Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Yes perfect sense.
It does? But why. You think that a person can know that a proposition is true even if it is false? Doesn't it trouble you that a proposition cannot be both true and false? And you think that a person who says, "I don't care whether what I claim to know is false. I know it anyway", is making sense? In what language?
As I said in previous posts, knowing something is a claim. T.
Knowing something is not a claim. No more than wishing something is a claim. What is a claim is the claim to know. And, the claim to know is not knowing. For you may claim to know and not know. When I say, "I know that Quito is the capital of Bolivia" I am claiming that I know that Quito is the capital of Bolivia. And that claim is false (although it is true that I am making that claim). You really should distinguish between claiming to know, and knowing. What you claim to know is that you know. But that you know is not, itself, a claim. It is what you claim. Claiming that you know is not knowing. That is the point. No more than claiming you are 6 feet tall is being 6 feet tall.
Knowing something is not a claim. No more than wishing something is a claim. What is a claim is the claim to know. And, the claim to know is not knowing. For you may claim to know and not know. When I say, "I know that Quito is the capital of Bolivia" I am claiming that I know that Quito is the capital of Bolivia. And that claim is false (although it is true that I am making that claim). You really should distinguish between claiming to know, and knowing. What you claim to know is that you know. But that you know is not, itself, a claim. It is what you claim. Claiming that you know is not knowing. That is the point. No more than claiming you are 6 feet tall is being 6 feet tall.
Exactly how is it not a claim?, to know it you have to recognize the proposition which in itself is a claim. One does not passively know something. If s/he had never made a mental proposition towards such s/he would not know that s/he knew it, which is why I wrote what I wrote when Amperage asked his question.
Knowing something qua the sensation of a certain fact being in your knowledge is indeed based on truth, yet this truth is only your own truth, justifiable only between you and yourself. While knowledge can be claimed to be derived from the sensory, it is after all your subjective senses which make this knowledge for you. Its actual truth in itself has nothing to do with its being known, and conversely my own truth in respect to whatever this bit of knowledge may be is nothing but a sensory impression - either directly so or derived from such.
Now, what enables us to claim that we know in a social circle is the implicit acceptance of given frames of references within those circles. If I sai "Quito is the Capital of Bolivia", I am assuming of course that Bolivia exists, and of course that the people I tell this too believe that as well. When I make a statement that either does not contradict or itself directly derives from commonly accepted axioms, what I am doing is displaying knowledge. For me it is my knowledge because I had made this observation; for the other, it is their knowledge, as they believe in its principles and find no objections to its logic.
Insofar as what you say is not objectionable to your own self, you know, and insofar as what you say that is not objectionable to others, you can be claimed to know, and insofar as there is a reciprocity from both these parties in which the claims of knowledge are exchanged without any objections, these are truths. Now whether, per se, "Quito is the Capital of Bolivia" will never be known collectively, e.g. in a manner affirmable both subjectively and logically without actually assuming any axioms in the first place.
What is the argument about why rationalists have become rationalists in the first place?
It seems there is no logical argument based on reason why people take only the reason as true medium for knowledge and reject feeling, faith and intuition. Therefore the argument is probably based on good faith, subconscious programmed or just it feels right.
By that statement it seems it's wrong to claim that only the reason is a true medium for knowledge, which implies that it is right to take into consideration the other mentioned mediums for knowledge.
Any thought about this issue?
I know that this argument is going nowhere
Knowing something qua the sensation of a certain fact being in your knowledge is indeed based on truth, yet this truth is only your own truth, justifiable only between you and yourself. While knowledge can be claimed to be derived from the sensory, it is after all your subjective senses which make this knowledge for you. Its actual truth in itself has nothing to do with its being known, and conversely my own truth in respect to whatever this bit of knowledge may be is nothing but a sensory impression - either directly so or derived from such.
Now, what enables us to claim that we know in a social circle is the implicit acceptance of given frames of references within those circles. If I sai "Quito is the Capital of Bolivia", I am assuming of course that Bolivia exists, and of course that the people I tell this too believe that as well. When I make a statement that either does not contradict or itself directly derives from commonly accepted axioms, what I am doing is displaying knowledge. For me it is my knowledge because I had made this observation; for the other, it is their knowledge, as they believe in its principles and find no objections to its logic.
Insofar as what you say is not objectionable to your own self, you know, and insofar as what you say that is not objectionable to others, you can be claimed to know, and insofar as there is a reciprocity from both these parties in which the claims of knowledge are exchanged without any objections, these are truths. Now whether, per se, "Quito is the Capital of Bolivia" will never be known collectively, e.g. in a manner affirmable both subjectively and logically without actually assuming any axioms in the first place.
What is the argument about why rationalists have become rationalists in the first place?
It seems there is no logical argument based on reason why people take only the reason as true medium for knowledge and reject feeling, faith and intuition. Therefore the argument is probably based on good faith, subconscious programmed or just it feels right.
By that statement it seems it's wrong to claim that only the reason is a true medium for knowledge, which implies that it is right to take into consideration the other mentioned mediums for knowledge.
Any thought about this issue?
That's because you persist in thinking that when you claim you know, you know. But people claim to know many things they don't know. And you persist in thinking that when you know you claim to know. But I may know many things that I do not claim to know. The question is, why do you persist in confusion knowing with claiming to know? If you could get over that, the conversation (you have not, so far proposed any argument) can get going.
---------- Post added 04-16-2010 at 03:21 AM ----------
My brother knows that all dogs are mammals. But he has not claimed (or said) he knows that all dogs are mammals. So, what is he claiming?
you can be claimed to know,
That sentence is not English. What does it mean?
When I make a statement that either does not contradict or itself directly derives from commonly accepted axioms, what I am doing is displaying knowledge.
Suppose I make this statement: My dog's name is "Spot". How does that statement meet your criterion for knowledge you stated above?
See how the argument is going nowhere, I knew it. I persist in this you persist in that... I say cogent argument you say tomato, I say well planned explanation you a potato ........ lets call the whole thing off.
The argument is going no where because you refuse to deal with it. For example, you do not deal with the question why you say that knowledge is a claim rather than that claiming knowledge is a claim. If you don't deal with a legitimate question like that, then you are to blame for what happens to the argument. Suppose you try to answer my question.
My brother knows that all dogs are mammals. But he has not claimed (or said) he knows that all dogs are mammals. So, what is he claiming?
you can be claimed to know,
That sentence is not English. What does it mean?
When I make a statement that either does not contradict or itself directly derives from commonly accepted axioms, what I am doing is displaying knowledge.
Suppose I make this statement: My dog's name is "Spot". How does that statement meet your criterion for knowledge you stated above?