Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Truth

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

1.There is nothing but knowledge, or knowing is everything [I'm sure you agree].
2.Knowledge is an impossibility [ I'll prove this below Conclusion #1].
3.The universe or reality itself consists of propositions #1 and #2.
4.Propositions #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive.
5.Therefore the universe or reality is an impossibility since its premises cannot coexist.
6.But the universe is real and it exists based on empirical evidence [I'm sure you won't deny this].

Conclusion #1
Knowledge cannot be but it's all there is and ever was; therefore, it's an illusion [in the sense that knowledge is not what it appears to be].

What is knowledge and why it's impossible: Knowledge is nothing other than the belief This, not that; or only perceived discrimination between space-time events presumed to be nonidentical, without any scientific or otherwise conclusive evidence. [Knowledge is also the antithesis of God or Enlightenment for it is the fundamental rejection of monism or Unity - the principal characteristic of God or the very ideal of religion itself.] This is why:

1.Before we can know something, we have to be able to distinguish it from other things it is not by pointing precisely and exclusively at its (and not something else's) space-time coordinates.
2.Before we can point to the precise and exclusive space-time coordinates of something, we have to know what it is and that necessitates knowing everything else that it is not.
3.Propositions #1 and #2 presuppose each other (i.e., neither can be realized before the other).

Conclusion #2
Knowledge is a logical impossibility but it is all there is.

Conclusion #3
This world cannot be since it consists of knowledge only but it is.

Conclusion #4
We have no idea what is really going on.

Conclusion #5
The basic human experience consists of the fact that we do not determine a single aspect nor moment of it.

@Permafrost,

Permafrost;145616 wrote:

What is knowledge and why it's impossible: .

Don't you know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador? If you don't, you had better look it up.

@kennethamy,

Please look up: 1)Fallacy of irrelevance; 2)Argumentum ad Hominem (Appeal to personal ridicule); and 3)Argumentum ad Populum (Americans think that truth does not exist).

@Permafrost,

"Americans think that truth does not exist"

Americans are mistaken

@Marat phil,

Marat;145645 wrote:

"Americans think that truth does not exist"

Americans are mistaken

If they believe that, then they are certainly mistaken. But why would anyone think that was true?

@Permafrost,

"If they believe that, then they are certainly mistaken. But why would anyone think that was true?"

This is Liotar's postmodern.

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 12:54 PM ----------

First sign of Human's Decadance

@Marat phil,

Marat;145652 wrote:

"If they believe that, then they are certainly mistaken. But why would anyone think that was true?"

This is Liotar's postmodern.

What on earth is that? What is a Liotar?

@Permafrost,

Liotar - French philosopher the postmodernist who has very in detail studied modern culture

@Marat phil,

Marat;145645 wrote:

"Americans think that truth does not exist"

Americans are mistaken

No we Ain't! And we've got plenty of bombs to prove it

@Permafrost,

"В любой компромисс между добром и злом, это только зло, которое может прибыли".

This is true.

@Marat phil,

Marat;145656 wrote:

Liotar - French philosopher the postmodernist who has very in detail studied modern culture

Are you sure it isn't, "Liotard"?

@Permafrost,

"Conclusion #2 - 5"

Game by terms and words it - sophistic. Age of presocratics. Real world is base of all philosophical terminology.

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 01:09 PM ----------

"Are you sure it isn't, "Liotard"?

Yes. My mistake. Sorry

@Permafrost,

If you think I'm wrong, explain why. Try an argument instead of mere assertions.

@Permafrost,

Permafrost;145669 wrote:

If you think I'm wrong, explain why. Try an argument instead of mere assertions.

Wrong about what? That no one knows anything? I just pointed out to you that I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. What makes you think I don't know that? You would need to get evidence that Quito is not the capital of Ecuador. Have you any?

@Permafrost,

I'm not saying knowledge does not exist. I'm saying that it cannot exist logically but it does empirically; hence its non-rational nature that is beyond comprehension. And since knowledge is all there is (all experience is a variation of I know this or that), our very experience as human beings is by definition NOT what it appears to be to us. Knowledge is an illusion as in, it is not what we think it is.

@Permafrost,

Permafrost;145675 wrote:

I'm not saying knowledge does not exist. I'm saying that it cannot exist logically but it does empirically; hence it's non-rational nature that is beyond comprehension. And since knowledge is all there is (all experience is a variation of I know this or that), our very experience as human beings is by definition NOT what it appears to be to us. Knowledge is an illusion as in, it is not what we think it is.

It cannot exist logically, but it can empirically? I suggest that you take another look at your logic. That's like people who used to say that giraffes cannot exist logically, but that they seem to be all around Africa.

@Permafrost,

Liotard know danger that in modern culture of word, phrases, concepts lose former sense and communication with the validity. The text starts to exist separately from the person and the nature (the person nature part). There is MAINTENANCE loss. You assert that: "Knowledge cannot be but it's all there is and ever was; therefore, it's an illusion [in the sense that knowledge is not what it appears to be]".

But why we should reject traditions of languages (English, Russian, French)? Really to you - to the western philosophers - it is close within the limits of old European culture? Why we should invent new senses?

---------- Post added 03-29-2010 at 01:28 PM ----------

{sorry for my english - this is bad programm}

@Permafrost,

My initial post explains and proves this point. Go and read it. To put it succinctly; knowledge presupposes itself, that we can know before we can know. Go and read the precise explanation before continuing to make mere assertions and irrelevant analogies.

@Marat phil,

Marat;145677 wrote:

Why we should invent new senses?

We can if there is a use for new senses. But not if the new sense is not defined, and if there is no point in inventing it. Then, it leads only to confusion. And often, to nonsense.

@Marat phil,

Marat, I'm not inventing new senses or definitions for words. All I'm saying is based on common knowledge and common sense. Only standard dictionary definitions.

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Truth

Quick Links

My Account

able2know