First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
knowledge is unknowable
963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 6/28/08
but we can not prove anything, we only think what we sense exists. this existence could be a hallucination, there is always a possibility.
everything we assume to be knowledge is actualy just belief, for there is no way of knowing it is true or not.
963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 6/28/08

SimplyBill wrote:


simo2332 wrote:

but we can not prove anything, we only think what we sense exists. this existence could be a hallucination, there is always a possibility.
everything we assume to be knowledge is actualy just belief, for there is no way of knowing it is true or not.


Very paradoxical indeed.

but we can not prove anything, we only think what we sense exists. this existence could be a hallucination, there is always a possibility.


If everything has a possibility, that means that there is a possibility in "proving anything". Your statement is being equivocal.


everything we assume to be knowledge is actualy just belief, for there is no way of knowing it is true or not.


There is a way of knowing it is true or not. After all, science and logic existed because of it.



it is paradoxal but if you get your head around that then you can understand it.

VV by excalion who has worded it alot better lolz
"In order to have knowledge, we must have a reliable means of obtaining it. In order for a means to be reliable, it has to reliably produce the correct result. In order for us to distinguish the validity of the result, we must be able to distinguish the correct from the incorrect, and which by definition is a process that requires knowledge."

i cant be sure of anything
not even this ^^
963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 6/28/08

SimplyBill wrote:


simo2332 wrote:


SimplyBill wrote:


simo2332 wrote:

but we can not prove anything, we only think what we sense exists. this existence could be a hallucination, there is always a possibility.
everything we assume to be knowledge is actualy just belief, for there is no way of knowing it is true or not.


Very paradoxical indeed.

but we can not prove anything, we only think what we sense exists. this existence could be a hallucination, there is always a possibility.


If everything has a possibility, that means that there is a possibility in "proving anything". Your statement is being equivocal.


everything we assume to be knowledge is actualy just belief, for there is no way of knowing it is true or not.


There is a way of knowing it is true or not. After all, science and logic existed because of it.



it is paradoxal but if you get your head around that then you can understand it.

VV by excalion who has worded it alot better lolz
"In order to have knowledge, we must have a reliable means of obtaining it. In order for a means to be reliable, it has to reliably produce the correct result. In order for us to distinguish the validity of the result, we must be able to distinguish the correct from the incorrect, and which by definition is a process that requires knowledge."

i cant be sure of anything
not even this ^^


I believe that science and logic is an enough means in producing correct result. The way I see it, everything will just go circular.


im not saying science and logic are wrong, or saying that the universe does not exist. im just saying we can never know for sure.


963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 6/29/08 , edited 6/29/08

SimplyBill wrote:


simo2332 wrote:

im not saying science and logic are wrong, or saying that the universe does not exist. im just saying we can never know for sure.


That is a matter of belief. We could be wrong, but we could be right.


you get me lolz


edsamac wrote:

Sounds like Descartes Universal Methodical Doubt. The question shouldn't lie on simply delineating the limit of human reason; rather, understanding the meaning in living an otherwise unverifiable existence in the face of shame and/or doubt. Does it mean anything to you, now, knowing that knowledge, as far as the conceptual frame work of one's beliefs, is something that is potentially fallible?

I believe the problem with doubters like Descartes (initially) is that probing on something as unfruitful as the validity of existence is meaningless in the face of the fact of the matter that we do, indeed, exist and are components of a reality that demands our response as an embodied existence. Therefore, though knowledge be "unknowable", as you may so speak, it is undoubtedly "indispensable", as it is the very framework that holds together the very integrity of the embodied human in the world ~ not simply as an animal, but as a human species, as a whole.

So it's not a question of us not understanding what knowledge is ~ that's already past the point. The fact of the matter is that we do have knowledge, that it is, indeed, an experienced reality, and that this experienced reality is far more worth reflecting upon then simply trying to decide whether or not we are being lied to by an existence that is nothing more than "unreal". But simple primary reflection will tell you that you are real, and that your existence and experiences are "real".

It is this very fact that human knowledge is so limited that we are pushed to pursue it. I hope you don't make this statement a dead end, whatever it is you're trying to push forward by introducing this concept. Simply knowing the paradox of knowledge (or of human existence, rather) is still very shallow, and means nothing if you don't, at the very least, apply it and analyze it to understand what it has to say on your life.


And for the sake of discussion, I'm moving this thread to the ED section.


lolz sorry i must of missed this post, and no one ever posts on ED ¬_¬

i was not saying that our existence is a lie, i was just saying that it could be.

" I hope you don't make this statement a dead end, whatever it is you're trying to push forward by introducing this concept. Simply knowing the paradox of knowledge (or of human existence, rather) is still very shallow, and means nothing if you don't, at the very least, apply it and analyze it to understand what it has to say on your life."

this seems very existential, and im a nihilist. this concept is bigger then me and my view of existence, what i do is of no importance. one day i will die and all of this will be forgotten, but atleast during my short life span i found the one truth which is, there is no truth.
maybe this is a dead end, does it matter? not really.

78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 6/29/08 , edited 6/29/08

simo2332 wrote:

this seems very existential, and im a nihilist. this concept is bigger then me and my view of existence, what i do is of no importance. one day i will die and all of this will be forgotten, but atleast during my short life span i found the one truth which is, there is no truth.
maybe this is a dead end, does it matter? not really.


Isn't all knowledge greater than ourselves? If that is your stand, then you're simply lying to yourself to exist in the first place. If you truly believe that what you do is of no importance, then fulfill your destiny and end your existence, now. But I know you won't do that, simply because you cherish your existence, to a certain extent.

And it is this "unimportance of existence" that allows us to question our existence. It puts our actions to question, and tempers the thought of either resigning to the futility of life or challenging the limitedness of human capabilities by exploring one's potentials as a human being. You make your pick, but I'm simply saying that working on the frame work of "knowledge being unknown" is a fruitless statement if it's just to pose the fact that you find paradoxes cool.

I deduced from your statements that you were posing the idea that human knowledge (or reason, to a certain extent) is limited, and from their, it questions the validity of existence ~ I didn't say that you directly said this. Whether or not you're aware of this association is beyond me, but my point is simply to stress that the questioning of human existence, from the basis of saying what we may know is limited, doesn't say much other than what is external to us cannot be grasped completely.

Similarly, what is inside of us, or the metaphysical reality of our own being, is something that may be initially difficult to perceive ~ but when examined through the lenses of philosophical searching, can actually turn out to be the only indubitable reality you may ever realize; which is the very reason for Descartes' raving come the third chapter of his reflections. Whether or not you're willing to see past the paradoxes and "look at the bigger picture" is really up to you; and whether or not you want to find meaning in an otherwise pointless life, is also up to you.

You don't need to play with the rhetoric and question whether or not what you're saying is a dead end ~ it is a dead end. Whether or not it matters is up to you, and I guess it really doesn't matter to you. With that, your philosophical studies has finally ground to a halt, and you're pretty much done with everything. I, for one, think that such a stagnant philosophy may limit your own development as an individual ~ but that's simply my opinion, and my concern. It's true I don't have to work myself up over someone like you, but I simply want to point out the dangers of such a close-minded philosophy, and perhaps you'd want to really consider the "bigger picture", even if it's just for the sake of understanding what it means to "exist".
963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 6/29/08 , edited 6/29/08

edsamac wrote:


simo2332 wrote:

this seems very existential, and im a nihilist. this concept is bigger then me and my view of existence, what i do is of no importance. one day i will die and all of this will be forgotten, but atleast during my short life span i found the one truth which is, there is no truth.
maybe this is a dead end, does it matter? not really.


Isn't all knowledge greater than ourselves? If that is your stand, then you're simply lying to yourself to exist in the first place. If you truly believe that what you do is of no importance, then fulfill your destiny and end your existence, now. But I know you won't do that, simply because you cherish your existence, to a certain extent.

And it is this "unimportance of existence" that allows us to question our existence. It puts our actions to question, and tempers the thought of either resigning to the futility of life or challenging the limitedness of human capabilities by exploring one's potentials as a human being. You make your pick, but I'm simply saying that working on the frame work of "knowledge being unknown" is a fruitless statement if it's just to pose the fact that you find paradoxes cool.

I deduced from your statements that you were posing the idea that human knowledge (or reason, to a certain extent) is limited, and from their, it questions the validity of existence ~ I didn't say that you directly said this. Whether or not you're aware of this association is beyond me, but my point is simply to stress that the questioning of human existence, from the basis of saying what we may know is limited, doesn't say much other than what is external to us cannot be grasped completely.

Similarly, what is inside of us, or the metaphysical reality of our own being, is something that may be initially difficult to perceive ~ but when examined through the lenses of philosophical searching, can actually turn out to be the only indubitable reality you may ever realize; which is the very reason for Descartes' raving come the third chapter of his reflections. Whether or not you're willing to see past the paradoxes and "look at the bigger picture" is really up to you; and whether or not you want to find meaning in an otherwise pointless life, is also up to you.

You don't need to play with the rhetoric and question whether or not what you're saying is a dead end ~ it is a dead end. Whether or not it matters is up to you, and I guess it really doesn't matter to you. With that, your philosophical studies has finally ground to a halt, and you're pretty much done with everything. I, for one, think that such a stagnant philosophy may limit your own development as an individual ~ but that's simply my opinion, and my concern. It's true I don't have to work myself up over someone like you, but I simply want to point out the dangers of such a close-minded philosophy, and perhaps you'd want to really consider the "bigger picture", even if it's just for the sake of understanding what it means to "exist".


im not going to kid myself by thinking there is some attainable perfection, or beautiful existence just waiting for me. if you look at it all from the view of scientific theory, then every thing is dim; alls thats ever going to happen in existence will be matter/energy moving about, we as humans are a accident and so is our universe, we are all just animals with the instinct of reproduction, and people continue to reproduce even tho its usless. eventualy we die after making our futile attempt to go on, our gasses go back in to the enviroment and the cycle continues. the human race is just a big chemical reaction. im just a load of matter in a certain formation.

thats the bigger picture, but a even bigger picture yet; we dont even know if any of that is true.
and what do you mean by "some like you"? is there really much diffrence?
your just atoms and so am i.
i know what it means to exist, its not all that great. its just existence.

78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 6/30/08 , edited 6/30/08
^ first you said you're a nihilist; but now, you're just sounding like an empiricist. That's you're idea of the bigger picture? You're thinking far too literally... and I don't want to bother discussing it with you, if that's you're view of the "bigger picture" ~ more so if that's you're idea of the infinite, or "absolute", as Descartes would put it.
963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M
Offline
Posted 6/30/08

edsamac wrote:

^ first you said you're a nihilist; but now, you're just sounding like an empiricist. That's you're idea of the bigger picture? You're thinking far too literally... and I don't want to bother discussing it with you, if that's you're view of the "bigger picture" ~ more so if that's you're idea of the infinite, or "absolute", as Descartes would put it.



im not a empiricist, i was just describing reallity with scientific theory. the knowledge is unknowable thing is the biggest thing i can think of, unless you know of something else?. as for the absolute, i dont think we can know it, and even if we did i think it would pointless, but i would not mind hearing what you think about it?.

1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 6/30/08

simo2332 wrote:

all knowledge is unknowable.
i will explain.
all knowledge is based on information
for information to be classed as knowledge and not just belief, we must know it is true
there is no way of knowing if any information is true or false, therefore all knowledge is actualy belief.

VV by excalion who has worded it alot better lolz
"In order to have knowledge, we must have a reliable means of obtaining it. In order for a means to be reliable, it has to reliably produce the correct result. In order for us to distinguish the validity of the result, we must be able to distinguish the correct from the incorrect, and which by definition is a process that requires knowledge."

and heres the wiki article about it V
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#Acquiring_knowledge

we obtain information through our senses, we have no way of knowing if this information is correct. we dont even know if we have senses, this could actualy all be a dream ect. we could be something completely different from what we think we are.

even tho the statement; all knowledge is unknowable, is obviously paradoxal, it still stands as the only thing i can be sure of.
^ that was also paradoxal lolz


It is not reasonable to doubt the senses are accurate even though there is no way to prove they are so. Let me make a couple of observations about thought. First, introspection will reveal that when you think, you always think about something. There must be some object to any particular thought, whether that object is a car, or a horse. It may also be about a concept like "blue," which can be reduced to the perceptual level. (A thought can also have another thought as its object, but in those cases the object-thought will be about something sensory.) This implies directly that one must perceive, in order to think. A person who has never perceived anything will be empty of thought.

Your mind would be totally empty, if not for your perceptual faculty. All of your memories, concepts, and beliefs come from this faculty. To use any of those concepts, memories, or beliefs to attack it is to be guilty of a contradiction. In accepting ANY concept, you implicitly affirm your perceptual faculty, since that's where the concept came from. If you then proceed to use that concept against your perceptual faculty, you are saying that you accept the concept, but not the faculty from which it came. You are saying that your perceptual faculty is both valid and invalid: that A is not A.

Consider the simple assertion: "my perceptions are false." This person is ready to doubt the accuracy of his eyes and ears. What he is not willing to doubt is that some things are false, a statement that he could not affirm unless he already accepted the evidence of his senses: that there is a reality against which truth and falsity may be judged. Deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, and indeed reason as such, presuppose the accuracy of the senses. So here's my assertion: you can't say or think anything, anything at all, that does not presuppose the accuracy of your senses.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 6/30/08 , edited 6/30/08
The entire premise of the first thread is logically wrong by its grammar. Knowledge cannot be 'unknowable', since it presupposes an objective world which there is "true" knowledge. The certainty of knowledge cannot be verified.

The actual question of the OP should be: can we ever be sure that the information gained from our perceptions corresponds to the 'truth' of an objective world?

P.S. Descartes' assumptions ("I think, therefore I am", the idea of perfection -----> the existence of God) are faulty.
1283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Everywhere you wa...
Offline
Posted 6/30/08
I think everyone who studies philosophy has a short love affair with Solipsism before realizing that the line of reasoning that brings us to it accomplishes nothing. It is a useless idea.
3022 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / in my computer
Offline
Posted 7/25/08
i think there is two kinds of knowledge. one that is obtained throught textbooks and facts and science. then the other one is experiencing urself, ur opinions that u just knw to b true caz the explanation is simple "i believe caz i experienced it". it is true that we hav no way of knwing whether it is all true. even all the science we hav known upto now could hav been all false. caz they r all just laws made by humans to make life better. so if there was a mistake in the most basic thing that scientists cannot experiment or even think it is false, everything else that follows the false basic thing would be actually wrong while we all believe itz true. its like saying since all the evidence that the police knws shows this person as a murderer we all go along with it. but there could b unknown things that cannot b explained caz we do not knw the other evidences or even knw that there r possibilities of other evidences. so i conclusion knowledge is not trustable or reliable.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.