Rational argument about why rationalists are rationalists?

@kennethamy,

Yes perfect sense.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;152430 wrote:

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?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;152433 wrote:

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. The knowing is not true. Just as claiming Quito as the Capital of Equador does not make it true. Quito is the capital of equador no matter my claim. If in my realm of influence Quito is the capital of bolivia and I act as such and have no contrary information that might convince me otherwise, I am justified in making the claim that it is the capital of Bolivia, or "I know quito is the capital of Bolivia". The truth and the claim about the truth are two different phenomena only related to each on a superficial level. This tenuous connection is easily broken when at some point additional information about what is true comes along to convince you otherwise. At that point there is simply another assertion that, " I am justified in saying X is true" or " I know X".

Thus one must admit to not knowing anything because knowledge as such would require one to know the truth about it and establishing truth as we have discussed in various threads is nigh impossible. Or one must claim to know things based from an axiom, whether it be empirical, phenomenological, spiritual etc..., in which case there is no real correlation with truth, only the axiom on which the justification is built.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;152439 wrote:

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.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;152478 wrote:

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.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;152478 wrote:

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 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.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;152480 wrote:

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.

How is it a claim? It may be a fact that you know something, but it is no more a claim than that you own a computer is a claim. That you know something is just a fact about you, as that you own a computer is a fact about you. You can, of course, claim that you own a computer, and you can claim that you know that Quito is the capital of Bolivia. And both claims can be true or they can be false. But to claim something you have to say something. And to know something is not to say something. So knowing is not a claim. "I know that Quito is the capital of Bolivia" is, of course, a claim. It is a claim that I know that Quito is the capital of Bolivia. But although my saying that I know is a claim, my knowing is not a claim. Isn't that obvious? Just because when I say I know that p, I am making a claim, that does not mean that knowing that p is a claim. Of course, whether my claim that I know that p is true depends on whether it is true that I know that p. There is a difference between saying you know that p, and knowing that p. Saying you know that p is a claim. Your knowing that p is not a claim. Saying you have dark hair is a claim, but your having dark hair is not a claim.

---------- Post added 04-15-2010 at 08:39 PM ----------

Baal;152489 wrote:

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.

Could you say what point you are trying to make?

@kennethamy,

I know that this argument is going nowhere

@Braveheart phil,

Braveheart;152296 wrote:

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?

Good point. Do you know of this book? Reason takes a good look in the mirror. Critique of Pure Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;152614 wrote:

I know that this argument is going nowhere

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 ----------

Baal;152489 wrote:

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.

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?

@Braveheart phil,

Braveheart;152296 wrote:

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?

The first two are logical fallacies.

I ask you this, proposition me an argument using nothing other than your feelings, faith, or intuition and understand how utterly Subjective such things are.

After which, contemplate the implications of such an argument, and what substantial impact an argument based on ones personal feelings, faith, or intuition would have on reality and then further question the difference between these implications and simple thoughts.

Furthermore, ask what you consider reality and if at this point you still feel confident that this is a valid methodology then return and show your thinking.

At the moment, I would say that the best way to answer that question would be, Rationalism is the closest way to ensure objectivity in 'theory', and to insure validity in Empiricism.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;152665 wrote:

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.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead;152795 wrote:

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.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;152817 wrote:

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.

Look I know I am not going to convince you that the recognition of knowledge in one's self is a claim to that knowledge. That one does not simply have knowledge as a state of being. Or that simply to possess it means to actively use it as part of your behavioral being. Obviously you will not convince me of the other. Taunting me into saying the same thing I have already said by saying the same thing you have already said, and giving answers to your questions that you obviously will not respond to with anything aside from what you have already said is not going to change anything. We have established positions where you are quite obviosuly using a different set of axioms from which you base your theory about this than I am. It is a full out ideological standoff. we cannot get any deeper than the very presupposition upon which the arguments are built, and we are already there. What do you think will happen when we have said everything we can say about an issue but persist in butting heads still. At that point its just ego's striving to prove that they are right, and has lost all credible philosophical merit.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;152665 wrote:

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?

First, the notion of claim can be taken in the sense of ex-claim or pro-claim, this is a statement that is essentially manifest as external knowledge which is meant to be understood according to principles and that will hopefully appeal to a common sense. Although this is called common sense, what is really being appealed to is a common axiom which claims to represent common sense. In other words, what makes this sense common and what allows people to appeal to common sense in a non-sensory fashion (claim) is precisely because of the mutual agreement among them that this set of principles and axioms directly derive from some sense. It is only through the formalization of these axioms and principles from which this commonality actually asserts itself.

Thus, by "being claimed to know", I am saying that any claim -- any common knowledge makes a double sided claim; first it makes the claim of the sensory, which is your own subjective belief in something ("Dogs are Mammals", without needed to go into gruesome semantic analysis, ultimately resides on the notion that "Dogs" and "Mammals" are definite components or expressions of a common reality which ultimately rests upon the fact that they both have definite attributes and properties which can be sensed). Secondly, it makes a claim that your audience, the persons you are communicating this to (even if it is merely for your own self - which here you are trying to formalize this 'fact' and 'subjective' belief for yourself and abstract it from your immediate sensory experience) can appeal to a common faculty and knowledge that you subjectively possess for yourself.

The point here being made is that Knowledge as commonly defined does not refer to a particular immediacy of the senses and it does not reflect a particular condition of behavior. Rather knowledge is of a certain dynamic: One does not know something until he claims this knowledge for himself. Knowledge is not knowledge until it is logically formulated, integrated, and reconciled with already existing cultural axioms. In this sense, then, knowledge is a collective sense of beliefs and practices which function as guidelines for copies and expansion of the former; scientific knowledge for example refers not to the sensory observations made by the scientist, but rather to their being peer-reviewed, having undergone the process of the scientific method and integrated with the already existing corpus of scientific knowledge which at its very base is nothing but a set (of irrefutable, that is, unprovable) axioms and principles.

That being said, the criteria for knowledge is always relative to the type of knowledge being claimed, and its veracity as such, qua knowledge, is only debatable if it claims to have derived itself (implicitly) from one of these central axioms:

A statement that makes 'sense' is one that may be knowledge-, one that is intelligible is professing knowledge of a sort. Even if this statement does not make 'sense', even if it contains known falsehoods, it is precisely this knowledge of them being false which is being claimed.

Philosophy Forum

Rational argument about why rationalists are rationalists?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know