One thing I know for sure: Some philosopher with his head in the clouds can say we don't really know anything. Come back to planet Earth, where we know all sorts of things. I know I own a cat. I know what street I live on. I know 2 +2 = 4. I know if I drop a bowling ball on my groin it will hurt like hell.
In philosophy there's a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Wisdom is acquired experience. You understand that if you drop a bowling ball on your foot that it will hurt because you are wise of gravity, pain, etc. Knowledge though, comes from truth. You cannot know truth without knowing. It's circular reasoning, I am aware of this, but that's how it works. Humans cannot naturally know anything at all, we cannot know any truth or why something works the way it does. All we can do is guess as to why something functions as it does by using completely human thought processes. Logic, Reason, our minds excel in both, and is capable of meta-cognition (being able to think about thoughts), which is one of the great abilities that define us as unique from other species. Reason, sight, smell, touch, auditory, and taste, are all humans have to examine and make order of the nonsense of a universe we were created in. That's not much, and even those senses are extremely, extremely, weak. What I mean by that is, though we can see, we can only see @ the equivalent speed of 60 frames per second, nothing faster will render different, we can only see so far, and so near, we can only see a tiny fragment of the entire electromagnetic spectrum and so on. Each of our senses are just as weak if not more-so. What real knowledge can you gain about anything this way? I understand, for myself, the closest thing to knowledge that I hold is that I exist, just as Descartes pointed out with the popular saying "I think therefor I am" in his work: Meditations on First Philosophy.
How do you know you own a cat? How do you know the cat does not own you? Can you understand that your perspective on reality is completely subjective, and while there may well be a host of people who share your perspective, that in no way means it is objective reality? How do you know what street you live on? Would you feel you knew if, every morning, when you walked outside, the street sign held a different name? How do you know that you know? How do you know 2 + 2 = 4? Because you learned it in school? Because the rest of the world agrees? What if 2 + 2 = 7? How would you ever discover it? Could you ever manage to even try to understand that your 'knowledge' is, more often than not, based either upon what someone else told you was true, what some authority insists you accept as true, or your own direct, personal experience? How much of what you think you know is the result of your own, direct, personal, experience in life? If you honestly think about it, you will be surprised.... and if you're really thinking about it, you'll have to admit that the criteria for thinking we know something is far easier to meet than the one for proving how we know it. And even the proof is little more than the same 'authority' or 'accepted thought' that itself hinges on another authority or accepted thought... regress, regress, regress. In the end, you say you "know" something because you BELIEVE you know it. Nothing more.
I know I own a cat because ownership is a human construction. A cat can't own a human. If I woke up on a different street every day, maybe I wouldn't know what street I lived on. But that is irrelevent. That's like saying how would I know I was human if I was a dog. Well, in that situation I wouldn't. Tell me, if I didn't know what street I lived on, how come when I give someone my address the mail reaches me? Similarly, I know 2 + 2 = 4 because I can take two things and add two more things and count four total things. It isn't hard. This is true even without experience. I can imagine two things being added to two things and see four things in my head. Let me ask you: If I don't know how to tie my shoes, how do they get tied? If I don't know how to drive, how did I get home last night? If I don't know how to play a C chord on my guitar, then how is it I am capable of playing a C chord? If the both of us don't know any languages, how is this communication possible? I guess I can't expect a response, seeing as how you don't know how to use a computer.
The people who answer no to this question and write an argument supporting their position must, as a matter of consistency, admit that they really don't know that one can never know. So no matter how clever their argument is, no matter how logical it is, they must concede that their argument is not sufficient for them to really know that you can never really know something. Given this I say that one can really know something. Perhaps this is the only thing that one can ever really know.
You miss a critical point that upends your argument completely -- the mind that says 'All I can know is that I know nothing' is willing to admit that even that statement is a belief. If you can understand the difference, you're overdue for switching your vote. If not, feel free to do nothing.
I think you do not understand what I wrote because this is precisely what I said. The fact that one who believes that nothing can be known must concede that even this is unknown leads me to answer yes to the question posed in this debate. What I wrote was part levity. There is a bit of absurdity trying to argue that one can't know anything. The argument can't be too convincing!
Consider me holding a mirror up to you and pointing out that precision is the point in this debate and the only precision you've displayed is in avoiding the point. I'll reiterate it: All knowledge is belief. Naturally, the previous statement is implicit in any statement of 'knowledge' on the part of one who makes it. Thus you are incorrect in your assumption that it is a statement of knowledge. Applying your perspective is your prerogative, but that doesn't mean it's automatically primary for anyone but you. Feel free to try again.
"All knowledge is belief." Are you sure? Really, really sure? Do you, dare I ask it? Do you really know this?
Are you telling me that you truly do not understand that the position that knowledge is not possible makes any statement uttered by one holding the position implicitly a belief?
Yes, to a degree. That degree isn't absolute, but a. nothing is, b. it shouldn't have to be.
There are certain axioms that are "knowable" to an absolute. For example: Something exists. If you think that something is matter and energy, or just the illusion of matter and energy, something still exists, and I challenge anyone to falsifying that.
There is a belief that something exists. It is a commonly held and easily reinforced belief. That does not make it an absolute certainty. All systems of belief begin with an assertion that is considered axiomatic. The key word here being 'considered', an assumption that a particular thing or set of things is true. A belief. Specifically, a belief that is treated as if it is knowledge. That does not, however make it so.
Explain to my why my knowledge that something exist is not absolutely and justifiably certain? Earth exists, and if it isn't material; if it exists solely in your mind; and if our mind does not exist, the illusion or dream of it does. Other absolute certainties would be tautological claims too. The Randian "A = A" for example.
That would be the aforementioned axiom. Try making the same point without it. You'll find it impossible, which is my point. You only 'know' when your assumptions are believed to be true. It is the only way you can know and it isn't really knowing at all, it is believing that you know.
Descartes got this one right in his famous "I think; therefore, I am" argument. The mere fact that you think that nothing is an absolute certainty should prove to you that something exists. You wouldn't be able to consider the issue, if something didn't exist. "That something exists" is a self-justifying assertion. If you can assert it, it is true.
I think if I can see and understand the reasoning behind something, and it's based on information that's beyond reasonable doubt, then I know it. You can make arguments about the nature of knowledge and proof based on things like existentialism, or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in physics, but neither of those have much relevance to real life, so I'd rather just say that I know that I can know.
No, you do not know it. You assume you do. You conclude you do. You believe you do. You do not know you do. What you'd "rather" isn't the point. The point is, literally, that you cannot ever, really know. The criteria for true knowledge has never been met. The best we manage is a strong belief of knowledge. There is yet a difference.
I cannot know it. I believe it. Do you get it yet?
That's a very good argument. Belief =/= knowledge. I think I actually agree with you for once. However, it's silly to make a debate about philosophical concepts without explaining the concepts first.
All knowledge begins with propositions that are self-evident. Self-evident truths are immediately and directly knowable and resist 'proof'. For example, I know which body it is that I inhabit. But if you were to ask for proof of that knowledge, I would be at a loss. I know that the Law of Non-Contradiction ('A' is not 'Not A') must be true. If I were to try and prove the Law, I would first have to assume the law, same goes for the reverse. All those who say that we cannot know anything contradict themselves by stating a (supposedly) true proposition. If we could not know these things with apodictic certainty, then we could not know anything. Regarding our ability to apprehend reality: some have mentioned that our apprehension of reality is subjective and limited. While this is true, this does not mean that there is no objective reality.
Yes. All "knowledge" is based upon assumption and the 'point at which one feels certain' is not the same as 'a certainty'. The underlying point which remains unassailable is that belief is not knowledge. It is belief. Calling it knowledge is certainly something people will do (and do, etc.) but it doesn't change that the two are not the same, even when they are assumed to be so.
A wonderful debate! While ‘Sure. Absolutely’ may not sound exactly what I mean, I would like to propose two views that conclude that you really can know. The first is that if knowledge is a result of your beliefs and perceptions, then you ‘know’ what you know, therefore you know, and have no reason to believe otherwise. The second one, that is my personal belief, is that the human soul is in pursuit of knowledge that it senses somehow, but knows is out of its reach due to its human constraints. The personal search for knowledge thus transcends worldly limits and seeks communion with divinity in a state of being next to Godliness, though the “I”, or “you”, ceases to exist. This is of course the spiritual path that one cannot ‘know’ without the knowledge that they know nothing, and take their first steps towards enlightenment. So if this makes any sense, I guess that you can know without knowing anything, or you can know that you know nothing. In either case, you know and you don’t know at the same time.
can a woman be a good christian when her poontang smells a litlle sour ?
|
One can have all the knowledge in the world, but without understanding it means nothing.
Philosophy has its own language with precise meanings for words that we commonly use. I won't pretend to understand the meaning of the word "know" in a philosophical context, so I'll just argue from my own point of view. What I've learned is that there are many different levels of reality depending upon one's frame of reference. I would imagine that the world would appear very different if we were conscious at the level of the electron, the atom or the cell. Not to mention that as biological organisms we are limited only to the capabilities of the sensory organs that we are endowed with. It's kind of like light. Our eyes only have the capacity to distinguish a small part of the spectrum called visible light. There must be gaps that our senses aren't capable of perceiving. Our reality is 3 dimensional. We can scarcely conceive of 4 dimensions let alone 10. How can we "know" there aren't other things out there that our senses, our brain, can't register. Can we form a predictable enough picture of our reality so that we can achieve great things with our efforts, our imagination, our consciousness? Maybe, but can our limited biology "know" about the true nature of reality? Probably about as much as we can understand infinity.
Well said and spot on. Knowing does have a very specific meaning in epistemology, and most who use the term do so in any way but accurately. The underlying point here being more to try and spark the level of consideration you demonstrate here than see this debate 'be won'.
Even if you could hold all of the knowledge in the entire world in your brain you would still eventually die, and that knowledge will be gone as the brain it is housed in dies. In the end, you know nothing. To know, is to be alive.
Really, we cannot even know that we don't know. It's an odd thing, knowledge is. Though it's a human concept, like truth, we cannot define it with examples from nature, or in other words, from the existence in which we were all created. If you don't understand either Knowledge or Truth, you'll find that you can know both, and it's a simple answer, and both have very definable meanings... but if you look up both words, they are backed with a lot of history, and a lot of meanings that sort of counter each other... but if you take out what little bits and pieces match up, within all of the words to describe them, there is a definable meaning, but it's entirely impossible to reach for any kind of life imaginable. All we have as humans, is wisdom.
It seems like every time I think I KNOW something it turns out I don't. I've done enough research on global warming to make the average person think I'm crazy, and it still makes me dizzy.
|
