes no claims whatsoever about anything?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> So let me get this straight - the skeptic makes no claims whatsoever about anything?



the sceptic isnt a person


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

Of course they do. But it means nothing because it is empty, which proves their point entirely. 

*sigh*


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Of course they do.



How? 

it is *impossible* to make this claim


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> How?
> 
> it is *impossible* to make this claim



Exactly.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Is this *really* the worst *philosophy* thread ever?



yes


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

For everyone else to consider it the worst, means that max and lapdog think it is the best, ever.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> the sceptic isnt a person



So you're not a person?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

No such thing bluestreak. Have you learned nothing?

You cant pin anything on max. He is beyond everything.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> So you're not a person?



i am stating the sceptical viewpoint


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> No such thing bluestreak. Have you learned nothing?
> 
> You cant pin anything on max. He is beyond everything.



Or have you learnt everything - and he is beyond nothing?

Hmm. Discuss.

*strokes chin*


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

You knew what he was saying, but just being awkward for the sake of it.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Or have you learnt everything - and he is beyond nothing?
> 
> Hmm. Discuss.
> 
> *strokes chin*



How magnificently philosophical. 

*grows beard*


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> How magnificently philosophical.
> 
> *grows beard*



But how do you _know_ that it is?

*grows longer beard*


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Or have you learnt everything - and he is beyond nothing?
> 
> Hmm. Discuss.
> 
> *strokes chin*




is nothing something?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

If Socrates and Plato argued against knowledge, what was the cave analogy all about then? 

They argued that leaving the cave you could have true knowledge of the forms. 

I know you think this is wrong, but I believe it disproves your earlier point about Socrates. 

And all that it proves it is debatable.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i am stating the sceptical viewpoint



So a sceptic is not a person?  Are you a person?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> is nothing something?



You really are a linguistic pardox/ Richard Madley too far.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> is nothing something?



Chickens. Eggs? Or _are they_? Or are they _something else_?

How do we know? What are we at all, for that matter? Are these _my_ feet?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

> I believe it disproves your earlier point about Socrates.



it wasnt a point about Socrates, it was something which socrates very often said


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

wriggle wriggle wriggle.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> If Socrates and Plato argued against knowledge, what was the cave analogy all about then?
> 
> They argued that leaving the cave you could have true knowledge of the forms.




knowledge of the forms/ideas is not proposititional knowledge


it isnt knowledge *that*, it is knowledge *of* (like aquaintance with)


in this  case, the philosopher leaving the cave would perceive the transcendental idea of the impossibility of knowledge


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> So a sceptic is not a person?  Are you a person?





the sceptic is not a person, and neither am i, for the purpose of this thread


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> wriggle wriggle wriggle.





Socrates said, wisdom if knowing that i know nothing


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 3, 2008)

Explain pls.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 3, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Explain pls.




Explain why this sceptical viewpoint is a non-human one I mean.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Explain pls.



being a person, in the cartesian sense, means knowing that i exist

but i cannot know this, and therefore i am not a person in this sense, i dont know im a person

thinking "Max believes x" will mislead you, instead think "the sceptic can claim that x"


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Explain why this sceptical viewpoint is a non-human one I mean.





being human is defined by being certain of one's own existence, but you cannot be certain


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> being a person, in the cartesian sense, means knowing that i exist
> 
> but i cannot know this...



You actually have to argue why rather than glibly assert this.

As noted above, you really do not get descartes or the method.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2008)

Have you read any philosophy max? There are guides as to how to deal with your basic type of misunderstanding out there.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> Have you read any philosophy max? There are guides as to how to deal with your basic type of misunderstanding out there.




ive referred to lots of philosophy ive read on this thread
do you think knowledge is possible?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2008)

A graduate you say! Surely then you can deal with the basic modern philosopy of descartes or offer a counter-argument to what you reject. Post something. That's how it's supposed to work. Have a think and then post. See what's posted then think, and reply. See you soon! Oh yeah, here's the (daftly misunderstood) bit you're supposed to be thinking about:



> being a person, in the cartesian sense, means knowing that i exist
> 
> but i cannot know this...



If you insist on tv quick style word games then...


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> You actually have to argue why rather than glibly assert this.
> 
> As noted above, you really do not get descartes or the method.



He most certainly doesn't. Nor any other philosopher he has mentioned.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> A graduate you say!



until i edited



> Surely then you can deal with the basic modern philosopy of descartes



what do you mean 'deal with'? I have referred to descartes many times on this thread, because the cogito is very relevant to this subject



> or offer a counter-argument to what you reject.



im not making any arguments, im stating an *obvious* truth, the truth of the sceptic


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> He most certainly doesn't. Nor any other philosopher he has mentioned.



i wrote a dissertation on 'the implications of the cogito'


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

It is relevant, but you don't really understand what it implies.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> It is relevant, but you don't really understand what it implies.



what does it imply? that knowledge is possible?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i wrote a dissertation on 'the implications of the cogito'


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2008)

_being a person, in the cartesian sense, means knowing that i exist

but i cannot know this..._

Make an argument for this. This is what i'm asking you to do. At least offer some evidence for your total and utter misunderstanding of the 'cogito' in the first line


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 3, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> _being a person, in the cartesian sense, means knowing that i exist
> 
> but i cannot know this..._
> 
> Make an argument for this. This is what i'm asking you to do. At least offer some evidence for your total and utter misunderstanding of the 'cogito' in the first line



Descartes said "I think therefore i exist", in other words, i exist because i think i exist, my being is constituted by my belief

but since knowledge is impossible, you cannot know that you exist


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> Descartes said "I think therefore i exist", in other words, i exist because i think i exist, my being is constituted by my belief
> 
> but since knowledge is impossible, you cannot know that you exist



Oh my fucking good god.

You genuinely do not know what 'i think therefore i am' means do you? :lol:


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

Not a clue!


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 3, 2008)

i do not necessarily think, and i do not necessarily exist.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> i do not necessarily think, and i do not necessarily exist.



not. a. clue.

At least max is not parroting somebody.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 3, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> not. a. clue.
> 
> At least max is not parroting somebody.



yes he is, he stole it from Socrates!


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 3, 2008)

.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 3, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> i do not necessarily think, and i do not necessarily exist.


Better say, what it is that you necessarily do. What cannot you doubt?


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 4, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Better say, what it is that you necessarily do. What cannot you doubt?



everything is open to doubt. myself included.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 4, 2008)

tweet tweet tweet

Is there a content free echo in here?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Better say, what it is that you necessarily do. What cannot you doubt?





you dont 'necessarily' do anything


----------



## Jonti (Mar 4, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> everything is open to doubt. myself included.


I certainly doubt you; but what is it you doubt about yourself?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

Jonti said:


> I certainly doubt you; but what is it you doubt about yourself?



my existence as a thinking thing


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 4, 2008)

This is good stuff.  

Max, are you aware of your own thinking?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> This is good stuff.
> 
> Max, are you aware of your own thinking?




there is awareness of *thoughts*, but not thinking

Because there is no perceptible causal power connecting 'me' with the thoughts


----------



## Jonti (Mar 4, 2008)

If max were aware, he would have no knowledge of that ('cos for him, _knowledge is impossible_).  

And how can one be aware without knowing it?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

Jonti said:


> And how can one be aware without knowing it?



you can be aware(you can't not be aware most of the time), but you cannot know that there is a knower who is associated with that awareness

the awareness does not belong to a knower, because a knower cannot exist


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 4, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> there is awareness of *thoughts*, but not thinking
> 
> Because there is no perceptible causal power connecting 'me' with the thoughts


 
Is there not?  What is the difference between 'you' and your thoughts?  What makes the two seperate and unconnected entities?


----------



## Jonti (Mar 4, 2008)

Ah, so max has added a third entry to his "list of things that cannot be doubted" (the latest addition being _awareness of thoughts_).


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 4, 2008)

Its almost as if he is making up as he goes along!


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 4, 2008)

Pfft.  It's self-evidently obvious that he couldn't be making it up.  There's nothing too make up.  It's not possible to make things up because it's self-evident that making things up cannot exist.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Ah, so max has added a third entry to his "list of things that cannot be doubted" (the latest addition being _awareness of thoughts_).




'being aware' is not the same thing as 'knowing that I am aware'

as i said earlier, nothing cannot be doubted


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Is there not?  What is the difference between 'you' and your thoughts?  What makes the two seperate and unconnected entities?





i am the person *thinking* my thoughts

i possess the power of control over my thoughts


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 4, 2008)

How do you tell the difference between the person and the thought.  Is not self-awareness a thought?  Without thoughts do you exist?  If so, in what form?

Etc.etc.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> How do you tell the difference between the person and the thought.  Is not self-awareness a thought?  Without thoughts do you exist?  If so, in what form?.



according to Descartes, my *ability to think* constitutes my existence, I am a 'thing that thinks'


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 4, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> according to Descartes, my *ability to think* constitutes my existence, I am a 'thing that thinks'


 
OK, so presuming you agree with Descartes on this, could you not call this a perceptible causal link?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> OK, so presuming you agree with Descartes on this, could you not call this a perceptible causal link?





'ability to think' => 'existence of an entity with causal power over thoughts'

this causal power is *imperceptible*


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 4, 2008)

imperceptible: something not capable of being perceived by the senses.

OK, so your senses are the judge of existence?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> imperceptible: something not capable of being perceived by the senses.
> 
> OK, so your senses are the judge of existence?




imperceptible - Impossible to perceive by the *mind or senses*


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 4, 2008)

Hmm, not my dictionary definition but I'll run with it.

This is starting to hurt my head, but...

from what you're telling me your identity come from your thoughts: you are self-aware because you have thoughts.

however, these thoughts are not detectible by either the mind or senses - neither the mind (thought) not the body (senses) are able to perceive your thoughts.  Therefore you cannot know that they are linked to you.  

So you cannot know you're self-aware or have thoughts?


----------



## Jonti (Mar 4, 2008)

Are these my feet?

Are these my thoughts?

Perhaps I am experiencing someone else's feelings!


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 4, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> Absolutely
> 
> *Nothing* is knowable



     That means two things: No thing is knowable!
      "Nothing is knowable(which means you can know nothingness itself as an entity!)


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 4, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> it points to the truth that there cannot be truth



   Then; if the truth cannot be known it cannot be said! There could be no statement to make about it! İncluding defining it's impossibility...


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> There could be no statement to make about it! İncluding defining it's impossibility...




there could be *no person* to make such a statement


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> from what you're telling me your identity come from your thoughts: you are self-aware because you have thoughts.




identity, according to Descartes, comes from your ability to think your thoughts, from the conscious control that you have over your thoughts
this is Descartes' "i think therefore i am", my ability to think constitutes my very being



> however, these thoughts are not detectible by either the mind or senses -



you perceive thoughts in your head, but you *do not* perceive the causal power over your thoughts



> neither the mind (thought) not the body (senses) are able to perceive your thoughts.  Therefore you cannot know that they are linked to you.



you can perceive the thoughts, but not the causal power over them



> So you cannot know you're self-aware or have thoughts?



you cannot know that *you are thinking *your thoughts


this is pretty much what David Hume said


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 4, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> there could be *no person* to make such a statement



   What about you?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> What about you?



what about me?


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 4, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> what about me?



   Defining it's impossibility???


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> Defining it's impossibility???




it would be impossible for me to 'define' this!

So i *cannot be*


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 4, 2008)

So who is thinking my thoughts?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> So who is thinking my thoughts?





does anybody have to be?

could it not be instead that your thoughts, along with the rest of the phenomenal manifestation, arise *spontaneously*? 

(even the thoughts/feelings you have about being a controller of your thoughts)


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 4, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> it would be impossible for me to 'define' this!
> 
> So i *cannot be*



    So what are you doing on this forum exactly?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> So what are you doing on this forum exactly?




Nothing 

i couldnt possibly be doing anything else


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 4, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> Nothing
> 
> i couldnt possibly be doing anything else



    So "this is the end!"


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

and the children are insane.........


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 4, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> and the children are insane.........


   ...ROMAN WİLDERNESS OF PAİN!
    And everything that stands the end! No safety no surprıse the end! I'll never look into your eyes again! Can you picture what will be?


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 4, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> does anybody have to be?
> 
> could it not be instead that your thoughts, along with the rest of the phenomenal manifestation, arise *spontaneously*?



It's possible.  What's the evidence?


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 4, 2008)

*With-out*

A meaning "without!"


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> It's possible.  What's the evidence?



again we are in the situation where the burden is on *you* for evidence

because you are positing one more entity than i am, therefore by occam's razor my explanation is more likely

there is no evidence that a continuing 'self' exists, excersising control over its thoughts, the belief in this entity, is itself a thought


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> A meaning "without!"



the void


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 4, 2008)

Top notch.  No evidence then.

Here's the evidence for me existing:

1. I have thoughts which are easily connected to a physical reality.
2. I have interactions with outside agencies that are both positive and negative and represent both what I like and dislike in the world.
3. I cannot control all the stimulus that happens to me.  I can, for example, be hurt by something that happens to me without any knowledge or warning: I can be surprised.

So a combination of control and lack of control, awareness and unawareness, knowledge and ignorance.  These would rank as basic evidence.

Now you?


----------



## Santino (Mar 4, 2008)

There are dogs. There have been dogs. Dogs... exist.

I can't think of anything that would convince me otherwise.


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 4, 2008)

*finititude*

_ephemeral..-


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

Alex B said:


> There are dogs. There have been dogs. Dogs... exist.
> 
> I can't think of anything that would convince me otherwise.





WHAT IF you wake up all of a sudden, realize this was a dream, into *a world with no dogs*, and you never again remember this dream


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

cannislupus said:


> _ephemeral..-



dissociated


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> 1. I have thoughts which are easily connected to a physical reality.
> 2. I have interactions with outside agencies that are both positive and negative and represent both what I like and dislike in the world.
> 3. I cannot control all the stimulus that happens to me.  I can, for example, be hurt by something that happens to me without any knowledge or warning: I can be surprised.




so these things ^ you list are enough to convince you that you exist, i am saying there is perfectly rational justification for *doubt*


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 4, 2008)

No evidence then?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> No evidence then?



no evidence for what?


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 4, 2008)

"Empirically untestable!"


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 4, 2008)

As I thought.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

it *could be true* that your thoughts and actions arise spontaneously


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 4, 2008)

It could, it could also be true that they're blown into my ears by hunchbacked angels.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 4, 2008)

*butts in*

Empiricism is not the only way. It is a way, though. 

I am reading the Phenomenology of Perception by Merleau-Ponty at the moment.


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 4, 2008)

"I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it. I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter... 
It is no use to talk to me of analogies and probabilities. I know what I mean when I say I believe in the law of the inverse squares, and I will not rest my life and my hopes upon weaker convictions... 
That my personality is the surest thing I know may be true. But the attempt to conceive what it is leads me into mere verbal subtleties. I have champed up all that chaff about the ego and the non-ego, noumena and phenomena, and all the rest of it, too often not to know that in attempting even to think of these questions, the human intellect flounders at once out of its depth."


----------



## Santino (Mar 4, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> WHAT IF you wake up all of a sudden, realize this was a dream, into *a world with no dogs*, and you never again remember this dream


That amounts to little more than 'What if there were no dogs?'


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 4, 2008)

Yep.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

Alex B said:


> That amounts to little more than 'What if there were no dogs?'



what if you find out in 5 minutes that there are no dogs


----------



## cannislupus (Mar 4, 2008)

"By way of clarification, Huxley states, "In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable" (Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889). While A. W. Momerie has noted that this is nothing but a definition of honesty, Huxley's usual definition goes beyond mere honesty to insist that these metaphysical issues are fundamentally unknowable"


----------



## Santino (Mar 4, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> what if you find out in 5 minutes that there are no dogs


How? I've seen dogs. Maybe I'm mistaken about their nature but not that they exist.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

Alex B said:


> How? I've seen dogs. Maybe I'm mistaken about their nature but not that they exist.



it could be a dream


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 4, 2008)

Max - I am sorry to pester you about more philosophers, but have you ever read any Saul Kripke? He is quite up to date (last 20 years or so).

He is famous for a series of lectures he gave called _Naming and Necessity_.

I probably wont be able to give a great summary of it. But it is one of the most brilliant papers I have read. I have used it in almost every philosophy essay I have wrote, in some way or another.

He argues for a causal theory of reference, which gives us rigid designators which are named objects across all possible worlds in which the object exists.

He also uses the idea a posteriori necessity: in all possible worlds h2o will always be h20, even if water is called something else. These are facts that are necessarily true. 

He then argues against identity materialism in the philosophy of mind, that every mental fact is identified with a material fact

(roughly paraphrased from wikipedia as I am a bit hungry and distracted)


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

yes i read naming and necessity, i studied it in a course on naming and reference, and some other important papers in that area from russell and Quine


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 4, 2008)

Recommend any? 

I think naming and necessity is some of the best more recent philosophy I can think of. 

I love its almost mystical conclusions!


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

Quine's - 'on naming and reference' iirc


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

Russell's - 'On Denoting'


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

yay 1000 posts!!!!!


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 4, 2008)

Thats not something to be proud of. This thread is mostly fail.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 4, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Thats not something to be proud of. This thread is mostly fail.



failure to face up to obvious truth


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 4, 2008)

Not quite what I had in mind, max.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 4, 2008)

its lurks inbetween the winning and the failing, and doubts them both.


----------



## Santino (Mar 5, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> it could be a dream


I've had dreams and they weren't like this. In fact, the very notion of a dream comes from recognising that it isn't reality, and is qualitatively distinct from the rest of our experience. Next.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

Alex B said:


> the very notion of a dream comes from recognising that it isn't reality, and is qualitatively distinct from the rest of our experience.



you never recognize that a dream isnt reality (except very rarely in lucid dreams)

a dream remains *entirely convincing*, until you wake up, and it is qualitatively identical to real life, for example, a dream dog may look identical to a waking dog

this could therefore apply to your belief in 'dogs', you cannot be certain that they _really_ exist


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 5, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> you never recognize that a dream isnt reality (except very rarely in lucid dreams)
> 
> a dream remains *entirely convincing*, until you wake up, and it is qualitatively identical to real life, for example, a dream dog may look identical to a waking dog
> 
> this could therefore apply to your belief in 'dogs', you cannot be certain that they _really_ exist



I think we kind of know that it's a dream; that's why we resist or whatever when a good one is ending.

We don't resist when going from reality into a dream state, because we know we'll return to reality.


----------



## Santino (Mar 5, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> you never recognize that a dream isnt reality (except very rarely in lucid dreams)
> 
> a dream remains *entirely convincing*, until you wake up, and it is qualitatively identical to real life, for example, a dream dog may look identical to a waking dog
> 
> this could therefore apply to your belief in 'dogs', you cannot be certain that they _really_ exist


Dreams are qualitatively very different from real life, but many of our brain functions are effectively incapacitated in them, which is why we don't get upset when people suddenly turn into other people or we find ourselves back at school or something. Additionally, and more obviously, dreams are disconnected and short, whereas real life is consistent and stable.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

Alex B said:


> Dreams are qualitatively very different from real life, but many of our brain functions are effectively incapacitated in them, which is why we don't get upset when people suddenly turn into other people or we find ourselves back at school or something. Additionally, and more obviously, dreams are disconnected and short, whereas real life is consistent and stable.



a dream dog could be *completely identical* to a real dog

i am basically using Descartes' argument, doubt from dreaming


----------



## Santino (Mar 5, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> a dream dog could be *completely identical* to a real dog
> 
> i am basically using Descartes' argument, doubt from dreaming


Appeal to Descartes all you like, dream dogs are qualitatively distinct from real dogs. Dream dogs do not persist through time, and the memory of them can fade very quickly (due to the huge difference in nature of real experiences and dream experiences). Dogs exist.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

Alex B said:


> Appeal to Descartes all you like, dream dogs are qualitatively distinct from real dogs. Dream dogs do not persist through time, and the memory of them can fade very quickly (due to the huge difference in nature of real experiences and dream experiences). Dogs exist.





you could see a dog in a dream, which looked identical to a real dog (ie 4 legs, fur, bark etc) and never suspect that it was a dream 

therefore, there is no difference between a dream dog, and a real dog

you could have a really long and engaging dream about a dog, and you can have a dream about a dog which you remember forever after waking up (some people keep dream diaries)


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 5, 2008)

Max, you've got nothing but what ifs and maybes.  Provide either a good solid argument or actual evidence please.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2008)

To experience a dog in a dream you would need a causal reference from real life. 

Dogs are a bit vague in this example. 

Why not use the example of water?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> To experience a dog in a dream you would need a causal reference from real life.




why?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Max, you've got nothing but what ifs and maybes.  Provide either a good solid argument or actual evidence please.



actual evidence for what?


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 5, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> actual evidence for what?


 
Are you beling deliberately dense I wonder?

Am I being trolled?

Could this whole thing just be a great big wind up?

Or are you really this dim?

Either way I'm thinking this thread has run its course for me.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2008)

It had run its course a long time ago for me. 

Its not going to go anywhere. that is the point. There is nowhere and nothing. This is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Literally.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2008)

All max has is clever little word games, without realizing the game he is even playing. 

I think Socrates would have called him a sophist.


----------



## Santino (Mar 5, 2008)

You've all missed the point. Someone who is allowed to walk the streets, to vote and to own property, is trying to convince us that dogs don't exist.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2008)

I think max is trying to say that because it is possible that dogs might not exist, then they actually don't, or something or other.


----------



## Santino (Mar 5, 2008)

He's saying because you might once have dreamed a dog then all those other dogs might not have existed.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2008)

I am not even sure. Whatever he is saying is all over the place, really. 

*goes back to Merleau-Ponty*


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 5, 2008)

I may have dreamed this thread. In any case, I am going to act like it doesn't exist from now on.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I am not even sure. Whatever he is saying is all over the place, really.




i got my point across ages ago, relating to the subject of the thread


now im just following the flow of the conversation, which is all over the place


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

Alex B said:


> He's saying because you might once have dreamed a dog then all those other dogs might not have existed.



no im not, im explaining Descartes argument for doubting because of dreams


"all those other dogs" might be dreamed


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I may have dreamed this thread. In any case, I am going to act like it doesn't exist from now on.



did you dream the thread?

or did you dream of yourself reading the thread?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i got my point across ages ago, relating to the subject of the thread



Not really no. What you have done is make a logically fallacious circular claim, and instead of backing it up, repeated it over and over again until it has lost any sense of meaning.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2008)

You have a dubious grasp of Descartes.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Not really no. What you have done is make a logically fallacious circular claim, and instead of backing it up, repeated it over and over again until it has lost any sense of meaning.



do you mean, i have claimed that I know something?


could 'claim' be substituted with 'claim to knowledge'?


I have *not* made any claims in this thread


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2008)

*yawn*

Dull.


----------



## Santino (Mar 5, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> *yawn*
> 
> Dull.


Fancy a pint?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Are you beling deliberately dense I wonder?
> 
> Am I being trolled?
> 
> ...



what is it that you want evidence for? 

It sounds suspiciously like you are asking me (analogously) to provide evidence that unicorns don't exist


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 5, 2008)

All that you've done max - and i must say that you seem very pleased and self-satisfied with yourself for achieving such a juvenile aim - is turn the question of scepticism into a fairground stall. It's got nothing to with any questions of philosophy. It's just you going +1 and smugly patting yourself on the back for such an obvious trick. Seriously, it's like the Paul Daniels guide to philosophy.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> It's got nothing to with any questions of philosophy.




it is the central question at the heart of epistemology

the motivation behind every epistemology paper ever written


----------



## Santino (Mar 5, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> the motivation behind every epistemology paper ever written


Again with the wide and sweeping assertions! *Jewish-style shrug*


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

Alex B said:


> Again with the wide and sweeping assertions! *Jewish-style shrug*



tell me *one* epistemology paper which isnt motivated by the question of epistemology

all the papers, in all the books mentioned at the start of this thread, are entirely, explicitly concerned with this question


HOW COULD I BE MAKING AN ASSERTION IF KNOWLEDGE IS IMPOSSIBLE?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2008)

Oy vey

*puts hand on head in exasperation*


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 5, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> it is the central question at the heart of epistemology
> 
> the motivation behind every epistemology paper ever written



The 'it' i reffered to was this thread and your arguments therein. Not scepticism itself. I actually have very few problems with scepticism when it's argued consistently and by someone who understands the implications. You've not come up to scratch on either approach. As i said, you've reduced and trivialised the question down to 'Ah, but...' - a teenage party trick.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> The 'it' i reffered to was this thread and your arguments therein. Not scepticism itself.




I have been stating the sceptical viewpoint


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

it is interesting to note that epistemology seems to have made precisely zero progress since Plato, until 1963 with Edmund Gettier, then it sprang back to life


----------



## Santino (Mar 5, 2008)

If we went round to Max's house, kicked the door in, nicked his money, drew amusing and rude things on a photo of his loved ones and then had a dump on his bed, do you think he'd refuse to testify against us?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 5, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> I have been stating the sceptical viewpoint



You have been stating a stunted childs understanding of the sceptical case, followed up by by the equivalent of canine drooling when people poitn this out to you. 

emo-scepticism.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

Alex B said:


> do you think he'd refuse to testify against us?




do you *know* if i'd refuse to tesify against you? *Could* you know?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> You have been stating a stunted childs understanding of the sceptical case, followed up by by the equivalent of canine drooling when people poitn this out to you.
> 
> emo-scepticism.





the sceptical argument can be boiled down to one thing:

knowledge is impossible

is it possible to believe this?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2008)

lolzers.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2008)

I don't think anybody here thinks it can be boiled down to one thing. That is reductionism for simple minds.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I don't think anybody here thinks





i agree with that

it's a paradox though

and so is my agreeing with it... 

this is why it *cannot be true*


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2008)




----------



## Santino (Mar 5, 2008)

Anyone here like The Wire?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 5, 2008)

Watching final episode right now...


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

never seen it


----------



## bodach (Mar 5, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> never seen it



Nor I.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 5, 2008)

*I Am*




			
				John Clare said:
			
		

> I AM! yet what I am who cares, or knows?
> My friends forsake me like a memory lost.
> I am the self-consumer of my woes;
> They rise and vanish, an oblivious host,
> ...


Written in Northampton County Asylum, during the last third of his life (1793–1864)


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 5, 2008)

Poor John Clare, he was extremely depressed.  His story is incredibly tragic.  He was sectioned for being a working class person who wrote poetry - this was seen as a sign of delusion.  He'd previously been adopted by middle class literati and basically exhibited as an oddity in all the fashionable places.

That poem is about his depression eating away at him in the asylum, yearning to escape and see his beloved countryside again.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 5, 2008)

He escaped and walked a few hundreds miles home didn't he?


----------



## Jonti (Mar 5, 2008)

It is ... significant that Clare's poetry, although he wrote less while institutionalized, showed no decline in creativity. One of his most often anthologized poems, "I Am," dated from 1841, the last year of his first term in the asylum. "I am: yet what I am none cares or knows," Clare wrote. "My friends forsake me like a memory lost; I am the self-consumer of my woes."

In the summer of that year, Clare escaped from the asylum and walked the approximately one hundred miles to Northborough, recording his experiences in a manuscript titled Journey Out of Essex. He spent about five months with his family and was then taken to the Northamptonshire General Lunatic Asylum, where he spent the rest of his life. 

source


----------



## Jonti (Mar 5, 2008)

<weeping>


----------



## bodach (Mar 5, 2008)

Where's the line between genius and madness? Who knows where the line is?


----------



## Jonti (Mar 5, 2008)

He wasn't mad; he was socially unacceptable.  Well, his "oddity" in his society caused him to become insane.

That's what makes it terrible.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 5, 2008)

Modern observers have disagreed as to the precise nature of Clare's illness; speculation about schizophrenia gave way to those involving more contemporary maladies. Some argued that Clare was not mentally ill at all. They found support in the fact that even Clare's most deranged communications seemed to make a kind of symbolic sense; Clare's illusion of being a boxer might have been intended as a way of saying he felt at odds with the world.

same source as above


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 5, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> He escaped and walked a few hundreds miles home didn't he?


 

Yes, IIRC to return to his wife.  Who had left him.

Hmm, maybe that last bit was wrong.

He definitely wasn't mad though, he wrote romantic and symbolic poetry without a classical education.  A social crime.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Modern observers have disagreed as to the precise nature of Clare's illness; speculation about schizophrenia gave way to those involving more contemporary maladies. Some argued that Clare was not mentally ill at all. They found support in the fact that even Clare's most deranged communications seemed to make a kind of symbolic sense; Clare's illusion of being a boxer might have been intended as a way of saying he felt at odds with the world.




the concept of 'mental illness' is highly dubious


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2008)

I agree with you there, max. There is a lot of stuff made medical and clinical that doesn't need to be, to sell pills.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 5, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Poor John Clare, he was extremely depressed.  His story is incredibly tragic.  He was sectioned for being a working class person who wrote poetry - this was seen as a sign of delusion.  He'd previously been adopted by middle class literati and basically exhibited as an oddity in all the fashionable places.
> 
> That poem is about his depression eating away at him in the asylum, yearning to escape and see his beloved countryside again.


It's an amazing poem -- hard not to believe the poet had not experienced madness himself, there's a complete loss of meaning and coherence in the world ... 

And yet I am—I live—though I am toss'd
Into the nothingness of scorn and noise,
Into the living sea of waking dream,
Where there is neither sense of life, nor joys,

_The living sea of waking dream_ -- such an elegant and beautiful expression of Cartesian doubt, and so succinct!


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 5, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I agree with you there, max. There is a lot of stuff made medical and clinical that doesn't need to be, to sell pills.


 
he means it in a completely different way.  He believes that there is no such thing as mental illness. Don't mistake the two issues.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I agree with you there, max. There is a lot of stuff made medical and clinical that doesn't need to be, to sell pills.





it goes very very deep


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> he means it in a completely different way.  He believes that there is no such thing as mental illness. Don't mistake the two issues.




i meant what i said, that the concept is highly dubious

saying there is "no such thing as mental illness is a bit like saying there's no such thing as unicorns

but this particular issue has very deep implications imo


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 5, 2008)

So you don't believe that there is such thing as Mental Illness.  Or that there might be, but no-one's ever seen it?  Or that there can't be any Mental Illness because there is no such thing as reality?  Is this another one of those things that the onus is on me to prove the existence of rather than you?  And when I do you deny I do it, or claim that my evidence can't exist because there is no reality?  etc etc.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

in what sense is mental illness and physical illness the same, so that they are both called 'illness'?

in other words, what does 'illness' mean? (specifically, what does it mean such that it can be applied to both physical, and mental, conditions)


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 5, 2008)

Yes, I know, it doesn't really exist.  you can play with words all you like, but whether things like schizophrenia, dissassociative disorders, psychosis, self-harm compulsions are caused by environmental concerns or genetics these things are at odds with the well-being of the sufferer and can be considered illness.  

If you don't understand the definition of "mental" as it refers to in mental health that isn 't your problem.

You're a follower of Zsasz (or however you spell it), aren't you?


----------



## bodach (Mar 5, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> in what sense is mental illness and physical illness the same, so that they are both called 'illness'?
> 
> in other words, what does 'illness' mean? (specifically, what does it mean such that it can be applied to both physical, and mental, conditions)





bluestreak said:


> Yes, I know, it doesn't really exist.  you can play with words all you like, but whether things like schizophrenia, dissassociative disorders, psychosis, self-harm compulsions are caused by environmental concerns or genetics these things are at odds with the well-being of the sufferer and can be considered illness.
> 
> If you don't understand the definition of "mental" as it refers to in mental health that isn 't your problem.
> 
> You're a follower of Zsasz (or however you spell it), aren't you?



Epistemology eh, what a great word.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 5, 2008)

in what sense is mental illness and physical illness the same?

In the sense that mind and body are one, of course.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> these things are at odds with the well-being of the sufferer and can be considered illness.




so 'illness' is anything which is at odds with the wellbeing of a person?


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 5, 2008)

Jonti said:


> in what sense is mental illness and physical illness the same?
> 
> In the sense that mind and body are one, of course.




but mind and body are not one


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 5, 2008)

That depends on the perspective you're viewing it from.


----------



## bodach (Mar 5, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> That depends on the perspective you're viewing it from.



I assume you're allowed more than one.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 5, 2008)

You're allowed to collect as many as you like. But you can only have one. Yours.


----------



## bodach (Mar 5, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> You're allowed to collect as many as you like. But you can only have one. Yours.



I'll take the epistemolgical one then.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 5, 2008)

I hope you're into navels... because you'll be examining yours for a while, then. 

I prefer to go for the one that gives me the best view of whatever it is I want to look at.. but each to their own...


----------



## Jonti (Mar 5, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> You're allowed to collect as many as you like. But you can only have one. Yours.


The ending of empathy.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 5, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I hope you're into navels... because you'll be examining yours for a while, then.


Gratuitous insult. Forced smile.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 5, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I prefer to go for the one that gives me the best view of whatever it is I want to look at.. but each to their own...


Spot the superior sneer.


----------



## bodach (Mar 5, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I prefer to go for the one that gives me the best view of whatever it is I want to look at.. but each to their own...



That's a bit narrow minded. 

What happens if something happens in the interim, do you have another option.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 5, 2008)

bodach said:


> That's a bit narrow minded.
> 
> What happens if something happens in the interim, do you have another option.



As many as you want. But each one you get just adds to yours. That's how perspective works.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 5, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Gratuitous insult. Forced smile.



Was a joke, Jonti. Hence the wink smilie. Repartee - which is NOT just another type of invite you don't get... 

I think it's all a bit of a waste of valuable time, myself... but if you got the time to waste there are worse things you could be doing.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 5, 2008)

Jonti said:


> Spot the superior sneer.



Maybe your monitor is reflective?


----------



## bodach (Mar 5, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> As many as you want. But each one you get just adds to yours. That's how perspective works.



You're contraticting yourself.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 5, 2008)

bodach said:


> You're contraticting yourself.



How so?


----------



## bodach (Mar 5, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I prefer to go for the one that gives me the best view of whatever it is I want to look at.





Kizmet said:


> As many as you want.



That bit.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 5, 2008)

*i saw this and thought of this thread*


----------



## bodach (Mar 5, 2008)

Depends where your epistemological perspective comes from.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 5, 2008)

we have no secret chart to get to the heart of this, or of any other matter.


----------



## bodach (Mar 5, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> we...



Ah, the collective.


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 5, 2008)

bodach said:


> Ah, the collective.



you dont think it applies to you?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 5, 2008)

Still have-no-ideas?


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 6, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Still have-no-ideas?



i dont know if i do!


----------



## bodach (Mar 6, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I think we kind of know that it's a dream; that's why we resist or whatever when a good one is ending.
> 
> We don't resist when going from reality into a dream state, because we know we'll return to reality.



Do you.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 6, 2008)

bodach said:


> Do you.



I think it's an assumption generally made each evening upon retirement to bed.


----------



## bodach (Mar 6, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I think it's an assumption generally made each evening upon retirement to bed.



I never go to bed for a dream, I reckon dreams are an extra.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 6, 2008)

bodach said:


> I never go to bed for a dream, I reckon dreams are an extra.



I was talking about the assumption that you will wake up in the morning.


----------



## bodach (Mar 6, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I was talking about the assumption that you will wake up in the morning.



You're very assumptious.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 6, 2008)

bodach said:


> You're very assumptious.



And why not: I've been totally right each day so far.


----------



## bodach (Mar 6, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> And why not: I've been totally right each day so far.



There'll be tears.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 6, 2008)

bodach said:


> There'll be tears.



You sound like someone I used to know.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 6, 2008)

This reminds me ... the other day there was a really Very Old Person (and his wife) on talking on TV.  I think they'd just made some kind of long term plan.  Aaaanyways, the really VOP quite explicitly said he goes to bed each night not knowing he'll awaken; but that he intended to carry on making plans and enjoying is life as long as possible.

Fair enough. There are no guarantees in life (for sure!) but that shouldn't get in the way of doing stuff and having fun.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 6, 2008)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I think it's an assumption generally made each evening upon retirement to bed.



it is a belief/assumption, but it isnt knowledge


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 6, 2008)

bodach said:


> That bit.



What do you think is contradictory about them?


----------



## Santino (Mar 6, 2008)

Just seen a dog wilfully continuing to exist.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 6, 2008)

Can it look up?


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 6, 2008)

I phoned my mum and got her to poke the dogs with sticks.  She said they all responded and that max is a silly billy.

She also says that any further philosophical experiments on her dogs should will not be sanctioned, just in case we prove they don't exist and thus pop out of existance.  She likes them real.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 6, 2008)

One more.
Ask her if it can look up... 'cos I think big Al is full of shit.

Tell her, if it pops out of existence, I'll buy her a ferret. They're pretty similar.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 6, 2008)

Dogs can look up.  I'll post some pics later on if i remember.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 6, 2008)

Dogs are merely autonotom's


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 6, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Dogs can look up.  I'll post some pics later on if i remember.



What.. _directly_ upwards?

Cool.. because I think it's crap.. but I can't think of a dog to prove it.


----------



## bodach (Mar 6, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> She also says that any further philosophical experiments on her dogs should will not be sanctioned.



Who'll know?


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 6, 2008)

@ bodach.

You fancy telling me what was contradictory about what I was saying? I'd appreciate it.


----------



## bodach (Mar 6, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I prefer to go for the one that gives me the best view of whatever it is I want to look at.





Kizmet said:


> As many as you want.





Kizmet said:


> @ bodach.
> 
> You fancy telling me what was contradictory about what I was saying? I'd appreciate it.



In the first quote you narrow your perspectives.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 6, 2008)

bodach said:


> In the first quote you narrow your perspectives.



I can't see any contradiction there.

Your perspective is your point of view of something... you can only have one point of view of a thing... it may involve lots of different 'views' and every time you see things from a different perspective.. it changes yours about that subject (if you let it) but you can only have one perspective - yours. The more it allows you to see... the better.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 6, 2008)

I didn't think this thread could get any worse.

But it has, it has.


----------



## bodach (Mar 6, 2008)

Kizmet said:


> I can't see any contradiction there.
> 
> Your perspective is your point of view of something... you can only have one point of view of a thing... it may involve lots of different 'views' and every time you see things from a different perspective.. it changes yours about that subject (if you let it) but you can only have one perspective - yours. The more it allows you to see... the better.



I couldn't have put that better myself.


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 6, 2008)




----------



## bodach (Mar 6, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I didn't think this thread could get any worse.
> 
> But it has, it has.



Would that be an epistemological perspective.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 6, 2008)

bodach said:


> Would that be an epistemological perspective.



I don't know, _would it?_


----------



## bodach (Mar 6, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> I don't know, _would it?_



Just by replying, you've answered your own question.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 6, 2008)




----------



## bluestreak (Mar 6, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Dogs are merely autonotom's




feck off descartes


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 6, 2008)

it was good while it lasted.....


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 6, 2008)

No it wasn't.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 6, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> it was good while it lasted.....


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 6, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> No it wasn't.



You _loved it_... you slaaag.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 6, 2008)




----------



## Jonti (Mar 6, 2008)

> Yesterday on the stair,
> I met a man who wasn't there,
> He wasn't there again today,
> I wish to God he'd go away.
> ...


source


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 7, 2008)




----------



## max_freakout (Mar 7, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> No it wasn't.



well it certainly grabbed your attention right through to the bitter end


----------



## Kizmet (Mar 7, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> well it certainly grabbed your attention right through to the bitter end



The lady doth protest too much...


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 7, 2008)

Crabs would have my attention to the bitter end as well. 

They would probably have more understanding of philosophy and its nuances, and be far less irritating than you on this thread.

I have mentioned I am reading Merleau-Ponty at the moment. You would like him, max. He has a chapter on mescaline users, and says that the synethesia experianced by them is actually the unfiltered experiance of perception. It is a central part of his philosophy, in fact. Bodily Intentionality.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 7, 2008)

i attended a lecture course on Merleau-Ponty but it didnt grab my attention much, and no mention was made of mescaline

Sartre took mescaline and allegedly he based his book 'Nausea' on the experience he had


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 7, 2008)

I would say, out of Merleau-Ponty and Sartre, Merleau-Ponty has the better argument.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 7, 2008)

[thick]what's synethesia? [/thick]


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 7, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> [thick]what's synethesia? [/thick]




re-organization of perception so that you can see sound, hear colour, taste emotions etc

fairly commonly reported experience with psychedelic drugs, and it is incredibly profound


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 7, 2008)

some people are born with it too. my art teacher had mild synnethesia. she saw every letter of the alphabet a different colour, and could taste things just by thinking about them. we were told not to use lots of different colours when writing in our sketchbooks!


----------



## i-am-your-idea (Mar 7, 2008)

max_freakout said:


>



is it spot the difference?


----------



## bodach (Mar 7, 2008)

Maybe god made jesus for the mushroom.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2008)

i-am-your-idea said:


> some people are born with it too. my art teacher had mild synnethesia. she saw every letter of the alphabet a different colour, and could taste things just by thinking about them. we were told not to use lots of different colours when writing in our sketchbooks!



Aside from the fact that it doesn't exist, isn't this outrageous pre-censorship?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 7, 2008)

Miles Davis wrote an album about synethesia, called Aura. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_(Miles_Davis_album)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2008)

The idea of synethesia.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 7, 2008)

Yeh, the idea. 

Its fun to try and listen and guess all the colors. I don't know anybody who has got even one of them right. But then I don't know that many people who have listened to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 7, 2008)

It smells funny.


----------



## bodach (Mar 7, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> The idea of synethesia.



Is it synaesthesia.


----------



## quimcunx (Mar 8, 2008)

my flatmate claims to have synaesthesia.  and I believe Cheesypoof does too.


----------



## bodach (Mar 8, 2008)

butchersapron said:


> The idea of synethesia.





bodach said:


> Is it synaesthesia.





Papingo said:


> my flatmate claims to have synaesthesia.  and I believe Cheesypoof does too.



Can someone tell butchersapron what it means.


----------



## meems (Mar 8, 2008)

It doesn't exist?  I've heard of it, but i didn't recognise the spelling.  Now this is an interesting question.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2008)

Papingo said:


> my flatmate claims to have synaesthesia.  and I believe Cheesypoof does too.



well if it ddoes exist it is mostly liked to be the result of brain damage.


----------



## bluestreak (Mar 8, 2008)

I'm not sure I'm confident enough to say something like that doesn't exist.  It may be the result of brain damage, yesh, but having suffered visual and aural hallucinations myself during a breakdown, I know that the brain can do some odd stuff to you.

Also, what the fuck are you doing awake at this time revol?


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I'm not sure I'm confident enough to say something like that doesn't exist.  It may be the result of brain damage, yesh, but having suffered visual and aural hallucinations myself during a breakdown, I know that the brain can do some odd stuff to you.
> 
> Also, what the fuck are you doing awake at this time revol?



went to bed at 6 o'clock last night.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 8, 2008)

bodach said:


> Maybe god made jesus for the mushroom.



maybe Jesus IS a mushroom


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 8, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I'm not sure I'm confident enough to say something like that doesn't exist.  It may be the result of brain damage, yesh, but having suffered visual and aural hallucinations myself during a breakdown, I know that the brain can do some odd stuff to you.



i can say firsthand that it exists, i have experienced it myself, and i know many people who have

the sensory inputs can swap themselves around


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 8, 2008)

people who experience synaesthesia naturally (like many artists and musicians), are called synaesthetes


----------



## revol68 (Mar 8, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> people who experience synaesthesia naturally (like many artists and musicians), are called synaesthetes



no, they are called petentious bullshitting cunts.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 8, 2008)

you dont know it exists until you experience it for yourself, but there are drugs and techniques available for it


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 8, 2008)

revol68 said:


> well if it ddoes exist it is mostly liked to be the result of brain damage.



To go back to Merleau-Ponty, he uses the example of a man injured by shrapnel in the war (schneider) to build his argument for bodily intentionality and the phenomenology of perception. 

Schneider lost the ability to perform abstract movements (he could only perform concrete ones), and had a kind of psychological blindness.

Merleau-Ponty used such examples of the body and mind going wrong to highlight our conceptual problems with how we view them both.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Mar 8, 2008)

I don't know if it exists, but there are all sorts of weird conditions that people can have.


----------



## Jonti (Mar 9, 2008)

revol68 said:


> no, they are called petentious bullshitting cunts.


Hmmmm, bulshit eh?

I don't know about the folks who've been mentioned, but (afaik) there is at least one other poster on this board who experiences synaesthesia, and he comes over as far from pretentious; much more a down-to-earth scientist.  

Thing is, even people who are neurologically typical ("NT") may experience syneasthesia under the influence of psychoactive chemicals.

Here's something from the University of Sussex website 





> Synaesthesia is a joining together of sensations that are normally experienced separately. Some synaesthetes experience colours when they hear or read words, whilst others may experience tastes, smells, shapes or touches in almost any combination. The sensations are automatic and cannot be turned on or off. People are generally born with it and it runs in families. It is not considered to be harmful in any way. Most synaesthetes could not imagine life without these extra sensations! Studying synaesthesia may help us to understand how the brain segregates and integrates different sensations and thoughts.


Mind you, I think it may be going a bit far to say "many" artists experience synaesthesia.  As far as I know, there is little or no realationship between, say, the colours of music as experienced by one synaesthete as compared to another.  It tends to be something idiosyncratic; but art needs to speak more in universals.

So yeah, although it may be "trendy" in some circles to pose as a synaesthete, the condition is real enough.


----------



## revol68 (Mar 9, 2008)

I just don't trust the cunts, I mean we can all relate things to arbitrary things, for example for years i thought of wednesdays as brown, but the notion that people actually directly experiance numbers as colours, or smells, whilst no doubt possible sounds is abit to close to the wank about the artist as 'the sensitive soul' feeling or seeing what the rest of us don't. I'd also be interested in how stable these relations are, is red always 7 etc and how does an abstraction such as seven come to be related to narrow spectrum of light, I mean the perception of a number or word is far more complex and abstract than say that of a colour.

Frankly i'm skeptical of what these people claim, how much different is the cross referencing they have than say the everyday relations we lay down between objects, eg farmer = brown, dull = grey?

The fact Cheeseypoof claims to experiance makes me all the more skeptical.


----------



## max_freakout (Mar 9, 2008)

it's a common effect of taking psychedelic drugs


----------



## Jonti (Mar 10, 2008)

revol68 said:


> ... I'd also be interested in how stable these relations are, is red always 7 etc and how does an abstraction such as seven come to be related to narrow spectrum of light, I mean the perception of a number or word is far more complex and abstract than say that of a colour...


You may be interested in a book called "Born on a Blue Day" by Daniel Tammet.  Mr Tammet is a synaesthete and an "autistic savant" -- but unlike most mathematical savants he is articulate and able to explain the sensations he experiences while performing his prodigious feats of calculation.

I've not read a great deal about the subject, but, from what I understand, the relations are stable for an individual, but are only accidently related to the associations experienced by others.  Not every synaesthete would experience Wednesdays as blue (Daniel Tammet was born on January 31, 1979, a Wednesday)!

It seems likely to me that the idiosyncratic nature of synaesthesia makes it more difficult for a synaesthete to produce "art", for art (properly speaking) seeks to speak to more people than just the artist.  It would be almost pointless to write a poem (for example) that only rings the right associations for the poet, and no-one else.  So, like you, I'm skeptical of artists that claim synaesthesia.  That said, trumpets do rather have a golden sound, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

to continue the debate on here:


if you believe that a chair wont break when you sit on it, is it also true to say, that you believe that the chair _might_ break if you sit on it? (since it is a belief and is not known)

and if you know that it is Monday, do you also believe that it is Monday?


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2008)

It wasn't really following on from Jonti's point though, was it max?

It was bumping this thread because your latest one got binned.

What have you got to say in context of this thread so far?


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 16, 2008)

FFS.

Max is going critical.  Any second now he's going to explode and bury south england in bullshit.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

epistemology cant find an answer because it approaches the debate from the wrong angle, by assuming that there must be a difference between believing and knowing


i propose that there is no difference


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2008)

So what?


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

cesare said:


> So what?





so what is the answer to the conundrum of epistemology?


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> so what is the answer to the conundrum of epistemology?




Why do you need to know?


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

cesare said:


> Why do you need to know?



i dont need to know

but since epistemology is approximately 50% of philosophy, and since this is a philosophy forum, it is a worthwhile thing to discuss if you want to discuss philosophy


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i dont need to know
> 
> but since epistemology is approximately 50% of philosophy, and since this is a philosophy forum, it is a worthwhile thing to discuss if you want to discuss philosophy



What's the difference between asserting your ideas over and over again, and a discussion?


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

i am asking a question, "what is the difference?" and at the same time expressing a view that there isnt one, if someone thinks there is a difference, i would very much like to hear it


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2008)

But it's circular. No matter what anyone says (and there's 30 pages of this) it's not a discussion because you're not asking or positing anything new.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

i am positing that there is literally no difference between believing and knowing

and i am asking what people think is the difference?

nobody has answered the question, therefore my assertion still stands


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2008)

It doesn't matter if your assertion stands or not.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i am positing that there is literally no difference between believing and knowing
> 
> and i am asking what people think is the difference?
> 
> nobody has answered the question, therefore my assertion still stands



What do you _want_ - a fucking ginger nut?


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

i would like someone to be brave and try to answer the question which is so central to philosophy


i have suggested an answer, if it is wrong, then what is the difference?


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i would like someone to be brave and try to answer the question which is so central to philosophy



It wouldn't matter if someone tries to answer it or not because you'll reject it anyway if it doesn't fit with your assertion.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

cesare said:


> It wouldn't matter if someone tries to answer it or not because you'll reject it anyway if it doesn't fit with your assertion.




if someone manages to answer the question, they will have solved a 3000 year old riddle


in view of that, any attempt by me to 'reject it' would be totally irrelevant


but i am saying, the reason nobody will answer the question, is because it doesnt have an answer, there is no difference between belief and knowledge


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2008)

If everyone agrees that there is no difference between belief and knowledge - will you continue to assert that claim?


----------



## Santino (Jun 16, 2008)

I've just been in Waterstones and epistemology took up much less than half of the philosophy section. About 10% I reckon.


----------



## Santino (Jun 16, 2008)

Oh, and knowing is a _kind_ of believing, as I argued about a 1000 posts ago, although you appeared not to understand the meaning of my words.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

cesare said:


> If everyone agrees that there is no difference between belief and knowledge - will you continue to assert that claim?



i will continue to *discuss* it, there would be no point continuing to assert it


but i have seen very clearly from previous discussions, that nobody here agrees with this assertion, but at the same time, nobody knows why they disagree with it


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

Alex B said:


> knowing is a _kind_ of believing.



what kind? and what distinguishes it from other, non-knowing kinds of believing?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

nobody knows


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

Can you ever know?


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

Alex B said:


> I've just been in Waterstones and epistemology took up much less than half of the philosophy section. About 10% I reckon.



philosophy comprises of, broadly speaking, 2 subjects


metaphysics and epistemology


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

Only nobody can know.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> philosophy comprises of, broadly speaking, 2 subjects
> 
> 
> metaphysics and epistemology



That is very much broadly speaking.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 16, 2008)

Max, has it occured to you that

1) No-one gives a shit any more.

2) These threads give philosophy a bad name.

3) You never pay any attention to anyone else's opinions anyway except to tell them they're wrong.

4) REALLY no-one gives a shit anymore.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

nobody ever gave a shit on this forum lol!


i post the same exact threads on several *proper* philosophy forums, with drastically different results, people just dont want to discuss philosophy here for some reason, but it's fun to post


----------



## Santino (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> philosophy comprises of, broadly speaking, 2 subjects
> 
> 
> metaphysics and epistemology


And aesthetics and ethics and politics and ontology and logic and mind and mathematics and language.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> That is very much broadly speaking.



i know, there are vague exceptions, it is inaccurate, for example, to define phenomenology as the metaphysics and epistemology of phenomena, nevertheless this has been suggested


----------



## Santino (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> nobody ever gave a shit on this forum lol!
> 
> 
> i post the same exact threads on several *proper* philosophy forums, with drastically different results, people just dont want to discuss philosophy here for some reason, but it's fun to post


Fuck off, troll.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i know, there are vague exceptions, it is inaccurate, for example, to define phenomenology as the metaphysics and epistemology of phenomena, nevertheless this has been suggested



See AlexB's post above.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

Alex B said:


> And aesthetics and ethics and politics and ontology and logic and mind and mathematics and language.



these ^ can all be reduced (again, broadly speaking) to metaphysics and epistemology of various subjects


political philosophy, for example, is precisely the metaphysics and epistemology of political organisation


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

Your reductionist philosophies have already been shown to ridiculous, really.


----------



## Santino (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> these ^ can all be reduced (again, broadly speaking) to metaphysics and epistemology of various subjects
> 
> 
> political philosophy, for example, is precisely the metaphysics and epistemology of political organisation


Arsedribble


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

Oh, also, it is pretty clear you actually have no interest whatsoever in any kind of discussion. All you want to do is repeat your mantras.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> nobody ever gave a shit on this forum lol!
> 
> 
> i post the same exact threads on several *proper* philosophy forums, with drastically different results, people just dont want to discuss philosophy here for some reason, but it's fun to post


 
Perhaps because philosophy forums are full of bullshit merchants, whereas around here we actually like to have rational discussions which have meaning.  Every one of your threads is you banging on about the same point time and time again.  It's dull as fuck, and you're incapable of actually egaging anyone in debate.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

Max is surplus now we have that max bot thingy.

Nothing is everything.

Existence is not truth.


----------



## Santino (Jun 16, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Max is surplus now we have that max bot thingy.
> 
> Nothing is everything.
> 
> Existence is not truth.


Pretentious maxbot is pretentious


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> philosophy forums are full of bullshit merchants



this ^ sums it up, philosophy forums are full of people who want to discuss philosophy,


and according to that definition, this is not a philosophy forum

academic philosophers discuss the problems of knowledge, but not urban 75 philosophy forum 'philosophers'


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 16, 2008)

The problem is you, you drug-addled muppet.


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> this ^ sums it up, philosophy forums are full of people who want to discuss philosophy,
> 
> 
> and according to that definition, this is not a philosophy forum
> ...




But how can you discuss anything with someone that just keeps repeating the same things?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

Most of us here would like to discuss philosophy, I think. 

Why don't you?


----------



## mrsfran (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> nobody ever gave a shit on this forum lol!
> 
> 
> i post the same exact threads on several *proper* philosophy forums, with drastically different results and it was much better because some people agreed with me and didn't think I was an idiot you're all stupid because you don't agree with me lol.


 
Fixed for you


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

missfran said:


> Fixed for you



people never agree with me, even on proper philosophy forums, but that has never been the point of philosophical debate anyway


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Most of us here would like to discuss philosophy,



do you think there is a difference between belief and knowledge?


----------



## Santino (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> this ^ sums it up, philosophy forums are full of people who want to discuss philosophy,
> 
> 
> and according to that definition, this is not a philosophy forum
> ...


I bet I know more academic philosophers than you, you muppet. You make me ashamed to be Dutch.


----------



## mrsfran (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> people never agree with me, even on proper philosophy forums, but that has never been the point of philosophical debate anyway


 
Does it never occur to you that if NO ONE agrees with you, you might be wrong?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

maxfreakout said:
			
		

> do you think there is a difference between belief and knowledge?



I think that sentence has become completely meaningless and empty in your hands.


----------



## Santino (Jun 16, 2008)

All right, for the last fucking time:

Knowledge is a form of belief, i.e. belief that is an accurate model of reality.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

Alex B said:


> knowledge = belief that is an accurate model of reality.




please give me an example


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

missfran said:


> Does it never occur to you that if NO ONE agrees with you, you might be wrong?



noone agreed with Newton when he first proposed his model of the space-time


did that mean he was wrong?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

Are you comparing yourself to Isaac Newton?


----------



## mrsfran (Jun 16, 2008)

No one agrees with my aunt Gladys that there's an elephant on her head. Does that mean she's wrong?


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

The difference is, of course, there are billions of people throughout history who just made up random ideas and actually were completely wrong. 

Isaac Newton was a mathematician and based his theories on science and mathematics, and so on.

You, on the other hand, are absolutely clueless about just about everything.


----------



## mrsfran (Jun 16, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Are you comparing yourself to Isaac Newton?


 
Oh yes. Remember, they all laughed at Christopher Columbus and Galilleo too. Max is like them. One day, we'll all realise that he's a genius.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

missfran said:


> No one agrees with my aunt Gladys that there's an elephant on her head. Does that mean she's wrong?



was Newton wrong?


specifically, was he wrong BECAUSE noone agreed with him?


----------



## Santino (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> please give me an example


no


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> do you think there is a difference between belief and knowledge?



Read my post in this very thread (post nr 827)

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=7182734


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

missfran said:


> Oh yes. Remember, they all laughed at Christopher Columbus and Galilleo too. Max is like them. One day, we'll all realise that he's a genius.



He really believes it, you know.

That he is a genius and that only he knows the truth, and everyone else is deluded, or something. 

I dont know if you read any of this thread of any of the others, but it shows pretty clearly, IMO.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

the statement

"nothing is true" cannot be wrong, the position of the sceptic is irrefutable


----------



## mrsfran (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> was Newton wrong?
> 
> 
> specifically, was he wrong BECAUSE noone agreed with him?


 
He was wrong about many, many things. He was right about others.

Max, are you seriously telling us you're like Newton? That you've stumbled upon some genius and that one day we'll all realise you were right?

Which is more likely: everyone else in the WORLD is wrong and you are right. OR. you are wrong?


----------



## Santino (Jun 16, 2008)

bin


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> Read my post in this very thread (post nr 827)
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=7182734



i have read your opinion, many times, and it is entirely in agreement with my position


there is no knowledge, we both agree on this

but you dont say what is the difference between belief and knowledge


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2008)

Incidentally, Aldebaran - if you want to quote a specific post, click on the underlined number of the post (e.g. 827) and it will isolate that post in a new window for you to copy then quote the specific url.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 16, 2008)

missfran said:


> Which is more likely: everyone else in the WORLD is wrong and you are right. OR. you are wrong?




im not wrong, because im not claiming to know anything, ie there is nothing for me to be wrong about

there are no rights and wrongs in philosophy, all there is is endless debate


"i know that i know nothing" - Socrates


----------



## Santino (Jun 16, 2008)

The riddle of epistemology is not if knowledge is possible. There is no fucking riddle of epistefuckingmology'. Epistemology is an exploration of our intuitions about knowledge and belief. You trolling adolescent wanker.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

missfran said:


> He was wrong about many, many things. He was right about others.
> 
> Max, are you seriously telling us you're like Newton? That you've stumbled upon some genius and that one day we'll all realise you were right?
> 
> Which is more likely: everyone else in the WORLD is wrong and you are right. OR. you are wrong?



The Newtonian scientific model became accepted because the predictions conformed with observed phenomena. 

Max is just talking some shit that he has made up.


----------



## mrsfran (Jun 16, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> He really believes it, you know.
> 
> That he is a genius and that only he knows the truth, and everyone else is deluded, or something.
> 
> I dont know if you read any of this thread of any of the others, but it shows pretty clearly, IMO.


 
I try to stay away from the madness, but sometimes I stumble in, open-mouthed at the bizarreness that is Max's inability to listen to anyone else or talk any sense at all.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i have read your opinion, many times, and it is entirely in agreement with my position


No, I'm not



> there is no knowledge, we both agree on this



No we don't. I never said there is no knowledge. On the contrary.



> but you dont say what is the difference between belief and knowledge



Yes I do.

salaam.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

You keep name checking Socrates, but then doing the exact opposite.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 16, 2008)

cesare said:


> Incidentally, Aldebaran - if you want to quote a specific post, click on the underlined number of the post (e.g. 827) and it will isolate that post in a new window for you to copy then quote the specific url.



Thank you. 
See.. You can leanr many new things every day.
Q: Is this knowledge?
A: No. It is acquired skill.

salaam.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 16, 2008)

How can you have a position if you are not claiming a position?

@max


----------



## mrsfran (Jun 16, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> im not wrong, because im not claiming to know anything, ie there is nothing for me to be wrong about
> 
> there are no rights and wrongs in philosophy, all there is is endless debate
> 
> ...


 
Don't quote Socrates at me, I specialised in Ancient Greek philosphy in my philosophy degree.

I suggest that there's something seriously wrong with you, Max. Your egotistic blinkered view is really rather bizarre.


----------



## cesare (Jun 16, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> Thank you.
> See.. You can leanr many new things every day.
> Q: Is this knowledge?
> A: No. It is acquired skill.
> ...




Prego


----------



## Santino (Jun 16, 2008)




----------



## Knotted (Jun 17, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> epistemology cant find an answer because it approaches the debate from the wrong angle, by assuming that there must be a difference between believing and knowing
> 
> 
> i propose that there is no difference



An example of the difference:

Know how is not belief how. "Belief how" does not even make sense.

Unless you mean "knowing" and "believing" in a very special sense, but how do you tell what this sense is?

---

For a second example of the difference notice that I could substitute "know" for "tell" in the last above sentence. I could not substitute "believe" for "tell".


----------



## Knotted (Jun 17, 2008)

So in certain circumstances knowing is like believing.

In other circumstances knowing is like telling.

In a different context telling is like saying.

In yet another context saying is like speaking.

If knowledge is impossible then so is speaking.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 17, 2008)

*facepalm*

I'm going to experiment with putting max on ignore.  If enough people do it perhaps we can stop having the same pointless argument with ego-boy.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 17, 2008)

I had him on ignore for ages and he is on ignore again.

The man is a fool.

Oh, and longcat is long.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 17, 2008)

There is an old joke about the specialist who knows more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing.

Giving words a very special metaphysical role has the same effect. We have more and more well understood formulated definitions about less and less until we end being able to say precisely what they mean, but that they mean nothing.

This is true of "knowledge", "mackerel" and "bebop" and many other things besides.

Max cannot understand that "knowledge" is a great big hairy, messy animal and not a delicate, vanishing chrystal. This is why he cannot reply to my posts - he doesn't even see my point of view. But I see his point of view quite clearly and I see nothing in it.

His conception of 'knowledge' is much more conventional and believable than ours. In the way that a conjurer makes his tricks believable by making something unusual appear conventional.

If we ask, "is knowledge possible?", we have already filed the concept of "knowledge" down to something trivial - max just gives the correct answer to a trivial question. When people say something tivial this is usually a cue to read between the lines and they are really saying something after all - but there is nothing between the lines. The words the argument rely on have lost their meaning before the argument has even appeared.

Try asking if mackerel or bebop are possible and you will see what I mean. Is anything exactly a mackerel? Is anything precisely bebop? No and no. So what?

----

As an upshot, though, this is exactly the reason why philosophy should NEVER be technical. In philosophy, as soon as logical hieroglyphics appear or philosophical jargon starts cropping up, then we know we are doing either science or perhaps something more akin to alchemy or astrology. The harder it is maintained that it is still philosophy the more it looks like somebody trying to discover the philosopher's stone.


----------



## bluestreak (Jun 17, 2008)

Top post knotted, I can't see anything to disagree with in that.


----------



## nosos (Jun 17, 2008)

Alex B said:


>


That is the coolest thing I've ever seen. I tried to make it my profile picture on facebook but it won't work


----------



## Aldebaran (Jun 17, 2008)

Knotted said:


> There is an old joke about the specialist who knows more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing.



Makes no sense unless you agree that - in order to end up with knowing everything about nothing - knowledge is beyond the possibilities of human perception.



> If we ask, "is knowledge possible?", we have already filed the concept of "knowledge" down to something trivial



Possibly you don't understand the foundation of the question.



> Try asking if mackerel or bebop are possible and you will see what I mean. Is anything exactly a mackerel? Is anything precisely bebop? No and no. So what?



This is of a completely different order and has absolutely nothing to do with the question if yes or no *knowledge* is possible.

salaam.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 17, 2008)

Aldebaran said:


> Makes no sense unless you agree that - in order to end up with knowing everything about nothing - knowledge is beyond the possibilities of human perception.



Well firstly it is just a joke and doesn't need to make sense. Secondly it is not saying that knowledge needs specialisation nor is it saying that specialisation _necessarily_ ends up as a limit being about nothing - it could just limit to very little. But explaining the joke is going to take the humour out of it and it wasn't very funny to start with.




			
				Aldebaran said:
			
		

> Possibly you don't understand the foundation of the question.



Quite possibly!




			
				Aldebaran said:
			
		

> This is of a completely different order and has absolutely nothing to do with the question if yes or no *knowledge* is possible.



It does not matter how much of a logical flavour you give "knowledge" or how much you emphasise it.

I take it that your "yes or no knowledge" is not merely answers to yes and no questions.

Perhaps it is when we can say, "yes, I know that" or "no, I don't know that" (or perhaps "yes, I can do that" or perhaps "yes, I can see that it works in such a way" or perhaps "yes, I knew you were going to do that"). But think when we are not sure what we know - we might ask for clarification. That's possible in all sorts of situations, I don't see a special type of knowledge where we always know when we know and know when we don't. Max is quite correct to conclude that "yes or no *knowledge*" is impossible, but quite wrong to conclude that plain ordinary knowledge is impossible.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 17, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Top post knotted, I can't see anything to disagree with in that.



Thanks!


----------



## cesare (Jun 17, 2008)

Knotted said:


> There is an old joke about the specialist who knows more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing.
> 
> Giving words a very special metaphysical role has the same effect. We have more and more well understood formulated definitions about less and less until we end being able to say precisely what they mean, but that they mean nothing.
> 
> ...



Yes. Lose the shades of grey and everything's reduced to black and white. Except there is no absolute black or absolute white. There is no certainty. But that's why life's fun but also insecure.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 17, 2008)

Knotted said:


> An example of the difference:
> 
> Know how is not belief how. "Belief how" does not even make sense.
> 
> ...





yes this is a different idea of knowledge altogether, when i ask if knowledge is possible, i mean knowledge in the epistemological sense, ie knowledge that, or propositional knowledge


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 17, 2008)

Knotted said:


> If knowledge is impossible then so is speaking.



in a certain specific sense, i agree, it is totally impossible to do anything


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 17, 2008)

missfran said:


> I specialised in Ancient Greek philosphy in my philosophy degree.



the ancient Greek philosophers, were all coming from exactly the same perspective that i come from

the psychedelic perspective


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> yes this is a different idea of knowledge altogether, when i ask if knowledge is possible, i mean knowledge in the epistemological sense, ie knowledge that, or propositional knowledge



I'm talking about epsitemological knowledge. Is there any other kind? Epistemology is the theory of knowledge.

---

"You knew I wanted to cash this cheque, so when we were walking down the highstreet why didn't you tell me the bank was round the corner? You _knew_ that it was there."

"You knew I wanted to cash this cheque, so when we were walking down the highstreet why didn't you tell me the bank was round the corner? You _believed_ that it was there."

Notice that the second example sounds a bit odd but if it means anything it is an accusation of deliberate deception. If you believed something it was there before you, in your mind.

If you know something, it is quite possible that you have never thought about it.

---

You can be unsure about whether you know something. Think of a moment's panic in an exam.

On certain occassions you could say, "I didn't know I knew that."

But what about, "I didn't know I believed that."

Or even worse, "I didn't believe I believed that."

Its not that belief and knowledge are not the same - they're not even similar. 

What has changed in these examples is not the type of knowledge, but the situation. When we ask, "can you justify your belief that carrots are root vegetables?", we could just as well ask, "how do you know that carrots are root vegetables?" Here belief and knowledge coincide. They can bridge the same gap, serve the same purpose - just as a spanner and a rench can serve the same purpose. This does not mean that spanners are renches.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> I'm talking about epsitemological knowledge. Is there any other kind? Epistemology is the theory of knowledge..





there are 2 distinct types, in the introduction to any epistemology textbooks, it will make the distinction between:

1. knowing _that_

and

2. knowing _how_


epistemology is only concerned with number 1, *propositional knowledge*, knowledge of the truth or falsity of propositions


I know that the moon is made of cheese


= i know that the proposition "the moon is made of cheese" is true


it is this kind of knowing which is impossible


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Its not that belief and knowledge are not the same - they're not even similar



knowledge is a subset of beliefs


knowledge is defined as, those beliefs that are both justified, and true



if i know that there is a bank around the corner, it necessarily follows that i *also* believe that there is a bank round the corner


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> there are 2 distinct types, in the introduction to any epistemology textbooks, it will make the distinction between:
> 
> 1. knowing _that_
> 
> ...



We can only talk of "knowledge". There are no "kinds of knowledge" or "ideas of knowledge". There are, however, different senses of "knowledge". "Knowledge" in this sense, "knowledge" in that sense.

There is no sharp distinction between examples of using "know that" and "know how".

"Do you know what to do next?"

"Yes, I _know that_ I need to stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope."

Or

"Do you know what to do next?"

"Yes, I _know how_ to continue. I should stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope."

Having said that, I appreciate that in epistemology we are not interested in how an athlete knows how to jump over two metres in the high jump.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> knowledge is a subset of beliefs



I've given several examples where this is blatantly not so!




			
				max_freakout said:
			
		

> knowledge is defined as, those beliefs that are both justified, and true



Knowledge is not necessarily anything to do with belief at all. I've demonstrated this, and you don't know how to reply.




			
				max_freakout said:
			
		

> if i know that there is a bank around the corner, it necessarily follows that i *also* believe that there is a bank round the corner



No it does not. The example I gave demonstrates it doesn't. You have yet to say where anything in it is wrong!


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

Given a true/false propostion. We ask ourselves "does Anne know whether this is true or false?"

Is this the same as asking ourselves "does Anne have a belief about what the answer is?"

Anne has quite possibly not thought about the proposition so it is unreasonable to assert that Anne has a belief about it. This says nothing about whether or not she knows the answer.

QED


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> I've given several examples where this is blatantly not so!



knowledge is defined as justified true belief

therefore, knowledge is a subset of belief, knowledge is those beliefs that are both true, and justified

if i know that p, it necessarily follows that i believe that p





> Knowledge is not necessarily anything to do with belief at all. I've demonstrated this, and you don't know how to reply.




knowledge is *justified true belief*, look it up


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Given a true/false propostion. We ask ourselves "does Anne know whether this is true or false?"
> 
> Is this the same as asking ourselves "does Anne have a belief about what the answer is?"
> 
> ...



if anne knows that p, she also believes that p

if anne knows that the moon is made of cheese, she also believes that the moon is made of cheese


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> We can only talk of "knowledge". There are no "kinds of knowledge" or "ideas of knowledge". There are, however, different senses of "knowledge". "Knowledge" in this sense, "knowledge" in that sense.
> 
> There is no sharp distinction between examples of using "know that" and "know how".
> 
> ...





^ here you are constantly muddling together knowing that, with knowing how


epistemology is only concerned with knowing that


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> There is no sharp distinction between examples of using "know that" and "know how".



yes there is, the distinction is, that only 'knowing that' involves propositions


epistemology is only concerned with propositional knowledge


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2008)

My advice is put him on ignore now. 

The man is a fool. It is pretty easy too see why people would be dubious about his qualifications. It is as if he has flicked through a book called _Philosophy for teh lolz!!!!_ and then convinces himself he has the finest philosophical brain in the world. 

As somebody said on another thread, he is probably the worst philosophical mind I have ever encountered.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Given a true/false propostion. We ask ourselves "does Anne know whether this is true or false?"
> 
> Is this the same as asking ourselves "does Anne have a belief about what the answer is?"



given _any_ proposition, anne knowing that p, is the same as anne knowing that p is true


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> knowledge is defined as justified true belief
> 
> therefore, knowledge is a subset of belief, knowledge is those beliefs that are both true, and justified
> 
> if i know that p, it necessarily follows that i believe that p



I'm aware that you talk in tautologies. That's my point. You say nothing.




			
				max_freakout said:
			
		

> knowledge is *justified true belief*, look it up



Which dictionary definition would you like me to demonstrate is inadequate?


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> if anne knows that p, she also believes that p
> 
> if anne knows that the moon is made of cheese, she also believes that the moon is made of cheese



When I have demonstrated that you are incorrect, then it does no good to simply restate your thesis.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> When I have demonstrated that you are incorrect, then it does no good to simply restate your thesis.



i am not expressing an opinion, so i cannot be incorrect

i am explaining basic epistemological theory to you


knowledge, is *justified true belief*


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> *i am not expressing an opinion, so i cannot be incorrect
> 
> i am explaining basic epistemological theory to you*
> 
> ...



Max_Freakout in a nutshell.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> given _any_ proposition, anne knowing that p, is the same as anne knowing that p is true



Yes this is an example of knowing or not knowing a propostion, as required. Yet I can still demonstrate that knowing and believe are two very different things.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i am not expressing an opinion, so i cannot be incorrect
> 
> i am explaining basic epistemological theory to you
> 
> ...



Then basic epistemological theory is incorrect. Its amazing you can doubt everything, but not little things like this.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Then basic epistemological theory is incorrect. Its amazing you can doubt everything, but not little things like this.



give one example of a case where a person


knows that p

but does not believe that p


"i know that i have 2 hands, but i dont believe that i have 2 hands"


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Dillinger4 said:


> Max_Freakout in a nutshell.











*muffled knocking sound*

"help! can anyone hear me! get me out of this fucking nutshell!!!"


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> When I have demonstrated that you are incorrect, then it does no good to simply restate your thesis.



By the way, this is an example of know how rather than know that. Max does not know how to use the word "knowledge" properly. Or Max is incorrect in his use of the word "knowledge".

According to max this cannot be to do with propostions. Yet max can still be wrong. This must be very puzzling for max.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> give one example of a case where a person
> 
> 
> knows that p
> ...



I've given you two examples already. What do want me to do, repeat them?


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> I've given you two examples already. What do want me to do, repeat them?



just give one clear example (repeat if necessary)

of a case where i know p is true, but i dont believe that p is true


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Max does not know how to use the word "knowledge" properly. Or Max is incorrect in his use of the word "knowledge".


i use the word knowledge in the strictly epistemological sense:

knowledge = a belief that is both true, and justified


this has been the consensus definition of propositional knowledge for 3000 years


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> just give one clear example (repeat if necessary)
> 
> of a case where i know p is true, but i dont believe that p is true



Given a true/false propostion, p. We ask ourselves "does Anne know whether p is true or false?"

Is this the same as asking ourselves "does Anne have a belief about whether p is true or false?"

Anne has quite possibly not thought about the proposition so it is unreasonable to assert that Anne has a belief about it. This says nothing about whether or not she knows the answer.

So it is possible for Anne to know p, but have no belief about p at a particular time.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i use the word knowledge in the strictly epistemological sense:
> 
> knowledge = a belief that is both true, and justified
> 
> ...



Well I suppose that makes me a bit like Socrates then. All that questioning established reasoning.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

What I will grant is that somebody can't state, "I know p but I don't believe p."

But knowing p and not believing p is not a contradiction.

Moore's paradox and all that.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Given a true/false propostion, p. We ask ourselves "does Anne know whether p is true or false?"
> 
> Is this the same as asking ourselves "does Anne have a belief about whether p is true or false?"
> 
> ...




i am asking you for an example of a proposition which is known, but not believed, please state what the proposition is that can be known, but not believed, you do not say any proposition here ^


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> What I will grant is that somebody can't state, "I know p but I don't believe p."



yes, because knowledge is a subset of belief, if i say "i know that p", i am implicitly stating that i believe that p




> But knowing p and not believing p is not a contradiction.



yes it is, because knowledge is a special kind of belief (one that is true)

"i know that i have 2 hands, but i dont believe that i have 2 hands"

this ^ is a contradiction


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i am asking you for an example of a proposition which is known, but not believed, please state what the proposition is that can be known, but not believed, you do not say any proposition here ^



The postbox is oposite the garage.

Anne might have always thought of the post box being on the street corner. It is only on reflection that she knows that it is opposite the garage.

It makes no sense to have a belief about something you haven't thought about. But you could still know it.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> yes, because knowledge is a subset of belief, if i say "i know that p", i am implicitly stating that i believe that p
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then Moore's paradox is not a paradox but just an plain absurdity.


----------



## Santino (Jun 18, 2008)

epistemologically puzzled cat 

<ed: no thanks>

is epistemologically puzzled


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> The postbox is oposite the garage.
> 
> Anne might have always thought of the post box being on the street corner. It is only on reflection that she knows that it is opposite the garage.
> 
> It makes no sense to have a belief about something you haven't thought about. But you could still know it.




so before she reflected, she believed that the postbox is opposite the garage

in truth, this is not the case, so anne's belief was false

then when she reflected on it, she realised the falsity of her belief, and what the truth was

this does not involve her knowing something but not believing it

she believed the postbox was somewhere where it wast, so she didnt know where the postbox was


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Then Moore's paradox is not a paradox but just an plain absurdity.



it very nicely illustrates the fact that knowledge is impossible, it is a paradox


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2008)

Alex B said:


> epistemologically puzzled cat
> <ed: no, thanks>
> 
> is epistemologically puzzled



Longcat is loooooong.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> so before she reflected, she believed that the postbox is opposite the garage
> 
> in truth, this is not the case, so anne's belief was false
> 
> ...



I am assuming that the postbox is *both* on the corner *and* opposite the garage. I am assuming that Anne knows where the postbox is. This does not mean that she believes it to be opposite the garage, even if she knows it.

The question, "does Anne believe the postbox is opposite the garage?" assumes that Anne has made some sort of indication about her beliefs about the location of the postbox and we are judging that statement. It assumes that at some point the question was on her mind.

The question, "does Anne know the postbox is opposite the garage?" does not make this assumption.

Put down the dictionary and try it. See?


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> it very nicely illustrates the fact that knowledge is impossible, it is a paradox



Now you're just stating what would please you to be the case.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> I am assuming that the postbox is *both* on the corner *and* opposite the garage. I am assuming that Anne knows where the postbox is. This does not mean that she believes it to be opposite the garage, even if she knows it.
> 
> The question, "does Anne believe the postbox is opposite the garage?" assumes that Anne has made some sort of indication about her beliefs about the location of the postbox and we are judging that statement. It assumes that at some point the question was on her mind.
> 
> ...




i see what youve done here, but it doesnt work

using the example you have given, tell me *which proposition* is known but not believed


there isnt one, try and find it in your example


----------



## Dillinger4 (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Now you're just stating what would please you to be the case.





*speechless*

This is what he DOES.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i see what youve done here, but it doesnt work
> 
> using the example you have given, tell me *which proposition* is known but not believed
> 
> ...



The proposition that the postbox is opposite the garage.


----------



## Santino (Jun 18, 2008)

vanishing cat





has vanished


----------



## Fruitloop (Jun 18, 2008)

What was longcat again?


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

From Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:

There are various kinds of knowledge: knowing how to do something (for example, how to ride a bicycle), knowing someone in person, and knowing a place or a city. *Although such knowledge is of epistemological interest as well*, we shall focus on knowledge of propositions and refer to such knowledge using the schema ‘S knows that p’, where ‘S’ stands for the subject who has knowledge and ‘p’ for the proposition that is known.
[emphasis added]


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> The proposition that the postbox is opposite the garage.





if she remembers the postbox being opposite the garage, then she knows it and believes it

if she cant remember this, then she doesnt know it and doesnt believe it


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> From Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:
> 
> There are various kinds of knowledge: knowing how to do something (for example, how to ride a bicycle), knowing someone in person, and knowing a place or a city. *Although such knowledge is of epistemological interest as well*, we shall focus on knowledge of propositions and refer to such knowledge using the schema ‘S knows that p’, where ‘S’ stands for the subject who has knowledge and ‘p’ for the proposition that is known.
> [emphasis added]




ok well i never studied that kind of knowldge, i am unaware of any famous epistemology essays that mention it analytically

and when i say knowledge is impossible, i am just referring to propositional knowledge


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> if she remembers the postbox being opposite the garage, then she knows it and believes it
> 
> if she cant remember this, then she doesnt know it and doesnt believe it



Yes and yes. But what if she does not try to remember it? Just because we are considering the question does not mean Anne is considering the question.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> ok well i never studied that kind of knowldge, i am unaware of any famous epistemology essays that mention it analytically
> 
> and when i say knowledge is impossible, i am just referring to propositional knowledge



But there are no sharp distinctions. I gave you an example and you correctly said I was muddling "knowing that" and "knowing how". You could not unmuddle this.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Yes and yes. But what if she does not try to remember it? Just because we are considering the question does not mean Anne is considering the question.




i would say, having only just thought about this, that until she is consciously aware of the postbox being opposite the garage, she does not know it


to put it another way, you can ascribe knowledge (or lack of) about a proposition, to a person, in the following way:

theoretically stop time at any point, and ask some one "is it the case that p?" if they are able to answer this truthfully, with justification, then they know that p at that moment in time


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> But there are no sharp distinctions. I gave you an example and you correctly said I was muddling "knowing that" and "knowing how". You could not unmuddle this.





i totally disagree, your muddling consisted in many different knowledge ascriptions, all mixed together, you can unmuddle them just by separateing them out into individual ascriptions, you could number them all for example


the sharp distinction between knowing that and knowing how, is the distinction about *whether or not the object of knowledge is a proposition*


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i would say, having only just thought about this, that until she is consciously aware of the postbox being opposite the garage, she does not know it



But can we ask if someone knows something without assuming that they have thought about it? Why is it that when we ask if they believe something we assume (perhaps wrongly) that they have thought about it?




> to put it another way, you can ascribe knowledge (or lack of) about a proposition, to a person, in the following way:
> 
> theoretically stop time at any point, and ask some one "is it the case that p?" if they are able to answer this truthfully, with justification, then they know that p at that moment in time



You are saying that you only know when you are thinking about the subject. We don't talk this way.

"I know a bit about chemistry."

Does this mean I have in my head everything I know about chemistry? For example I know that the formula for Ammonia is NH3. Was I necessarily thinking about this when I said "I know a bit about chemistry"?

While we're at it what does "I beilieve a bit about chemistry" even mean?


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i totally disagree, your muddling consisted in many different knowledge ascriptions, all mixed together, you can unmuddle them just by separateing them out into individual ascriptions, you could number them all for example
> 
> 
> the sharp distinction between knowing that and knowing how, is the distinction about *whether or not the object of knowledge is a proposition*



This is the embodyment of metaphysics. If the form is different the actuality is different.

We can say the same thing in a propositional way and in a non-propostional way and the meaning does not change. It depends on the use we put our utterances to.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

But further to this notice the way max distinguishes between "knowing how" and "knowing that" is utterly trivial. Merely a matter of labelling. When the language we use is trivial we can only use if for trivia - like "knowledge is impossible".


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> You are saying that you only know when you are thinking about the subject. We don't talk this way



no i am saying (tentatively) that you only know if, when asked, you would be able to recall the truth, with a justification


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> But further to this notice the way max distinguishes between "knowing how" and "knowing that" is utterly trivial. Merely a matter of labelling. When the language we use is trivial we can only use if for trivia - like "knowledge is impossible".



this isnt my disinction, it is the distinction that epistemological theory makes

if you think it is trivial that is your opinion, but to epistemology, it is an essential distinction for the purpose of analysis


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> no i am saying (tentatively) that you only know if, when asked, you would be able to recall the truth, with a justification



That sounds good to me.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> "I know a bit about chemistry."
> 
> While we're at it what does "I beilieve a bit about chemistry" even mean?



again, *this is not propositional knowledge*



modify it a bit, say "i know that sodium reacts with water"

this implies that

"i believe that sodium reacts with water"


and it also implies that "sodium reacts with water" is a true statement


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> this isnt my disinction, it is the distinction that epistemological theory makes



Stop hiding behind what some textbook somewhere might say.




			
				max_freakout said:
			
		

> if you think it is trivial that is your opinion, but to epistemology, it is an essential distinction for the purpose of analysis



Its not the distinction it is the criteria for the distinction we are looking at.

If you can say there is a definite way of making the distinction in all cases then the distinction is trivial and we proceed by reasoning in tautologies ie. saying nothing.

If, on the other hand, there is no particular method for distinguishing between "knowing how" and "knowing that" then there is no _sharp_ distinction. But this is not to say that there is no distinction and we cannot tell one from the other.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> again, *this is not propositional knowledge*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The proposition that "I know a bit about chemistry" happens to be true.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

And are you really saying that it is possible to know a bit about chemistry but impossible to know anything in particular about chemistry?


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Stop hiding behind what some textbook somewhere might say.



the subject of this thread is epistemology



> Its not the distinction it is the criteria for the distinction we are looking at.



the criteria for the distinction is simply, whether or not the object of knowledge is a proposition




> If you can say there is a definite way of making the distinction in all cases then the distinction is trivial




why?

There is a definite way of making the distinction in all cases, you look at whether or not the 'thing that is known' is a proposition


in the case of "i know how to ride a bike"

the thing known, is not a proposition, so knowing how to ride a bike, is not propositional knowledge




> If, on the other hand, there is no particular method for distinguishing between "knowing how" and "knowing that" then there is no _sharp_ distinction. But this is not to say that there is no distinction and we cannot tell one from the other.



there is a totally sharp, totally unambiguous distinction, between propositional knowledge (ie knowledge of truth and falsity), and any other kind of knowledge


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> And are you really saying that it is possible to know a bit about chemistry but impossible to know anything in particular about chemistry?





no, i am saying that propositional knowledge, is knowledge of particular propositions

you could list a set of propositions about chemistry, such as

1. sodium reacts with water
2. water boils at 100C
3. water freezes at 0C

etc etc

and for each proposition, a person 'knows' it, if and only if, they believe it, and they are justified in believeing it, and it is *true*


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> The proposition that "I know a bit about chemistry" happens to be true.




but the object of knowledge is 'a bit about chemistry' which is not a proposition


so this is not propositional knowledge


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> the criteria for the distinction is simply, whether or not the object of knowledge is a proposition



This is merely a formality.



> why?



Formal logic has no content.



> There is a definite way of making the distinction in all cases, you look at whether or not the 'thing that is known' is a proposition



But the meaning can be preserved in certain cases when we swap propostional statements with non-propositional statements.



> in the case of "i know how to ride a bike"
> 
> the thing known, is not a proposition, so knowing how to ride a bike, is not propositional knowledge



Yes.



> there is a totally sharp, totally unambiguous distinction, between propositional knowledge (ie knowledge of truth and falsity), and any other kind of knowledge



See post 1262


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> but the object of knowledge is 'a bit about chemistry' which is not a proposition
> 
> 
> so this is not propositional knowledge



Good point. 

I think it if it makes sense to know a proposition then it makes sense to believe that proposition.

However, I refer to post 1264 for an example of how knowing a proposition and believing a proposition are radically different.

And I refer to 1262 for an example of how knowing a proposition is the same as know how.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> no, i am saying that propositional knowledge, is knowledge of particular propositions
> 
> you could list a set of propositions about chemistry, such as
> 
> ...



Yes but you say that knowing any facts about chemistry is impossible, while "knowing a bit about chemistry" might be possible. How is this possible?


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> no, i am saying that propositional knowledge, is knowledge of particular propositions
> 
> you could list a set of propositions about chemistry, such as
> 
> ...



We can also see that some of these propositions are heavily dependent on know how.

1) Water boils at 100C

2) I know how to tell when water is about to boil by putting a thermometre in it and observing when it approaches the 100C mark.

If we can justify 2) then we can justify 1). We could call 1) a summary of 2) (and perhaps other similar "know how statements") and mean no more by it.

We can't discuss qualities of "knowledge of one type" in isolation of "knowledge of other types".

Its like building only the walls of a house which make living in it less exposed to the elements. If we ignore supporting walls then the house is likely to collapse.

If we take out all the supporting knowledge of our house of knowledge and leave only the bits which technically support our specification - the propositional bits - then it is no surprise that the house of knowledge collapses.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Yes but you say that knowing any facts about chemistry is impossible



knowing anything is impossible



> while "knowing a bit about chemistry" might be possible.



no i have not said whether this is possible or impossible, it is a vague statement and would have to be thoroughly specified before it could be analysed


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> This is merely a formality.





Knotted said:


> Formal logic has no content




i dont understand the relevance of either of these ^ statements to waht i was asking you

epistemology studies propositional knowledge, when i say knowledge is impossible, i mean this in the epistemological sense



> But the meaning can be preserved in certain cases when we swap propostional statements with non-propositional statements.




i disagree, they cannot be meaningfully swapped round, ie "how to ride a bike" can not be expressed as a proposition


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> However, I refer to post 1264 for an example of how knowing a proposition and believing a proposition are radically different.
> 
> And I refer to 1262 for an example of how knowing a proposition is the same as know how.



the examples you gave did not address the point

try to think of *one proposition* that can be known, without being believed, there isnt one

and try to think of a proposition, the truth of which can be expressed as a proposition, again, there isnt one


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> We can also see that some of these propositions are heavily dependent on know how.
> 
> 1) Water boils at 100C
> 
> ...



2 is a justification of 1




> We can't discuss qualities of "knowledge of one type" in isolation of "knowledge of other types".



epistemology studies propositional knowledge in isolation from other types of knowledge, so this ^ is not true


the reason for this, is that the central issue of interest for philosophy in general, is TRUTH, and propositional knowledge is the only kind of knowledge which is relevant to truth


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> no i have not said whether this is possible or impossible, it is a vague statement and would have to be thoroughly specified before it could be analysed



Any proposition is vague. What's water? How much impurities can we have in water before it ceases to be water? Do we count only H2O molecules as water? How about H4O2 or H6O3? What about quantum supperpositions of molecules?

Has anybody _really_ analysed what we mean when we say water boils at 100C?

We can still say water boils at 100C.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Any proposition is vague. What's water? How much impurities can we have in water before it ceases to be water? Do we count only H2O molecules as water? How about H4O2 or H6O3? What about quantum supperpositions of molecules?
> 
> Has anybody _really_ analysed what we mean when we say water boils at 100C?
> 
> We can still say water boils at 100C.



yes i agree, you can say, and believe, whatever you want, and all propositions are inherently vague

but this has no bearing on the fact that knowledge is impossible


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> i dont understand the relevance of either of these ^ statements to waht i was asking you
> 
> epistemology studies propositional knowledge, when i say knowledge is impossible, i mean this in the epistemological sense



Don't worry, I'll remind you next time you say nothing.




> i disagree, they cannot be meaningfully swapped round, ie "how to ride a bike" can not be expressed as a proposition



I didn't say this could _always_ be done. I have never said there is no distinction. I have said there is no _sharp_ distinction.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> the examples you gave did not address the point
> 
> try to think of *one proposition* that can be known, without being believed, there isnt one



The postbox is opposite the garage.



> and try to think of a proposition, the truth of which can be expressed as a proposition, again, there isnt one



I presume the "proposition" in the above should be "non-propostion".

Of course non-propositions cannot be true - this is just a formal point.

But we can swap a proposition for a know-how statement without changing the meaning.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> epistemology studies propositional knowledge in isolation from other types of knowledge, so this ^ is not true
> 
> 
> the reason for this, is that the central issue of interest for philosophy in general, is TRUTH, and propositional knowledge is the only kind of knowledge which is relevant to truth



The only type of wall which shelters us from the elements are walls which shelter us from the elements. We are not concerned with supporting walls.

Empty tautology followed by willful stupidity.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> I have said there is no _sharp_ distinction.



propositional knowledge involves propositions

non-propositional knowledge doesnt involve propositions



this is a sharp, unambiguous distinction, it divides up all knowledge ascriptions into propositional and non-propositional


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> yes i agree, you can say, and believe, whatever you want, and all propositions are inherently vague
> 
> but this has no bearing on the fact that knowledge is impossible



It has bearing on the possibility that "I know a little chemistry" is not too vague to be assessed.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> propositional knowledge involves propositions
> 
> non-propositional knowledge doesnt involve propositions
> 
> this is a sharp, unambiguous distinction, it divides up all knowledge ascriptions into propositional and non-propositional



This is the formal difference and the formal difference is indeed sharp, but trivial.

I was talking about meaning not exact formulations.

Edit: Ferchrissake, obviously "know that" is formally different from "know how" - the words "that" and "how" being different. They sound different and they are spelt differently. Yes there is a very sharp distinction here. Obviously I was not talking about this!


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> This is the formal difference and the formal difference is indeed sharp, but trivial.




from the point of view of philosophy, it is not trivial, because overall, philosophy is about *truth*, more than anything else, and only propositional knowledge is about truth

there is no 'truth' in knowing how to ride a bike, so the analysisof this kind of knowledge, is not relevant to philosophy


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> It has bearing on the possibility that "I know a little chemistry" is not too vague to be assessed.




"I know a little chemistry" is not about truth, and as such it is uninteresting to epistemological study of knowledge


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> The postbox is opposite the garage.




this is no different from any other proposition, it is just a trivial example of a proposition

"The postbox is opposite the garage" = p

if i know that p, it necessarily follows that i also believe that p




> But we can swap a proposition for a know-how statement without changing the meaning.



*no you cant*, and that is why non-propositional knowledge is relatively uninteresting to epistemology


consider the following:

"i know how to ride a bike"

what is the propositional version of this ascription? *There isnt one*

because "how to ride a bike" is not something that can be true or false


and the other way round:

"i know that the moon is made of cheese"

what is the know-how version of this ascription? There isnt one, because the proposition "the moon is made of cheese" can only be true or false, it cant be anything else


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> this is no different from any other proposition, it is just a trivial example of a proposition
> 
> "The postbox is opposite the garage" = p
> 
> if i know that p, it necessarily follows that i also believe that p



Yes, yes, no. I have demonstrated the "no". You have yet to object to it.



> *no you cant*, and that is why non-propositional knowledge is relatively uninteresting to epistemology



But I have demonstrated that you can. You have yet to object to this demonstration.



> consider the following:
> 
> "i know how to ride a bike"
> 
> ...



This is correct. There is no _sharp_ distinction. There is a distinction.

I have given an example of where the distinction blurs. You have yet to respond to it.



> and the other way round:
> 
> "i know that the moon is made of cheese"
> 
> what is the know-how version of this ascription? There isnt one, because the proposition "the moon is made of cheese" can only be true or false, it cant be anything else



This is correct.

The moon is not made of cheese. There is no way to know that the moon is made of cheese because it isn't true. No amount of know-how will show you that the moon is made of cheese.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 18, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> "I know a little chemistry" is not about truth, and as such it is uninteresting to epistemological study of knowledge



Maybe. But I am showing you the meaning of "knowing". To know something does not necessitate conceiving it.

Another angle:

We can act on our beliefs.

But what does it mean to act on our knowledge?


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Yes, yes, no. I have demonstrated the "no". You have yet to object to it.



no you havent, if i know that the postbox is opposite the garage, then i also believe this to be the case



> But I have demonstrated that you can. You have yet to object to this demonstration.



you didnt demonstrate this



> This is correct. There is no _sharp_ distinction. There is a distinction.



there is a razor sharp distinction, in the sense that for any knowledge ascription, it is immediately obvious which type it is

and also, there is another distinction, which is that only propositional knowledge has anyhting to do with the concept of truth and falsity (which is what philsophy and epistemology is concerened with)




> I have given an example of where the distinction blurs. You have yet to respond to it.



you havent, you were mistaken to think that this blurs the distinction, and i explained to you why you were mistaken




> The moon is not made of cheese. There is no way to know that the moon is made of cheese because it isn't true. No amount of know-how will show you that the moon is made of cheese.



exactly, because there is a completely clear, sharp and unambiguous distinctio between propositional and non-propositional ascriptions of knowledge


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 18, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Maybe. But I am showing you the meaning of "knowing". To know something does not necessitate conceiving it.




to know someting does necessitate believing it



> We can act on our beliefs.
> 
> But what does it mean to act on our knowledge?



there is no difference, my actions may be influenced by something i believe, o by something which i know


----------



## Knotted (Jun 19, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> no you havent, if i know that the postbox is opposite the garage, then i also believe this to be the case



No - see my example to see why this is so.



> there is a razor sharp distinction, in the sense that for any knowledge ascription, it is immediately obvious which type it is



There is a razor sharp formal distinction. Yes you can tell whether something is a proposition or not. You have repeatedly pointed out this trivial point.

You cannot always tell whether a statement is equivalent to a propositional truth. There is no sharp distinction between knowing how and knowing to. I have demonstrated this. You have repeatedly failed to engage with this point.



> and also, there is another distinction, which is that only propositional knowledge has anyhting to do with the concept of truth and falsity (which is what philsophy and epistemology is concerened with)



Except when philosophy/epistemology isn't concerned with it.



> exactly, because there is a completely clear, sharp and unambiguous distinctio between propositional and non-propositional ascriptions of knowledge



In this case yes. This is why there is a distinction. There is, however, no sharp distinction.

You will not prove your point with examples. You will be proving a negative. Fortunately I have disproved this negative. See my example.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 19, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> there is no difference, my actions may be influenced by something i believe, o by something which i know



Why do we not say, "he acted according to his knowledge" instead of "he acted according to his beliefs".

Why do we not say, "we act according to our best beliefs" instead of "we act according to our best knowledge".

See the difference?


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 19, 2008)

Knotted said:


> No - see my example to see why this is so.



your example is no different than any other proposition



> There is a razor sharp formal distinction. Yes you can tell whether something is a proposition or not. You have repeatedly pointed out this trivial point.




i dont know what you mean by trivial

it is a sufficiently un-trivial distinction, that it gives academic epistemology a way of distinguishing between philosophically useful knowledge ascriptions, and philosophically un-useful ascriptions



> You cannot always tell whether a statement is equivalent to a propositional truth. There is no sharp distinction between knowing how and knowing to.



you can always, easily tell between a proposition (ie a subject-predicate statement) and anything else (ie 'how to ride a bike' which is not of the form subject-predicate)



> Except when philosophy/epistemology isn't concerned with it.



philosophy/epistemology is concerned with the truth/falsity of knowledge ascriptions, and propositions, this is the reason why epistemology is only concerned with propositional knowledge



> In this case yes. This is why there is a distinction. There is, however, no sharp distinction.



give me any knowledge ascription, and i will immeditaley distinguish what type of ascription it is, the reason i am able to do this, is because i can apply the sharp distinction (concerning truth and propositionality) which i outlined earlier


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 19, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Why do we not say, "he acted according to his knowledge" instead of "he acted according to his beliefs".




a counterexample to answer this question:

he knew there was a glass of water in the next room, so he went into the the next room because he was thirsty

when x went into the next room to drink the water, he was acting according to his knowledge (of the whereabouts of water)

this involves the propositional knowledge ascription

x knows that p

where p = "there is a glass of water in the next room"





> Why do we not say, "we act according to our best beliefs" instead of "we act according to our best knowledge".



you could say either, as i have just demonstrated

although by adding the word 'best', you demonstrate the point that whereas a belief might not be true, knowledge has to be true, so it would be much more accurate to omit the word 'best' when you use the word 'knowledge'


----------



## Knotted (Jun 19, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> your example is no different than any other proposition



My example was not just an example of a proposition. It was an example of a proposition in a context.



> i dont know what you mean by trivial



I'll try to remember to point it out when I see it.



> it is a sufficiently un-trivial distinction, that it gives academic epistemology a way of distinguishing between philosophically useful knowledge ascriptions, and philosophically un-useful ascriptions



Oh.



> you can always, easily tell between a proposition (ie a subject-predicate statement) and anything else (ie 'how to ride a bike' which is not of the form subject-predicate)



This is trivial, but true.



> philosophy/epistemology is concerned with the truth/falsity of knowledge ascriptions, and propositions, this is the reason why epistemology is only concerned with propositional knowledge



Sometimes.



> give me any knowledge ascription, and i will immeditaley distinguish what type of ascription it is, the reason i am able to do this, is because i can apply the sharp distinction (concerning truth and propositionality) which i outlined earlier



Of course you can (this is trivial).

I can tell whether a statement about knowledge or belief is an ascription about knowledge or an ascription about belief. I notice words like "know", "knowing" or "knowledge" in the first type. I notice words like "belief", "believing" or "believable" in the second type. Give me an example and I will show you which type of statement you are making (you can of course combine the two).

Does this demonstrate that there is a sharp difference between knowledge and belief?


----------



## Knotted (Jun 19, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> a counterexample to answer this question:
> 
> he knew there was a glass of water in the next room, so he went into the the next room because he was thirsty
> 
> when x went into the next room to drink the water, he was acting according to his knowledge (of the whereabouts of water)



Why does that sound so odd though?

What else did he know? He knew that water is not poisonous. He knew that there was no lion in the next room. He knew what a room was.

Did he act according to all this? Was there some sort of calculation involving all these facts?

If somebody asked me what I knew at such and such a time (say when I was walking down the street just then), I wouldn't know where to start. It would be like listing all the objects in China. A huge task. But also an ambiguous task. When is one fact seperate from another fact? When is one object seperate from another object?

If somebody asked me what I believed when I was walking down the street, then I would not know what they were talking about at all. If somebody asked me what I believed when I ran down the street late for work, I might reply that I believed that I might miss my bus and that I might be in trouble with my new boss.

This is why acting according to belief makes sense, whereas acting according to knowledge does not.



> although by adding the word 'best', you demonstrate the point that whereas a belief might not be true, knowledge has to be true, so it would be much more accurate to omit the word 'best' when you use the word 'knowledge'



If anything its the reverse!

If knowledge has to be true then what does "best knowledge" mean? What does "best truth" mean?


----------



## Knotted (Jun 19, 2008)

It perhaps looks as if I am countering the idea that knowledge is a type of belief - true and justified belief - by conversely asserting that belief is a type of knowledge - some sort of intentional knowledge.

Both views are quite silly, even if there is a certain cheeky tastiness to countering the former with the latter.

One is not an type of the other. They are just different, and I've _shown_ the differences.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 19, 2008)

Knotted said:


> "You knew I wanted to cash this cheque, so when we were walking down the highstreet why didn't you tell me the bank was round the corner? You _knew_ that it was there."
> 
> "You knew I wanted to cash this cheque, so when we were walking down the highstreet why didn't you tell me the bank was round the corner? You _believed_ that it was there."
> 
> ...



I'm now thinking the highlighted bit is quite wrong. I didn't like it when I wrote it. [But the example still speaks for itself.]

What would I say instead, though. If you believe a proposition, it is like saying you favour it as an instruction. If you believe there is a table in front of you then you act as if there is a table in front of you.

Compare:

"Yes, I know that I need to stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope."

With:

"Yes, I believe that I need to stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope."

Or worse:

"Yes, I believe with certainty that I need to stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope."

The first of these is a statement about the way the world is in relation to my place in it. It is not about the proposition, "I need to stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope." Suppose the letter is already stamped, I would not follow the instruction, because I have understood the purpose of the instruction.

The second example sounds a little deranged. It is like saying that I will stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope, regardlessly. It makes no claim to understand the relation I have with the world - only the relation I have with the proposition.

The third example is not closer to the first, but further from it. It sounds like, come hell or high water, I will stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope.

Knowledge is not _about_ propositions - insofar as it is connected with propositions at all it is about the _content_ of propositions - facts and states of play.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 20, 2008)

Knotted said:


> What would I say instead, though. If you believe a proposition, it is like saying you favour it as an instruction. If you believe there is a table in front of you then you act as if there is a table in front of you.



ı agree wıth thıs

ı would add though that another way of sayıng thıs, ıs that ıf you belıeve a proposıtıon:

you act as ıf the proposıtıon ıs true

whıch ıs the same as sayıng:

you act as ıf you know the proposıtıon

and that ıllustrates why knowıng and belıevıng are essentıally the same thıng






> Compare:
> 
> "Yes, I know that I need to stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope."
> 
> ...



surely you stamp the envelope, not the letter?  

but ıgnorıng thıs trıvıalıty:

ı dont see the dıfference, the way the world ıs, IS that ıt ıs true that "I need to stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope."





> Suppose the letter is already stamped, I would not follow the instruction, because I have understood the purpose of the instruction.




thıs doesnt effect the truth of the proposıtıon though, or your belıef ın ıt, you could make the proposıtıon more precıse, by sayıng "I need to stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope unless ıt ıs already stamped"




> The second example sounds a little deranged.



ı dısagree, ı thınk ıt sounds perfectly natural, the thırd one sounds awkward but not 'deranged'




> It is like saying that I will stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope, regardlessly. It makes no claim to understand the relation I have with the world - only the relation I have with the proposition.



ı dısagree, ıt ıs lıke sayıng that you understand the necessıty of stampıng a letter




> Knowledge is not _about_ propositions - insofar as it is connected with propositions at all it is about the _content_ of propositions - facts and states of play.



ı dont know about 'states of play' but 'facts' defınıtely, and factualıty, ıs the same as truth, the truth of the proposıtıon ın questıon, whıch cannot be separated from ıts content


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 20, 2008)

Knotted said:


> I can tell whether a statement about knowledge or belief is an ascription about knowledge or an ascription about belief. I notice words like "know", "knowing" or "knowledge" in the first type. I notice words like "belief", "believing" or "believable" in the second type. Give me an example and I will show you which type of statement you are making (you can of course combine the two).
> 
> Does this demonstrate that there is a sharp difference between knowledge and belief?



ın the way ın whıch people ordınarıly use these concepts, yes


----------



## Knotted (Jun 20, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> ı agree wıth thıs
> 
> ı would add though that another way of sayıng thıs, ıs that ıf you belıeve a proposıtıon:
> 
> ...



The mistake you make is "which is the same as saying you act as if you know the proposition."

If you are absent minded like me, you don't act on what you know. 



> surely you stamp the envelope, not the letter?
> 
> but ıgnorıng thıs trıvıalıty:
> 
> ı dont see the dıfference, the way the world ıs, IS that ıt ıs true that "I need to stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope."



But it isn't necessarily the case that you need to stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope. A statement of knowledge is not a statement about the truth of a proposition. It is a statement about the way the world is (in relation to yourself or ourselves).

Propostions exist nowhere in the world. I have never seen a proposition. Knowledge is not about a logical game. At best it is about refering to the world by using a logical game.

This is why induction is fundamentally wrong headed.



> thıs doesnt effect the truth of the proposıtıon though, or your belıef ın ıt, you could make the proposıtıon more precıse, by sayıng "I need to stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope unless ıt ıs already stamped"



You could. But this is merely a more exact expression. The less exact expression is still an expression. Knowledge is not expressed by the truth of propositions. It expresses itself perhaps via propositions which are perhaps exactly true.



> ı dısagree, ı thınk ıt sounds perfectly natural, the thırd one sounds awkward but not 'deranged'



All I can say is try talking this way. Swap the words "know" and "believe" in everyday life. See what happens.




> ı dısagree, ıt ıs lıke sayıng that you understand the necessıty of stampıng a letter



It expresses no reason. It denies reason because it avoids the more obvious expression.



> ı dont know about 'states of play' but 'facts' defınıtely, and factualıty, ıs the same as truth, the truth of the proposıtıon ın questıon, whıch cannot be separated from ıts content



Focus on 'states of play' rather than facts, then.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 21, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> ı dısagree, ıt ıs lıke sayıng that you understand the necessıty of stampıng a letter



My first answer to this was not fair.

It would depend a lot in the tone of voice. If the "I believe" was said in an uncertain way then you would be right. If "I believe" was said in a way like "I believe in God" then you would be wrong.

That looks as if it is impossible to tell the difference when it is written down. However there is a difference in punctuation. The former should have a question mark. To say "I believe I should stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope" in an unsure way is to ask a question.

Try saying it in a rising tone of voice and try saying it in a lowering tone of voice.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 21, 2008)

Knotted said:


> To say "I believe I should stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope" in an unsure way is to ask a question.



not at all, ıf you are analysıng ıt epıstemologıcally

ıt ıs a sımple *statement* of a belıef, not a questıon

to word ıt as a questıon you would say "should I stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope?"


----------



## Knotted (Jun 21, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> not at all, ıf you are analysıng ıt epıstemologıcally
> 
> ıt ıs a sımple *statement* of a belıef, not a questıon
> 
> to word ıt as a questıon you would say "should I stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope?"



I don't know what analysing it epistemologically means.

"should I stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope?"

is not the same as

"I believe I should stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope?"

Remember that this is in response to the question, "do you know what to do next?"

The natural response would be just, "I should stamp the letter before putting it in the envelope." And this would confirm that I know what I am doing.

To reply "I believe" either says
1) knowing what you are doing is irrelevant - following the instruction is all that is necessary.
2) you were not sure that you knew what to do but would follow this instruction.

It would be natural in the context to make 2) into a question. (Perhaps this is what you mean by analysing epistemologically - ignoring the context?)

The point is that a statement of belief about a proposition expresses an attitude towards that proposition - perhaps as a heuristic. A statement of knowledge about a proposition is a statement about your relation to the content of the proposition - the situation the proposition refers to. In this case, you might even know that the proposition is false - sometimes the truth expresses the state of play worse than a slightly inaccurate statement.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 21, 2008)

Knotted said:


> It would be natural in the context to make 2) into a question. (Perhaps this is what you mean by analysing epistemologically - ignoring the context?)



yes ı suppose so, epıstemology ıs much more straıghtforward than the examples you are gıvıng, ıt ıs not about twıstıng the context of knowledge ascrıptıons as you are doıng, really the central, fundamental poınt of epıstemology ıs the followıng:

ıf ı belıeve that p, then p can be true or false (wıthout alterıng the fact that ı belıeve ıt)

ıf ı know that p, then p must be true


there can be mıstaken belıefs, there cannot be mıstaken knowledge




> The point is that a statement of belief about a proposition expresses an attitude towards that proposition -



yes



> A statement of knowledge about a proposition is a statement about your relation to the content of the proposition - the situation the proposition refers to. In this case, you might even know that the proposition is false - sometimes the truth expresses the state of play worse than a slightly inaccurate statement.



a statement of knowledge expresses 2 thıngs, your belıef ın the proposıtıon, and also, more ımportantly, the *truth *of the proposıtıon


----------



## Knotted (Jun 21, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> yes ı suppose so, epıstemology ıs much more straıghtforward than the examples you are gıvıng, ıt ıs not about twıstıng the context of knowledge ascrıptıons as you are doıng, really the central, fundamental poınt of epıstemology ıs the followıng:
> 
> ıf ı belıeve that p, then p can be true or false (wıthout alterıng the fact that ı belıeve ıt)
> 
> ...



Then I have shown that either you are mistaken about what the fundamental point of epistemology is or that the fundamental point of epistemology is not to do with knowledge at all.

Either way when you (second, not third person) say, "knowledge is impossible", then you are not talking about knowledge but something trivial which appears to be like knowledge.



> a statement of knowledge expresses 2 thıngs, your belıef ın the proposıtıon, and also, more ımportantly, the *truth *of the proposıtıon



Well it should be obvious by now that the first of these assertions is incorrect. The second is more difficult. We have to look at what we mean by "truth" now.

I think there are different senses of "truth" but I suspect that in a statement of knowledge of a proposition, the proposition will correspond to the relevent sense of "truth" of that propostion.

So yes "I know p" means "I know p to be true". But this is now just tautology  - the statement is only a statement of the grammar of "know" and "true".

Edit:
I'm misreading max here. Max is not saying that "I know p" means "I know p to be true", but that it entails "p is true". This is not so. Knowledge is not an indubitable statement of our relation to states of affairs. (I don't think the word "indubitable" has a proper meaning - its  inherently metaphysical so it really only plays a role when we are trying to sketch what our metaphysics are supposed to be about. So more properly I should say, "it is nonsense to say that knowledge is indubitable"). If it were, we would never say, "I thought I knew..." But when saying this, this does not necessarily mean that we believed it was so but were proven wrong.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 21, 2008)

"ı know that p" ıs equıvalent to "ı know that p ıs true"

knowledge ıs justıfıed true belıef

"ı know that p, but p ıs actually false" ıs a contradıctıon ın terms

"ı belıeve that p, but p turned out to be false" ıs not a contradıctıon


----------



## Knotted (Jun 21, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> "ı know that p" ıs equıvalent to "ı know that p ıs true"



I think so too. At least for the minute.



> knowledge ıs justıfıed true belıef



No. If you want to abrieviate "justified belief of a justified truth" perhaps use "jubjut". We can now look at whether jubjut is possible if you want.



> "ı know that p, but p ıs actually false" ıs a contradıctıon ın terms



Yes. In _terms_.



> "ı belıeve that p, but p turned out to be false" ıs not a contradıctıon



Yes.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 21, 2008)

I suspect that what I will call strong jubjut is incoherent. If the justification is the same for the justification of the belief as it is for the justification of the truth then this is a category error. It makes no sense.

Weak jubjut is possible - if the two justifictations are different senses of justification.

I will call justified belief of a truth, "jubet". Jubet is easily possible.

"I believe there is a road outside my flat because the fairies told me." (Coincidently there is actually a road outside my flat.)


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 21, 2008)

Knotted said:


> "justified belief of a justified truth"



"justıfıed truth" doesnt mean anythıng


any proposıtıon, ıs eıther true or false


----------



## Knotted (Jun 21, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> "justıfıed truth" doesnt mean anythıng
> 
> 
> any proposıtıon, ıs eıther true or false



Fair point. Instead of "justified truth" read "proposition which is justifiably true". Otherwise it could be merely a coincidence that the proposition is true, and I'm sure you are not talking about jubet.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 22, 2008)

To present a philosophical theory I would say that:

If, in philosophy, we theorise then what we say has no bearing on the reality of our lives and our world.

If on the other hand we restrain ourselves from theorising then what we say has a bearing on our lives.

----

Of course the above is rubbish and shouldn't be taken seriously. Its just a good thing to say to max in order make things click for him.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 22, 2008)

Knotted said:


> If, in philosophy, we theorise then what we say has no bearing on the reality of our lives and our world.



*phılosophy* has no bearıng on the realıty of our lıves and the world


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 22, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Fair point. Instead of "justified truth" read "proposition which is justifiably true".



thıs also, doent mean anythıng, when ıs a proposıtıon "justıfıably true"? Any proposıtıon, ıs eıther true or false


knowledge ıs defıned as a proposıtıon whıch ıs true, and whıch ıs *justıfıably belıeved*, thıs defınıtıon prevents the possıbılıty of ascrıbıng knowledge to someone who holds an unjustıfıed belıef whıch just happens, coıncıdentally, to be true, for thıs exact reason ı thınk Gettıer's counterexample was flawed


----------



## Knotted (Jun 22, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> thıs also, doent mean anythıng, when ıs a proposıtıon "justıfıably true"? Any proposıtıon, ıs eıther true or false
> 
> 
> knowledge ıs defıned as a proposıtıon whıch ıs true, and whıch ıs *justıfıably belıeved*, thıs defınıtıon prevents the possıbılıty of ascrıbıng knowledge to someone who holds an unjustıfıed belıef whıch just happens, coıncıdentally, to be true, for thıs exact reason ı thınk Gettıer's counterexample was flawed



What on earth does justifiably believed mean then?

It means that the belief has to be true. But we can't justify a true proposition. So there justifiably believed is incoherent.

[And adding the requirement of truth is irrelevent as justified means that the belief is true.]

So you are wrong to say that "knowledge" or justeb is impossible. Justeb is incoherent.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 23, 2008)

Knotted said:


> What on earth does justifiably believed mean then?



ıt means belıeved wıth a justıfıcatıon for belıevıng, as opposed to belıevıng somethıng for no reason

compare:

ı belıeve that ım sıttıng on a chaır because ı can see ıt, and feel ıt

wıth

ı beleve that the sun ısnt goıng to rıse tomorrow


the fırst ıs a belıef, followed by ıts justıfıcatıon, the second ıs a belıef wıth no justıfıcatıon





> It means that the belief has to be true.



no ıt doesnt, ıt just means that the belıef has to be justıfıed





> But we can't justify a true proposition.



we* can *justıfy a belıef





> So there justifiably believed is incoherent.



ıt ıs neıther coherent nor ıncoherent, ıt ıs sımply a type of belıef




> [And adding the requirement of truth is irrelevent as justified means that the belief is true.]



no ıt doesnt, because the justıfıcatıon mıght be false, but thıs doesnt change the fact that ıt ıs a justıfıcatıon


----------



## Knotted (Jun 23, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> no ıt doesnt, because the justıfıcatıon mıght be false, but thıs doesnt change the fact that ıt ıs a justıfıcatıon



Justifications are not false, they are invalid.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 23, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Justifications are not false, they are invalid.



same thıng, they eıther genuınely justıfy a belıef, or they dont


----------



## Knotted (Jun 23, 2008)

me:


> And adding the requirement of truth is irrelevent as justified means that the belief is true.



max:


> no ıt doesnt, because the justıfıcatıon mıght be false, but thıs doesnt change the fact that ıt ıs a justıfıcatıon



So adding the requirement of truth is irrelevant because the "truth" in the definition refers to a proposition as in:

max:


> knowledge ıs defıned as a proposıtıon whıch ıs true, and whıch ıs *justıfıably belıeved*



Whereas you only introduce "falsity" (by which you really mean invalidity, check a basic logic textbook for the difference) refering to the justification of the belief, not the proposition which is believed. As in:

max:


> because the justıfıcatıon mıght be false



To which I could, of course, add that the proposition might coincidentally be true.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 23, 2008)

If I return to my thought that an expression of knowledge is an expression of our relation to the world, then it would be fruitful to look at art.

A painting can express the knowledge of the painter - perhaps a landscape will show the geographical relation between a mountain and a forest. This is an example of what the painter knows - they can see it before them.

But does the expression have to be accurate? Is it the case that the more accurate the painting is, the greater the expression of knowledge? I don't see why. Knowledge is about emphasising certain important details - a good expression of knowledge _should_ be a distortion of the world, _not_ a faithful replica.

So should a statement of knowledge live up to a universal standard of truth? No - the sense of truth relates to the expression of knowledge.

(This does not mean that there is no truth or that truth changes its meaning in different contexts.)


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 23, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Whereas you only introduce "falsity" (by which you really mean invalidity, check a basic logic textbook for the difference) refering to the justification of the belief, not the proposition which is believed.



yes you are rıght, ı shouldnt have saıd 'false justıfıcatıon'

but ım not sure 'ınvalıd justıfıcatıon' ıs the rıght choıce of words eıther, ı thınk maybe 'ınapproprıate justıfıcatıon' ıs a better one

basıcally, ı mean a justıfıcatıon whıch ıs only mıstakenly held to justıfy the belıef, thıs ıs a major part of the problem


there are 3 condıtıons of knowledge accordıng to the offıcıal defınıtıon, these are
1 justıfıcatıon
2 belıef
3 truth


the reason knowledge ıs ımpossıble, ıs because condıtıon 3 cannot possıbly be satısıfıed, whereas 1 and 2 are condıtıons to be satısfıed by the knower, condıtıon 3 must be satıfıed by the proposıtıon




> To which I could, of course, add that the proposition might coincidentally be true.



ın whıch case, as Gettıer showed, the belıef ıs *not knowledge*, ıt ıs a belıef whıch only happens to be true by coıncıdence, ın order to count as knowledge, the justıfıcatıon must approprıately lınk the belıef wıth ıts truth, and thıs lınkıng can only happen by pure magıc, somehow the knower's mınd must reach outsıde of ıtself


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 23, 2008)

Knotted said:


> If I return to my thought that an expression of knowledge is an expression of our relation to the world, then it would be fruitful to look at art.
> 
> A painting can express the knowledge of the painter - perhaps a landscape will show the geographical relation between a mountain and a forest. This is an example of what the painter knows - they can see it before them.
> 
> ...





but agaın here you are usıng an example of non-proposıtıonal knowledge, there ıs no proposıtıon whıch the paınter can be saıd to know, by vırtue of hıs abılıty to paınt hıs surroundıngs

wıth proposıtıonal knowledge, there ıs a clear cut dıstınctıon between known and unknown, because any proposıtıon can only be true or false


----------



## Knotted (Jun 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> yes you are rıght, ı shouldnt have saıd 'false justıfıcatıon'
> 
> but ım not sure 'ınvalıd justıfıcatıon' ıs the rıght choıce of words eıther, ı thınk maybe 'ınapproprıate justıfıcatıon' ıs a better one
> 
> ...



But condition 3 can be true by coincidence.



> ın whıch case, as Gettıer showed, the belıef ıs *not knowledge*, ıt ıs a belıef whıch only happens to be true by coıncıdence, ın order to count as knowledge, the justıfıcatıon must approprıately lınk the belıef wıth ıts truth, and thıs lınkıng can only happen by pure magıc, somehow the knower's mınd must reach outsıde of ıtself



If you agree with Gettier then you must agree that knowledge is not justified true belief.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> but agaın here you are usıng an example of non-proposıtıonal knowledge, there ıs no proposıtıon whıch the paınter can be saıd to know, by vırtue of hıs abılıty to paınt hıs surroundıngs
> 
> wıth proposıtıonal knowledge, there ıs a clear cut dıstınctıon between known and unknown, because any proposıtıon can only be true or false



What does knowing a proposition mean? Knowing the words and the order they appear in the proposition? What you really mean is knowing the content of the propostion. But this is expressed in the painting.

The forest is in the valley below the mountain. That's a proposition. You can state it or you can paint it.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 24, 2008)

Knotted said:


> But condition 3 can be true by coincidence.



ıt could be, but you could never know ıf ıt was or not




> If you agree with Gettier then you must agree that knowledge is not justified true belief.



ı dont agree wıth Gettıer, because ı dont thınk he recognızed the dıfference between an approprıate justıfıcatıon, and an ınapproprıate one

he dıd raıse a very ımportant poınt, but he dıd not offer a convıncıng new defınıtıon of knowledge

ıf gettıer was rıght, then 'knowledge' has no defınıtıon, ıf he was wrong, then the best defınıtıon of knowledge we have, ıs justıfıed true belıef


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 24, 2008)

Knotted said:


> What does knowing a proposition mean? Knowing the words and the order they appear in the proposition? What you really mean is knowing the content of the propostion. But this is expressed in the painting.
> 
> The forest is in the valley below the mountain. That's a proposition. You can state it or you can paint it.



the poınt stıll remaıns, that proposıtıonal knowledge ıs knowldge of a proposıtıon, whether you paınt ıt, or express ıt ın words


----------



## Knotted (Jun 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> ıt could be, but you could never know ıf ıt was or not



But that is not a condition in the definition.




> ı dont agree wıth Gettıer, because ı dont thınk he recognızed the dıfference between an approprıate justıfıcatıon, and an ınapproprıate one
> 
> he dıd raıse a very ımportant poınt, but he dıd not offer a convıncıng new defınıtıon of knowledge
> 
> ıf gettıer was rıght, then 'knowledge' has no defınıtıon, ıf he was wrong, then the best defınıtıon of knowledge we have, ıs justıfıed true belıef



I don't agree with Gettier either. I'm not sure what it means for "justified true belief" to be sufficient or not. If I understand rightly he was looking for a fourth condition - a fourth piece of madness to go with the other three.

More importantly JTB is unnecessary - finding a fourth condition is never going to be convincing as the definition will still be unnecessary.

Why anyone would even think that there is a necessary and sufficient definition of knowledge is beyond me. You cannot make it work for everyday purposes and, as we have just seen, you cannot make it work for your philosophical purposes. You are left wondering what counts as "justification", what counts as "truth" and even what counts as "belief".

Yet when we look at "knowledge" in its natural environment there is no confusion, everything is crystal clear. But here we are still left wondering where this cloud of madness came from. (See Wittgenstein on rule following).

Suppose I were to say that all seeable things are those things right in front of you. It might, on the face of it, be a good definition of "seeable". Can we see that? Yes, it is right in front of us. But what about what we saw yesterday? Then it has ceased to be seeable. We could argue this way and we could come up with counterarguments, but the most important thing to notice is that our definition was trivial - the whole use of the word, "seeable" was contained in the definition. Here we have not mounted a sceptical argument about what can be seen - really we have just said nothing.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> the poınt stıll remaıns, that proposıtıonal knowledge ıs knowldge of a proposıtıon, whether you paınt ıt, or express ıt ın words



"Propositional knowledge is knowledge of a proposition." How can that possible say anything?

My dog knows that there is a biscuit on the table but my dog knows nothing about propositions.

Perhaps, for this reason, dogs cannot have propositional knowledge - even though I can state what they know in the proper form for propositional knowledge (dog knows that p)? But if you choose this route then all you have done is define "propositional knowledge" as "knowledge of a proposition", so what sort of conclusion is "propositional knowledge is knowledge of a proposition"? Pure trivia.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 24, 2008)

Knotted said:


> "Propositional knowledge is knowledge of a proposition." How can that possible say anything?




ıt says that proposıtıonal knowledge has nothıng to do wıth paıntıngs, but rather wıth proposıtıons




> My dog knows that there is a biscuit on the table but my dog knows nothing about propositions.



your dog doesnt know there ıs a bıscuıt on the table, your dog doesnt know what a table ıs, or what a bıscuıt ıs, *humans* are the only anımal wıth a concept of 'knowledge'





> Perhaps, for this reason, dogs cannot have propositional knowledge - even though I can state what they know in the proper form for propositional knowledge (dog knows that p)?



dogs do not know anythıng, and _unlıke_ humans, they do not belıeve that they do





> But if you choose this route then all you have done is define "propositional knowledge" as "knowledge of a proposition", so what sort of conclusion is "propositional knowledge is knowledge of a proposition"? Pure trivia.



ıt ıs not a defınıtıon of proposıtıonal knowledge ın any meanıngful sense, all ıt does ıs enable you to dıstınguısh ascrıptıons of knowledge, from anythıng else


----------



## Knotted (Jun 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> your dog doesnt know there ıs a bıscuıt on the table, your dog doesnt know what a table ıs, or what a bıscuıt ıs, *humans* are the only anımal wıth a concept of 'knowledge'



Oh yes he does!



> ıt ıs not a defınıtıon of proposıtıonal knowledge ın any meanıngful sense, all ıt does ıs enable you to dıstınguısh ascrıptıons of knowledge, from anythıng else



Yep, so you can't raise it as an argument - only as a clarification on your use of semantics.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 24, 2008)

Is "my dog knows that there is a biscuit on the table" an example of propositional knowledge or not? The question of whether dogs know anything is beside the point:

You claim that "I know that there is a bisuit on the table" is an example of propositional knowledge, but you also claim that propositional knowledge is impossible, yet you see no contradiction. Why do you see that there is a contradiction in the first example but not in the second?


----------



## Knotted (Jun 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> ıt could be, but you could never know ıf ıt was or not



Suppose you believe a proposition p. Suppose also that you have a justification of p.

You could honestly say "I know p" (according to the JST definition). (You might still be wrong because p might not be true).

Can you know if p is not coincidently true?

You have justified your belief that p is true, so you believe that p is not coincidently true. (Belief established)

You could be justified in this belief if you notice the fact stated in the previous sentence. (Justification established)

Suppose p happens to be false then clearly it is not coincidently true. (Possibility of truth established)

Therefore, according to the definition, you would know that your supposed knowledge of p is not coincident with p being true.
QED

----

So, no, according to the definition you have furnished us with you are wrong on this one as well!

Indeed as soon as you have a justified belief then you either have knowledge of that belief or you have knowledge that that belief is not coincidently true. According to the JST definition, knowledge is not impossible but almost inevitable!

The truth is that whenever you are claiming that knowledge is impossible, you are deviating from the definition that you claim to be subscribing to. This is quite natural - the definition is rubbish.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 24, 2008)

Knotted said:


> But that is not a condition in the definition.



truth ıs a condıtıon of knowledge




> I don't agree with Gettier either. I'm not sure what it means for "justified true belief" to be sufficient or not. If I understand rightly he was looking for a fourth condition - a fourth piece of madness to go with the other three.



the hıdden, mysterıous 4th condıtıon has been a major project of epıstemology sınce Gettıer




> More importantly JTB is unnecessary - finding a fourth condition is never going to be convincing as the definition will still be unnecessary.



ı dont understand what you mean by thıs, the aım of epıstemology ıs to dıscover what knowledge ıs

but, there wıll never be a convıncıng defınıtıon, because you cannot defıne somethıng whıch ıs non-exıstent, just as knowledge ıs ımpossıble, a defınıtıon of knowledge ıs ımpossıble





> Why anyone would even think that there is a necessary and sufficient definition of knowledge is beyond me. You cannot make it work for everyday purposes and, as we have just seen, you cannot make it work for your philosophical purposes. You are left wondering what counts as "justification", what counts as "truth" and even what counts as "belief"..



Thıs ıs what ı have been arguıng sınce the start of thıs thread, epıstemology ıs chasıng phantoms, there ıs no satısfyıng defınıtıon of knowledge to be found, because knowledge does not exıst, ıt couldnt possıbly exıst




> Yet when we look at "knowledge" in its natural environment there is no confusion, everything is crystal clear. But here we are still left wondering where this cloud of madness came from. (See Wittgenstein on rule following).



There ıs no such thıng as knowledge ın ıt’s natural envıronment, there ıs only belıef

The cloud of madness arose, because Western phılosophy took a tragıc wrong turn after Arıstotle, and has been completely lost up ıts own arse ever sınce


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 24, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Is "my dog knows that there is a biscuit on the table" an example of propositional knowledge or not? The question of whether dogs know anything is beside the point:
> 
> You claim that "I know that there is a bisuit on the table" is an example of propositional knowledge, but you also claim that propositional knowledge is impossible, yet you see no contradiction. Why do you see that there is a contradiction in the first example but not in the second?



dogs dont know, they dont belıeve they know


to suggest otherwıse ıs anthropomorphısatıon


humans are the only anımal whıch belıeves ıt knows, there are no canıne epıstemologısts


----------



## Knotted (Jun 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> truth ıs a condıtıon of knowledge



Disingenuous.

Knowing that your justified belief is not merely coincidently true is not a condition of the "justified true belief" definition of knowledge.



> the hıdden, mysterıous 4th condıtıon has been a major project of epıstemology sınce Gettıer



Its astonishing isn't it?



> ı dont understand what you mean by thıs, the aım of epıstemology ıs to dıscover what knowledge ıs



I mean that the conditions do not necessarily establish whether something is an example of knowledge. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_sufficient_conditions )

I do not mean that finding conditions is unnecessary, even though it looks that way.

However I do think that finding conditions is unnecessary. All we need to do is look at how we use the word and then we see what knowledge is.



> but, there wıll never be a convıncıng defınıtıon, because you cannot defıne somethıng whıch ıs non-exıstent, just as knowledge ıs ımpossıble, a defınıtıon of knowledge ıs ımpossıble



Of course. However you have failed to establish that knowledge is impossible. You cannot establish this if you do not know what knowledge is.



> Thıs ıs what ı have been arguıng sınce the start of thıs thread, epıstemology ıs chasıng phantoms, there ıs no satısfyıng defınıtıon of knowledge to be found, because knowledge does not exıst, ıt couldnt possıbly exıst



Disingenuous. You have been arguing that knowledge is impossible, not that there is no definition of knowledge. You have been arguing very strongly that there is a definition of knowledge.



> There ıs no such thıng as knowledge ın ıt’s natural envıronment, there ıs only belıef



But you don't believe you know what knowledge is, so you cannot justify that.



> The cloud of madness arose, because Western phılosophy took a tragıc wrong turn after Arıstotle, and has been completely lost up ıts own arse ever sınce



But you were just saying that philosophy is irrelevent to everyday life. I assumed you liked it that way.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> dogs dont know, they dont belıeve they know
> 
> 
> to suggest otherwıse ıs anthropomorphısatıon
> ...



I believe my dog has knowledge.

I could be wrong, but even if I am it still _makes sense_ to claim that my dog has knowledge. Our debate has been about the _logical point_ of when it makes sense to talk of knowledge (ie. the definition) not the _factual point_ of when it is correct to talk about knowledge.

It is not defined that dogs can have no knowledge. It may or may not be a point of fact.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 24, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> but, there wıll never be a convıncıng defınıtıon, because you cannot defıne somethıng whıch ıs non-exıstent, just as knowledge ıs ımpossıble, a defınıtıon of knowledge ıs ımpossıble



There is an old joke about the specialist who knows more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing.

Giving words a very special metaphysical role has the same effect. We have more and more well understood formulated definitions about less and less until we end being able to say precisely what they mean, but that they mean nothing.

This is true of "knowledge", "mackerel" and "bebop" and many other things besides.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 24, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Knowing that your justified belief is not merely coincidently true is not a condition of the "justified true belief" definition of knowledge.



no, because the justıfıcatıon ıs the lınk between the belıef, and the truth of the belıef

so the justıfıcatıon, and truth condıtıons, together amount to thıs, as Gettıer poınted out, ıf a justıfıed belıef ıs only coıncıdentally true, ıt ıs not knowledge





> However I do think that finding conditions is unnecessary. All we need to do is look at how we use the word and then we see what knowledge is.



determınıng the condıtıons of knolwedge IS fındıng out what knowledge ıs




> Of course. However you have failed to establish that knowledge is impossible. You cannot establish this if you do not know what knowledge is.



knowledge ısnt anythıng, that ıs why ıt ıs ımpossıble





> Disingenuous. You have been arguing that knowledge is impossible, not that there is no definition of knowledge. You have been arguing very strongly that there is a definition of knowledge.



you cannot defıne knowledge, because ıt ıs ımpossıble, the ımpossıbılıty to know what knowledge ıs, ıs the same as the ımpossıbılıty of knowledge/knowıng


ın other words, you cant know somethıng, untıl you know what knowledge ıs

the 'offıcıal' defınıtıon of knowledge, ıs justıfıed true belıef

but there ıs no defınıtıon of 'true', ıt ıs the truth condıtıon, that makes knowledge ımpossıble





> But you don't believe you know what knowledge is, so you cannot justify that.




knowledge ısnt anythıng, knowledge doesnt exıst, _even as a concept_

when we say 'ı know that p', what we *really mean *ıs, 'ı belıeve that p'




> But you were just saying that philosophy is irrelevent to everyday life. I assumed you liked it that way.



ıt has nothıng to do wıth what ı lıke or dıslıke

you could say, equıvalently, that everyday lıfe ıs ırrelevant to phılosophy


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 24, 2008)

Knotted said:


> There is an old joke about the specialist who knows more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing.
> 
> Giving words a very special metaphysical role has the same effect. We have more and more well understood formulated definitions about less and less until we end being able to say precisely what they mean, but that they mean nothing.
> 
> This is true of "knowledge", "mackerel" and "bebop" and many other things besides.



the meanıng of 'knowledge' ıs consıderably more relevant to phılosophy, than mackerel or bebop


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 24, 2008)

Knotted said:


> I believe my dog has knowledge.
> 
> I could be wrong, but even if I am it still _makes sense_ to claim that my dog has knowledge. Our debate has been about the _logical point_ of when it makes sense to talk of knowledge (ie. the definition) not the _factual point_ of when it is correct to talk about knowledge.
> 
> It is not defined that dogs can have no knowledge. It may or may not be a point of fact.




dogs do not know that they have knowledge, theır lıfe does not requıre ıt


----------



## Knotted (Jun 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> the meanıng of 'knowledge' ıs consıderably more relevant to phılosophy, than mackerel or bebop



But the point is that you were using a necessary and sufficient definition in order to make knowledge impossible. You are now saying that the impossibility of knowledge means there is no necessary and sufficient definition of it.

You could be talking about mackerel or bebop instead, it would make no difference. It would not be any more significant from a philosophical (or any other) point of view.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> dogs do not know that they have knowledge, theır lıfe does not requıre ıt



Yes.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 25, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> no, because the justıfıcatıon ıs the lınk between the belıef, and the truth of the belıef
> 
> so the justıfıcatıon, and truth condıtıons, together amount to thıs, as Gettıer poınted out, ıf a justıfıed belıef ıs only coıncıdentally true, ıt ıs not knowledge



So the truth condition is unnecessary. If the proposition cannot be coincidently true then it must be necessarily true so it is unnecessary to state this.




> determınıng the condıtıons of knolwedge IS fındıng out what knowledge ıs



Finding the conditions does not mean that the conditions can be listed and given as a necesssary and sufficient definition.



> knowledge ısnt anythıng, that ıs why ıt ıs ımpossıble



Is this just another empty tautology?



> you cannot defıne knowledge, because ıt ıs ımpossıble, the ımpossıbılıty to know what knowledge ıs, ıs the same as the ımpossıbılıty of knowledge/knowıng



No, because if you cannot know what knowledge is, you can state that you don't know what knowledge is but you cannot state that knowledge is impossible.



> ın other words, you cant know somethıng, untıl you know what knowledge ıs
> 
> the 'offıcıal' defınıtıon of knowledge, ıs justıfıed true belıef
> 
> but there ıs no defınıtıon of 'true', ıt ıs the truth condıtıon, that makes knowledge ımpossıble



You are speaking for yourself.




> knowledge ısnt anythıng, knowledge doesnt exıst, _even as a concept_
> 
> when we say 'ı know that p', what we *really mean *ıs, 'ı belıeve that p'



Why do we have the word "knowledge" then?



> ıt has nothıng to do wıth what ı lıke or dıslıke
> 
> you could say, equıvalently, that everyday lıfe ıs ırrelevant to phılosophy



Fair do's.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 25, 2008)

Knotted said:


> But the point is that you were using a necessary and sufficient definition in order to make knowledge impossible. You are now saying that the impossibility of knowledge means there is no necessary and sufficient definition of it.



ı was usıng *the* defınıtıon of knowledge to show that knowledge ıs ımpossıble

and that ıs what ı am sayıng, they are two dıfferent aspects of the same ıssue, whıch ıs, overall, the ımpossıbılıty of knowledge


ıt ıs *very* ımpossıble, ıt ısnt just the case that ı cant know

ıt ıs deeper than that, *there cant even be a concept of knowledge*, thıs ıs an exıstentıal ıssue, beyong epıstemology

as ı saıd much earlıer ın the thread, ı thınk that the whole academıc artıfıce of epıstemology _just exısts ın order to hıde from the fact _that there ıs no knowledge, ıt ıs ımpossıble

Socrates worked thıs out 3000 years ago, but Western phılosophers ever sınce have been denyıng the clear, sımple truth of what he saıd




> You could be talking about mackerel or bebop instead, it would make no difference. It would not be any more significant from a philosophical (or any other) point of view.



epıstemology deals wıth the meanıng of the word 'knowledge'

metaphysıcs deals, prımarıly, wıth the meanıng of the word 'truth'


there ıs no knowledge, and there ıs no truth (these are really just 2 ways of sayıng the same thıng)


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 25, 2008)

Knotted said:


> So the truth condition is unnecessary. If the proposition cannot be coincidently true then it must be necessarily true so it is unnecessary to state this.



rıght, but ıf you take away the truth condıtıon, you are left wıth a defınıtıon of (ratıonal/justıfıed) belıef, not knowledge




> Finding the conditions does not mean that the conditions can be listed and given as a necesssary and sufficient definition.




well surely any word that refers to somethıng, can be defıned, and there ıs no other way to defıne knowledge, than sayıng what the condıtıons for ıt are (most ımportantly, what makes knowledge dıffferent from belıef, whıch IS the truth condıtıon!)





> Is this just another empty tautology?



ıt ıs a tautology, but ıt ısnt empty





> No, because if you cannot know what knowledge is, you can state that you don't know what knowledge is but you cannot state that knowledge is impossible.



you dont know what knowledge ıs because you* cant *know what knowledge ıs

sımılarly, knowledge ısnt anythıng, because knowledge *cant* be anythıng





> You are speaking for yourself.



you cant know somethıng, untıl you know what knowledge ıs

thıs ıs a truısm




> Why do we have the word "knowledge" then?





that ıs a *very very deep *questıon ındeed


----------



## Knotted (Jun 26, 2008)

max_freakout said:
			
		

> ı was usıng *the* defınıtıon of knowledge to show that knowledge ıs ımpossıble



Firstly I have shown that “justified true belief” is nearly inevitable. Given any belief for any proposition p - no matter how peculiar or how sensible - and given any justification for that belief - no matter flimsy or how firm, then at least one of the following two is justified true belief:

1) I (JSB) know that p.
2) I (JSB) know that p is not true by coincidence.

Of course the above is just drivel, but this is because “justified true belief” is not a definition of knowledge. Its not even vaguely convincing in my view.



> rıght, but ıf you take away the truth condıtıon, you are left wıth a defınıtıon of (ratıonal/justıfıed) belıef, not knowledge



To give a trivial response to your trivial assertion – justified true belief is a definition of justified true belief, not knowledge.

The condition for the necessity of truth is simply plain wrong.

If somebody has been taught at school (perhaps by a malicious teacher) that the moon is made out of cheese and they have had no call to question this teaching they would, if prompted, say:
“I know that the moon is made out of cheese.”

Of course they are mistaken, but they have not made a grammatical mistake. They did not “really mean”:
“I believe that the moon is made out of cheese.”
They meant what they said.

You cannot define the use of a word with reference to something which cannot be stated. We cannot state the truth, we can only assert the truth. But the truth condition is not that the truth of the proposition is capable of being asserted it is that the proposition is true.

You think I say that in order to undermine sceptical arguments? No, I say that to justify sceptical arguments!

The sceptical argument relies on the actual, real life (not the pretend “epistemological”) meaning of knowledge. Here we can make a grammatical note that a statement of knowledge is a statement about lack of doubt.

“I know p, but I doubt p,” does not make any sense. (Note this essential condition is not mentioned at all in the JSB idiocy).

The sceptic goes on to say, “but we can always doubt p.”

So before showing you what is wrong and what is right with this argument, let’s notice that it relies heavily on the correct grammar of the verb “to know” (not the pretend “epistemological” grammar). You cannot rescue the sceptical argument by saying “knowledge is meaningless” because “knowledge is impossible”. The former implies the latter is meaningless, and you have neglected your duty to state the sceptical argument in these daft “epistemological” terms.

What is wrong with the sceptical argument?

Very briefly, it confuses the possibility of doubt with actual doubt.

What is the power of the sceptical argument?

It relies on the fact that we take things on trust but we don’t like to admit it. What the sceptic does is force us to admit that we take things on trust.

But this says nothing about the impossibility of knowledge. (It isn’t justified by trust, but trust underlies the justification.) We trust the world is a certain way before we can even begin our games of knowing and doubting.




			
				max_freakout said:
			
		

> well surely any word that refers to somethıng, can be defıned, and there ıs no other way to defıne knowledge, than sayıng what the condıtıons for ıt are (most ımportantly, what makes knowledge dıffferent from belıef, whıch IS the truth condıtıon!)



“Knowledge” is an abstract noun. It does not refer to an object. If by “definition” we mean to describe what knowledge refers to, then we cannot succeed. The same is true of “happiness” or “the weather”. We can, of course, still define how these words are _used_.

I think this is root of the inanity of insisting that knowledge has to be true. It is that we are ignoring how the word is used by pretending that we can talk about the “thing” it refers to.

We can see the roots of “justified true belief” in Platonic idealism. The definition is utterly meaningless without some form of Platonism.




			
				max_freakout said:
			
		

> you dont know what knowledge ıs because you cant know what knowledge ıs
> 
> sımılarly, knowledge ısnt anythıng, because knowledge cant be anythıng



By “knowledge” here you mean the collective noun.

I agree with what you actually say, but not with what you seem to be saying (but must you always talk in empty tautologies).

Being able to know and recognise a particular example of something is not necessarily dependent upon knowing and recognising the entire class of examples of that thing. We can be sure in some cases but not sure in others.


----------



## max_freakout (Jun 26, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Firstly I have shown that “justified true belief” is nearly inevitable.




Please explaın what you mean by 'nearly ınevıtable'





> Given any belief for any proposition p - no matter how peculiar or how sensible - and given any justification for that belief - no matter flimsy or how firm, then at least one of the following two is justified true belief:
> 
> 1) I (JSB) know that p.
> 2) I (JSB) know that p is not true by coincidence.
> ...




ı dont understand what you mean by thıs, except for the last part, on whıch we both agree, that 'justıfıed true belıef' ıs not a defınıtıon of knowledge


ı would add, there _cant possıbly be _a defınıtıon of knowledge, because knowledge ıs ımpossıble




> The condition for the necessity of truth is simply plain wrong.
> 
> If somebody has been taught at school (perhaps by a malicious teacher) that the moon is made out of cheese and they have had no call to question this teaching they would, if prompted, say:
> “I know that the moon is made out of cheese.”
> ...




ı dısagree, to say:

'ı know that p, but p ıs not true' *ıs a contradıctıon*

however, to say:

"ı belıeved that p, but p was not true" ıs not a contradıctıon, belıefs can be mıstaken, knowledge cannot be mıstaken


ıf ı say 'ı know that the moon ıs made of cheese, because thıs ıs what ı am taught'

ı am not expressıng knowledge, ı am actually expressıng a *false belıef*, also a justıfıed belıef






> We cannot state the truth, we can only assert the truth.




thıs ıs a meanıngless contradıctıon, to assert somethıng, IS to state somethıng

the words 'state' and 'assert' both mean the same thıng






> But the truth condition is not that the truth of the proposition is capable of being asserted it is that the proposition is true.



yes of course, the truth condıtıon means that ın order to be known, p must be true






> The sceptical argument relies on the actual, real life (not the pretend “epistemological”) meaning of knowledge. Here we can make a grammatical note that a statement of knowledge is a statement about lack of doubt.



no ıt ısnt, a statement of knowledge, ıs a statement about a true belıef

you can eıther say that the actual, real life meaning of knowledge ıs sımply 'mıstaken belıef', or that there_ ıs no _actual, real life meaning of knowledge. Eıther way, you are sayıng the same thıng, that there ıs no knowledge, only belıef





> “I know p, but I doubt p,” does not make any sense.



ı agree, to know that p, ıs to know that p ıs true, whıch removes all doubt

the reason that knowledge ıs ımpossıble, ıs sımply because ANY proposıtıon can be doubted





> The sceptic goes on to say, “but we can always doubt p.”



you can doubt any proposıtıon, because the sceptıc wıll argue, you mıght be dreamıng, you mıght be mad and not realıse ıt, you mıght be hallucınatıng, you mıght be a braın ın a vat, etc etc, these are 'sceptıcal possıbılıtıes' whıch entırely prevent you from knowıng the truthy of any proposıtıon






> So before showing you what is wrong and what is right with this argument, let’s notice that it relies heavily on the correct grammar of the verb “to know” (not the pretend “epistemological” grammar).




to know that p means, to know that p ıs true, ıf you remove the truth condıtıon, ıt becomes ımpossıble to dıstınguısh knowıng that p, from belıevıng that p




> You cannot rescue the sceptical argument by saying “knowledge is meaningless” because “knowledge is impossible”.



the sceptıcal argument doesnt need to be rescued, and knowledge ıs not meanıngless, ıt ıs ımpossıble to defıne

you cannot know what knowledge ıs





> and you have neglected your duty to state the sceptical argument in these daft “epistemological” terms



the sceptıcal argument ıs, very sımply, that knowledge ıs ımpossıble, there ıs no knowledge






> What is wrong with the sceptical argument?
> 
> Very briefly, it confuses the possibility of doubt with actual doubt.



no ıt doesnt, ıt says that any proposıtıon *can be *doubted, whether you do actually doubt ıt or not ıs ırrelevant

ıf you dont doubt a proposıtıon, ıt ıs because you are ıgnorıng the possıbılıty that ıt mıght not be true




> It relies on the fact that we take things on trust but we don’t like to admit it. What the sceptic does is force us to admit that we take things on trust.



takıng somethıng on trust = belıevıng ıt





> But this says nothing about the impossibility of knowledge. (It isn’t justified by trust, but trust underlies the justification.)




trustıng a proposıtıon to be true, ıs not the same as knowıng a proposıtıon to be true

trustıng a proposıtıon to be true, means ıgnorıng the fact that ıt mıght be false




> We trust the world is a certain way before we can even begin our games of knowing and doubting.



thıs ıs the naıve posıtıon from whıch epıstemology begıns

we trust that knowledge ıs possıble





> “Knowledge” is an abstract noun. It does not refer to an object. If by “definition” we mean to describe what knowledge refers to, then we cannot succeed. The same is true of “happiness” or “the weather”. We can, of course, still define how these words are _used_.



yes we can, and we use the word knowledge, as a naıve subsıtute for the word 'belıef'






> I think this is root of the inanity of insisting that knowledge has to be true. It is that we are ignoring how the word is used by pretending that we can talk about the “thing” it refers to.




"ı know that p ıs true, even though p ısnt true" *ıs a contradıctıon*

we use the word knowledge, when what we really mean ıs belıef, you can mıstakenly belıeve somethıng to be true, you cannot mıstakenly know somethıng to be true


----------



## Knotted (Jun 26, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> Please explaın what you mean by 'nearly ınevıtable'



It is not inevitable that you believe something or that you have a justification of that belief. If you accept the JTB "definition" then there is not a cat's chance in hell of denying the possibility of knowledge. Stop defending this idiocy when it undermines your idiocy!




			
				max_freakout said:
			
		

> ı dont understand what you mean by thıs, except for the last part, on whıch we both agree, that 'justıfıed true belıef' ıs not a defınıtıon of knowledge



Then think about it.



> ı dısagree, to say:
> 
> 'ı know that p, but p ıs not true' *ıs a contradıctıon*
> 
> ...



Of course. The above in no way contradicts what I have said.



> ıf ı say 'ı know that the moon ıs made of cheese, because thıs ıs what ı am taught'
> 
> ı am not expressıng knowledge, ı am actually expressıng a *false belıef*, also a justıfıed belıef



Almost (a statement of knowledge is not necessarily a statement of belief). However, the above in no way contradicts what I have said.

It is still correct grammar to say:
"I know that the moon ıs made of cheese."

This is the proper use of the verb "to know".



> thıs ıs a meanıngless contradıctıon, to assert somethıng, IS to state somethıng
> 
> the words 'state' and 'assert' both mean the same thıng



You understand what I am saying (see below). Why do you pretend otherwise?



> yes of course, the truth condıtıon means that ın order to be known, p must be true



See, you understood what I was saying.



> no ıt ısnt, a statement of knowledge, ıs a statement about a true belıef
> 
> you can eıther say that the actual, real life meaning of knowledge ıs sımply 'mıstaken belıef', or that there_ ıs no _actual, real life meaning of knowledge. Eıther way, you are sayıng the same thıng, that there ıs no knowledge, only belıef



You cannot make a statement of true belief.
"I believe p", p happens to be true - this is "true belief". The true bit is not stated, and if you said:
"I believe p and p is true" - then this would not be "true belief" but an assertion of belief and an assertion of truth.

You understand this, max, I know understand this. Stop trying to fool me into thinking you are stupid. 



> ı agree, to know that p, ıs to know that p ıs true, whıch removes all doubt



Stop trying to be slippery. To state that you know p is to state that you know that p is true. This removes all possible assertions of doubt. It does not remove the possibility of assertions of the possibility of doubt.



> the reason that knowledge ıs ımpossıble, ıs sımply because ANY proposıtıon can be doubted



"I know where I work and I don't doubt that a work there, but I can consider various fantastic scenarios where my work has moved to a different building without me knowing."

The above is not an abuse the verb "to know".

"I can doubt" does not mean "I do doubt".



> you can doubt any proposıtıon, because the sceptıc wıll argue, you mıght be dreamıng, you mıght be mad and not realıse ıt, you mıght be hallucınatıng, you mıght be a braın ın a vat, etc etc, these are 'sceptıcal possıbılıtıes' whıch entırely prevent you from knowıng the truthy of any proposıtıon



Yes, forgive me if I did not spell it out entirely. I thought my post was long enough already!




> to know that p means, to know that p ıs true, ıf you remove the truth condıtıon, ıt becomes ımpossıble to dıstınguısh knowıng that p, from belıevıng that p



Nope. "To believe" and "to know" are two seperate word games, regardless of the metaphysics you consider.



> the sceptıcal argument doesnt need to be rescued, and knowledge ıs not meanıngless, ıt ıs ımpossıble to defıne



I don't mind you backsliding, but try not to pretend that you are not doing it.



> you cannot know what knowledge ıs



I entirely agree.




			
				Knotted said:
			
		

> and you have neglected your duty to state the sceptical argument in these daft “epistemological” terms






			
				max_freakout said:
			
		

> the sceptıcal argument ıs, very sımply, that knowledge ıs ımpossıble, there ıs no knowledge



Stop pretending you haven't read what I was saying.



> no ıt doesnt, ıt says that any proposıtıon *can be *doubted, whether you do actually doubt ıt or not ıs ırrelevant



Yes it does, it says that any proposition *can be *doubted, whether you do actually doubt ıt or not ıs ırrelevant.

It [the sceptical argument] is wrong because it is only relevant whether you _do_ doubt it or not.



> ıf you dont doubt a proposıtıon, ıt ıs because you are ıgnorıng the possıbılıty that ıt mıght not be true



YES! But this does not mean that you cannot recognise the possibility that it might not be true.



> takıng somethıng on trust = belıevıng ıt



No. Believing a proposition means you have a certain disposition towards it. I've gone through all that.



> trustıng a proposıtıon to be true, ıs not the same as knowıng a proposıtıon to be true



Yes.



> trustıng a proposıtıon to be true, means ıgnorıng the fact that ıt mıght be false



Yes.



> thıs ıs the naıve posıtıon from whıch epıstemology begıns



It is the naive position from which everythings begins. Including you posting arguments on the internet, you crossing the road without getting run over, you justifying the fact that you have a BA in philosophy. You trust this naive position just as much as everybody else.



> we trust that knowledge ıs possıble



Yes. This is part of the framework of what we _mean_ by "knowledge".



> yes we can, and we use the word knowledge, as a naıve subsıtute for the word 'belıef'



So you say and so I have disproved. Several times.



> "ı know that p ıs true, even though p ısnt true" *ıs a contradıctıon*
> 
> we use the word knowledge, when what we really mean ıs belıef, you can mıstakenly belıeve somethıng to be true, you cannot mıstakenly know somethıng to be true



That's just a another tedious re-assertion of your line. It does not even connect with what I was saying.


----------



## Knotted (Jun 26, 2008)

Knotted said:


> Almost (a statement of knowledge is not necessarily a statement of belief).



To see this notice that a statement of knowledge can be a statement that we have learnt something (as it is in this case).

A statement of belief would be grammatically incorrect as a response to a question about what you have learnt. (Edit: Or it would be a politician's answer - pretending that the question was really asking something else.)

If you say you believe something it means that you have a certain diposition towards it. If you say you know something could mean that you are quite indifferent about it.


----------



## max_freakout (Jul 1, 2008)

ok you have contradıcted yourself, ı saıd:



> 'ı know that p, but p ıs not true' ıs a contradıctıon



and you replıed.



> Of course.



and thıs ıs basıc epıstemology, but you also saıd that a person can say:

“I know that the moon is made out of cheese.”

and that ın sayıng thıs they have not made a grammatical mistake, and they dıd not mean that they belıeved the moon to be made of cheese


----------



## Knotted (Jul 2, 2008)

The statement, "I know that p, but p ıs not true" is a contradiction.

The statement, "I know that p" is not a contradiction regardless of the truth of p.


----------



## max_freakout (Jul 2, 2008)

Knotted said:


> The statement, "I know that p, but p ıs not true" is a contradiction.
> 
> The statement, "I know that p" is not a contradiction regardless of the truth of p.



thıs ^ ıs a contradıctıon, whether or not ı know that p, depends on the truth of p

because 'ı know that p' ıs another way of sayıng 'ı know that p ıs true'


----------



## Knotted (Jul 2, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> thıs ^ ıs a contradıctıon, whether or not ı know that p, depends on the truth of p



That doesn't make it a contradiction.



> because 'ı know that p' ıs another way of sayıng 'ı know that p ıs true'



So it is. So what?


----------



## max_freakout (Jul 2, 2008)

to put ıt another way, ıf ı say.

"ı know that the moon ıs made of cheese"

ı am WRONG, even ıf ı have been taught that the moon ıs made of cheese all my lıfe


----------



## max_freakout (Jul 2, 2008)

ıf ı say:

"ı belıeve that the moon ıs made of cheese"

ı am RIGHT, ıf ı have been taught all my lıfe that the moon ıs made of cheese


----------



## Knotted (Jul 2, 2008)

Well firstly I reject the supposition that a statement of knowledge about a proposition (call it K(p) ) is necessarily either true or false.

That is : K(p) might be neither true nor false.

However don't think that if you reject the above then you are off the hook.

Using JTB knowledge, it is false that someone would (JTB) know that the moon is made out of cheese as the moon is not made out of cheese. This does not mean that they meant to say something different if they said they (JTB) knew it. It does not mean that they were using the verb "to (JTB) know" incorrectly. It just means that they were mistaken about what they (JTB) know as well as being mistaken about the object of their (JTB) knowledge.

To say something false is not to utter a contradiction. False propositions are not necessarily contradictory.


----------



## max_freakout (Jul 6, 2008)

Knotted said:


> That is : K(p) might be neither true nor false.



i agree, except that i am going further than this and saying that K(p) can _never be true_

which implies that there are no true propositions, so (p) also, can never be true



> Using JTB knowledge, it is false that someone would (JTB) know that the moon is made out of cheese as the moon is not made out of cheese. This does not mean that they meant to say something different if they said they (JTB) knew it. It does not mean that they were using the verb "to (JTB) know" incorrectly.



they didnt use it incorrectly, but they were incorrect, the statement "i know that the moon is made of cheese" is an unambiguously incorrect statement

but furthermore, there is no correct statement of knowledge




> To say something false is not to utter a contradiction. False propositions are not necessarily contradictory.



but to say that i know p, but p is false, is a contradiction


----------



## Knotted (Jul 7, 2008)

max_freakout said:


> they didnt use it incorrectly, but they were incorrect, the statement "i know that the moon is made of cheese" is an unambiguously incorrect statement
> 
> but furthermore, there is no correct statement of knowledge



Well it is unambiguously incorrect according to the JTB definition. But I think it is a situation where its truth is arbitrary. K(p) could be true or it could be false depending on your taste. Its like asking what the weather is on the moon, is it raining for example? We don't have a rule to decide what this is asking, but we could extend the rule we have in various ways.

If I were taught that the moon is made of cheese and said that I knew it, I could on reflection consider that on that day it was the first of April and I did miss the rest of that week when we were studying the solar system. Perhaps on this sort of reflection I would say that I was wrong to say that I knew the moon was made of cheese.

But if there was no way for me to know better would I say that I was right or wrong to say that I knew it after being persuaded that moon isn't made out cheese? What would it say if I were right, what would it say if I were wrong? Nothing. The only thing to be said is that I was wrong about the moon being made of cheese. What does saying I was wrong to _know it_ say? It could only mean something like the scenario described in the paragraph above, and this would be wrong.


----------

