Notes on A Priori Knowledge

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Pythagorean
 
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2007 03:50 pm
@ogden,
Hello to you, Ogden:

ogden wrote:
Pythagorean, greatings

Please help me understand. I almost had it, then I was confused again. I thought a priori was rationalism independant of experience. Rational implies logic and reason, and isnt math deductive reasoning?

You previously posted that constructive knowledge (putting two and to together) was a "human only" ability and that you saw no other source for constructive knowledge exept that it be a priori. when I posited that animals can put to and two together, that still wasnt a priori reasoning (until they produce a body of inferential knowledge). Is there a difference between a priori knowledge and a priori reasoning?

I dont intend to be difficult, I just want to understand as best I can.Surprised

I know of an example where a scientist was observing banobo chimps when an injured bird was discoverd by said primate. The chimp took the bird to the top of a tree and threw it into the air repeatedly, as if to help it fly. Does not this show that the chimp made an inference; that it identified the creature as a bird and birds fly; therefore this bird should fly? It may also reveal altruism. (Perhaps someone could help me out with a better example.)

Must a chimp have a library card to get any respect?:p Is it posible that we may be under-aprecciating animal cognition due to our preconcieved humanistic ideas about them?


I think the main question in [rationalist vs. empiricist] philosophy is over to what extent a priori knowledge exists with some philosophers saying that it is through our intellect that we really gain our knowledge and by which we prove the validity of our knowledge.

This question as to whether or not animals posess some reasoning ability doesn't sound too controversial, the real question would be do animals acquire such abilities through sensory experience or through their intellect. If you say that they posess reasoning capacity mainly through intellectual means, I suppose you could then make a case that they posess rudimentary knowledge prior to or independent of experience.

But, having said that I do not know of an animal who can learn the Pythagorean theorem as did the slave-boy whom Plato has Socrates teach in the dialogue Meno.

As far as preconceived humanistic ideas, I base the distinction between man and animal upon clear and distinct evidence (chimps don't worship, build cities or write sonnets, or study nature), a case, I would point out that animals cannot make, and furthermore I would guess that the desire to elide the distinction is derived from a particular worldview which carries its own preconceptions. I'm not trying to be mean, Ogden, but animal rights activists have always seemed a little dangerous and irrational to me. On the other hand studying the mental abilities of animals is always interesting and worthwhile.Smile
--
 
nameless
 
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2007 04:34 pm
@Billy phil,
Billy;7212 wrote:
Wow! I really like that! It seems so true to me.

Is there anyone I can attribute it to?

Billy

Attribute it to? Like from what head it came? Mine! Hahahahha... Whatever I say is mine. I always attribute the words from another head or at least say that they arent mine. And I don't attribute this stuff to me, I am 'created' as are the words being typed. So, from a religious perspective, all 'attribute' is 'God's' as the 'creator' of all. Or, if you don't like God, it can perhaps be attributed to 'nature'.
Glad it resonates for you.
Peace
 
nameless
 
Reply Tue 25 Dec, 2007 05:23 pm
@Fido,
Fido;7216 wrote:
You are missing the best part of life equating it with make believe.

Ah, Fido, you are making quite an assumption.
If you host 'beliefs', it is the very nature of a 'belief' to survive. If you did not 'support' your belief, in every way, it wouldn't be a 'belief'. Thusly everyone with a 'specific belief' will feel/think that anything contradictory would be 'false/lesser/evil/bad/wrong/etc... As you know nothing of my life, and there is no common 'objective scale' whereby we could 'compare' these highly subjective 'qualifications', I find the statement meaningless. I suggest that there has never been a time in your life that you can remember when you did not host a 'belief' of one sort or another, never experienced the feeling of freedom of one who has/is. You are in no position to make such an evaluation. It's like saying that life is good and death is bad. How would you know, you have never experienced death to make such qualifications.

Quote:
As long as you are stuck on that point you cannot make any progress.

These words would come from my mouth, perhaps, if I were in some sort of classroom role as 'teacher'. From what perspective do you presume to speak such to me?
"Progress"? I don't have a problem with where I am right Now. Or Now! Or Now! Do you 'judge' your life as 'insufficient' that you must strive for 'progress'?
I don't. I see existence as perfect as 'created' every moment. Every moment of 'life' perfect. I do not 'judge' creation. I am 'created'.

Quote:
What is the point of denying what everyone takes as the ultimate of truth?

First, you'll find no evidence that "everyone takes (anything) as the ultimate truth." Ask a Moslem and go ask a Xtian for starters. Xtian? Go ask a Baptist and then ask a Catholic. Point made?
And first, I 'deny' nothing, I can only be this perspective in any moment. That is my 'reality'. That does not 'deny' yours. I can be no other than as I am.

Quote:
Has it resulted in any other great discovery for you other than your own meaninglessness?

YES!

Quote:
I cannot deny reality because I feel it.

Ahhh, so you equate your 'feelings' with 'reality' (your definition). You 'believe' that your 'feelings' are some sort of accurate reflection/representation of some sort of an 'objective/out-there' 'reality'? Is this your intended meaning of the terms?

Quote:
The most difficult thing for any person to do, and the most detructive thing they can do, is to deny their emotions.

I would agree that it seems foolhardy, but of what relevence this statement to the topic of conversations. I have the full spectrum of human emotion and feel it all wondrously intensely. I do enjoy 'intensity' of feelings.
Your point is?

Quote:
I have an emotional sense of my being and the being around me, that is appearantly shared by all but you.

I share your emotional sense of your being?
These emotions and feelings are all components of who I am. There is no 'me' to have a 'sense of...'; the 'sense of..' IS me. I do not 'hear sound', hearing IS sound.

Quote:
How did you reach this point of self denial?

From one perspective, closer to yours, after half a century of dedicated practice of/and introspection, weeding out all the illusions, seeking some 'Reality/Truth' behind the illusion that I can call 'self', i have found what the mystics, sages, explorers of the misty realms of existence.. have found, nothing. Not the slightest glimmer of a shred of driftwood which the ego may grasp for 'support/stability'. It is all 'make believe', and that has 'set me free'.
From a perspective such as mine, I did not 'reach' this moment, I am Created as I Am in this moment. Linearity and motion are not 'real' for me. They are 'make-believe', but quite the ride still!

Quote:
It seems that you have tried to be by doing,

No, I have looked through the 'doing' to Being. While 'here', everyone appears to be doing. Its, especially in the West, the thing to do. Do, do, do.. all the time, occupy your body so the mind can sleep...
I am as I appear, no more and no less than that.

Quote:
It is the attempt to latch hold of the eternal and the real that makes us both, and nothing other.

"Get thee behind me Satan!"
You do not have the power to attempt to (propagate) your 'perspective' into this one. Your perspective is your 'truth', nothing more, as is this perspective, and this one, and this one...
That statement is not only untrue in my 'world', but anathema. There is no such thing as 'eternal' in my world, therefore nothing to attach to, in that regard. It is your attempt to attach to a fleeting dream that is the author of unhappiness. All existence is a 'fleeting dream', all in (apparent) flux, always changing, always comming, always going. Try to attach to something, a thought, acar, a 'dream', a concept, whatever, it will evaporate right in your hand... unhappiness.
What 'makes me' is the 'Creator', nothing other.

Quote:
We do as we can.

And that is 'all' that we can 'do'; as we 'can', as we 'must', nothing other.
So you do not 'believe' in 'free-will/choice'?
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 26 Dec, 2007 09:28 pm
@nameless,
I would like like to reply to this last post. It is unique, and the reply reveals a lot about its author. I think I could pick it apart; but why? Nameless has given it a lot of thought, years in fact, and seems set to it. There is nothing in it to suggest its author will excuse some great evil with it. It is a seat in the shade on a hot day.

I feel like every one I know feels, that everything we do will be washed away by the tide. It is all vanity, but vanity is all that distinguishes me. I want the eternal. I want the heroic life. I have the heroic life. I want the loves of myth and legend, the labors of Sysiphus and Atlas, the endurance of Prometheius. We are made of the dirt beneath our feet to break rocks as big as imagination. Of course I am nothing so long as I would do nothing. I am something for having done something. And was it not grand? I've squeezed gold out of iron, to have what men have always lived and died for, not gold; but life.
 
nameless
 
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2007 01:40 am
@Fido,
Fido;7245 wrote:
I would like like to reply to this last post. It is unique, and the reply reveals a lot about its author. I think I could pick it apart; but why? Nameless has given it a lot of thought, years in fact, and seems set to it. There is nothing in it to suggest its author will excuse some great evil with it. It is a seat in the shade on a hot day.

Some things shouldn't be 'picked apart', like a fine dinner. All flavors work together, in their ratios and quantities, balanced, would lose much of it's 'savor' if it were 'intellectualized' too much...
Not 'set to it' at all. In fact, if I continue to post, please notice the different perspective, some of it rather 'major', in 'subsequent' posts 'from' here. 'It' is still in the same 'neighborhood', though.
That ought to put to rest the unfortunate rumors of my death!

Quote:
I feel like every one I know feels, that everything we do will be washed away by the tide. It is all vanity, but vanity is all that distinguishes me. I want the eternal. I want the heroic life. I have the heroic life. I want the loves of myth and legend, the labors of Sysiphus and Atlas, the endurance of Prometheius. We are made of the dirt beneath our feet to break rocks as big as imagination. Of course I am nothing so long as I would do nothing. I am something for having done something. And was it not grand? I've squeezed gold out of iron, to have what men have always lived and died for, not gold; but life.

I love the poetry of your passion! Live LARGE and drain it to the dregs! I do!!
Rock on, my friend!
 
nameless
 
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2007 02:08 am
@Pythagorean,
(A needless and fallacious distinction, in my opinion. 'Knowledge is knowledge', creation of sub-categories does not aid in the definition of 'knowledge', but in the 'artificial' definitions/creation of 'categories/subsets'. -nameless)

***********
As this is the topic, the above fails on multiple counts;
'assumed' is both sloppy and unsupportable under examination, and...

'cause' as in 'cause and effect' is a discredited thinking any more. What has been sloppily seen as 'cause and effect' are now called 'mutually arising features of a single event.'

The 'root' of 'empiricism' is dead and rotting; as is 'a posteriori knowledge'.
I believe neither; ..blind leading the blind.

"Find the octarine, grasshopper!" -Book of Fudd
 
hamletswords
 
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2007 02:50 am
@nameless,
Quote:
I would like like to reply to this last post. It is unique, and the reply reveals a lot about its author. I think I could pick it apart; but why? Nameless has given it a lot of thought, years in fact, and seems set to it. There is nothing in it to suggest its author will excuse some great evil with it. It is a seat in the shade on a hot day.


A seat in the shade on a hot day?! Oh wow, that made me laugh, in a good way.

What would be the point of picking it apart? Maybe, helping him? At least get Nameless to the point where he can respond to a thread on topic without diverging into long asides about what he believes, which usually involve the idea that people shouldn't believe so strongly in things, which is, obviously, ironic.

But then again, as Agent Rigg learned in Saw IV from the dead Jigsaw, "You can't save everybody." Not on the internet, anyway.

A seat in the shade on a hot day. LOL. The best part is, you did get him to respond on topic with that reply.

You, Fido, have mad internet message board skillz.
 
nameless
 
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2007 03:55 am
@hamletswords,
hamletswords;7252 wrote:
A seat in the shade on a hot day?! Oh wow,...

Uh oh, is someone's panties all in a wad about something? Or was the topic of this thread related to personalities, mine? You whine about me being off topic? There's irony for you! Hahahaha...
(If you got a personal problem, that is what the PM is for.)

Perhaps this is what i need to hear. I am beginning to feel redundant here, being all incapable of learning (buying into your perspective) from all the creative original critical thought going on here. I'll take shutting my mouth and leaving under consideration. God knows, as humiliating as it often turns out, I can't seem to shut my mouth when I would desire to do so. I often need this sort of disreprect to 'inspire' departure. See what I mean by 'humiliating'? (I doubt it, though..) Free-will? Hahahahaha...

(And you can place your 'sarcasm' with your internal compost! *__-)
Peace...
 
hamletswords
 
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2007 03:59 am
@nameless,
That post was like a cool glass of lemonade after a long day of picking cotton.
 
nameless
 
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2007 04:09 am
@hamletswords,
hamletswords wrote:
That post was like a cool glass of lemonade after a long day of picking cotton.

Still wadded, eh? (I know how after long disuse, real thought can, at first, be painful and seem like hard work. Enjoy the julep!) I Hope that this venting/baiting helps you.
Oh wait.. another Ham... post OFF TOPIC!!!.

Now that I have devolved to your level, shall we simply place each other on one anothers ignore list? Would that make you feel better? Happy to oblige, just say the word.
 
hamletswords
 
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2007 05:17 am
@nameless,
Oh, you gone and did it now. You bolded and colored. The gloves are off.

So, let's see who's been off-topic.

Nameless, let's review your posts in this thread and see if we find more relevence to the concept of priori knowledge or your constant aggressive defense of your own belief system.

Quote:
If the rest of your post is built on this sort of nonsense... It is an untrue statement from whatever angle viewed.
When you say that "philosophers have been impressed.." are you saying 'all'? Many? Some? Two? Sounds like a failed attempt at an 'appeal to popularity'; if everyone thinks or believes something, that don't make it so.
Science knows nothing to be true with absolute certainty. Nothing! That is the realm of fundamnentalist religion and zealotry, the 'delusions' of 'belief'.
Any science study will show you this, and show you why.

Also, calling something a 'fact' (which it is FAR from), again, don't necessarily make it so (another fallacy).


Not much on priori there. It actually implies that you didn't read the original post with your first line.

Quote:
No feelings involved, sometimes I write in a passionate style when called for. *__-


Quote:
I don't understand the point of using poor cognitive process (other than as 'satire' or an example of 'poor cognitive process') to frame a point. I saw no "elucidating" any problems. It was an entirely faulty opening sentence. The only 'pedagogy' in evidence are my comments and corrections of that error-filled sentence..


Still stuck on that one sentence you actually read. Not Priori.

Quote:
Philosophy informed by science.
Human 'knowledge' must be defined. That is the job of philosophers at the moment, informed by science.
I say, at the moment, that knowledge = memory. None 'greater' or 'more grounded' or more 'correct' than any other 'memory'.
Egoic pride imagines one's 'memory' to be 'righter' than any 'conflicting' memory (another perspective).
I pretty much agree with your statement here. All 'assumptions' seem to prove false with sufficient examination.


Nameless wisdom this message board is so overly blessed with already. Not related to Priori.

Quote:
Science, in toto, has never claimed any such a thing. It will claim, if 'honest', that all 'knowledge' is tentative and conditional. Logic and experience/experiment indicates and the evidence supports the logic, so it is the best theory, at the moment, that is 'tentatively' accepted. There are some 'scientists' who still 'believe'. They die off and science progresses.
THAT is scientific thought.
Nice try, though.


K.

Quote:
Woah, dog, I don't see it like that at all. Most folks couldn't care less about "ultimate truth" (if there is such a thing); they accept their concepts from their perceptions, their sensory 'evidence', and accept concensus as long as it doesnt threaten the 'truth' of their perceptions, as their "actual reality"! What they see is all they get; what they 'get' is what they 'see'...


What Nameless gets is not what he reads. Get out of your own head, Nameless!

Quote:
Bad try. There is evidence for Socrates being an actual historic figure, but there is no independent eyewitness evidence at all to support the theory of Jesus' actuality. Sorry, don't mean to 'niggle'.


Quote:
One can learn from fables and mythology. The speaker is irrelevent (thus 'nameless'), it is the words that either have meaning or not. Personality has naught to do with it.


If you say "naught" or "in toto" one more time, I'm going to have to drink more lemonade.

Quote:
Again, woah!! WTF is a "moral world"? All morality is, is the judging of things/people as 'good' or 'bad/evil'. According to Xtianity, morality is the very first (and worst) sin!
Thats all it is, I know nothing of a 'moral world'... And I certainly do not 'reside' there: I am completely a-moral (not immoral). No 'morality' at all, so "we all" nothing!


You also seem to know nothing of replying to a thread on topic.

Quote:
What people accept as 'true' for themselves, is all that can be known of 'truth'. It is completely subjectively known.. small 't' 'truth' anyway, and constantly changes, anyway, within a 'living mind'.. Speaking as if there aught to be, or can be, any consensus of 'truth' is ridiculous. Thinking that 'your' (in general) truth aught to be everyone's (if they differ..) is ignorant vanity.


Quote:
Again, this is meaningless to me.


Quote:
Everything 'exists', everyone exists.
Error = '0'.
Multiply it by whatever you like, you still end up with 'bupkiss'! *__-
Actually, people's lives are 'believed/accepted' illusion that is accepted to be 'reality/truth'. That is fine also. Whatever works. It isn't like we have any choice in what to think, what to accept or believe. Most lives are spent asleep as the great dream/illusion/delusion. It is still a wild ride. We are all unique perspectives, all equally 'valid'. Enlightenment is illusion/dream, so is nonlucid day to day sleepwalking dreaming. Everyone has their part in the great Tapestry of existence.


Quote:
Your definitions of 'truth' seem to be rather 'personal', and somewhat unique (of course), but slowly unfolding to my understanding of your intended meaning of 'truth'.
I rather avoid the word 'truth', like 'love' or 'god' as everyone has their own personal concepts and baggage involved, and there is no evidence that those 'concepts' have any 'value' beyond the mind of the conceiver.

Just occurred to me, how about a definition of 'truth' as being everyone's memory. If it is in your memory, it is your 'truth' (as most people feel that way anyway). Your 'truth', his 'truth', all different, all unique, all equally 'true'.
(It does seem to render the term meaningless, though.)


I almost killed myself at this point in the thread.

Quote:
It is always dangerous to speak for 'everyone'. I, for instance, have had to alter and change and abandon my 'world-view' so many times, that I have learned the fallacy of identifying and attaching to them. But, you are correct regarding the emotional, prideful and downright ugly and at time violent responses when egoically attached people feel threatened by a different perspective that is not automatically disregarded as 'wrong'. Which of the blind men describibg the elephant are 'wrong'? Is not all perspectives together not a better indicator of the 'reality' of an elephant?
It takes practice to examine 'reality'


Quote:
Its 'real' for them, just as what we hold as 'memory' is (seems) 'real' to us.


Quote:
Nonsense. This is not the place to 'testify' your 'beliefs'. This is the place for rational, logical, supportable conversation.
I repeat, that there is absolutely no independent eyewitness accounts of him of his alleged works. Period. No evidence at all. Find some, then we can talk about your 'God Kings'. It seems that I have touched on a 'belief' inadvertantly. I will not discuss this point further. Not the topic anyway.


For the record, he referred to Jesus as a "Philosopher King" not "God King", not that it relates to priori knowledge or anything.

Quote:
I don't think that the topic here is 'mythology' or 'magic' or 'religion'. Perhaps if you wanted to start a new thread. I have much experience in all three.
And 'presumptions', way more often than not turn out to be completely spurious, such as your assumption that; "all have an emotional attachment to their view of truth."
I don't have a 'view of truth'. I have, like any good scientist, a theory that is the best at the moment and subject to alteration or discard should new data require. No problem.


Yeah right.

Quote:
Again speaking for all. Pride? Vanity?
Perhaps YOU live in a 'moral world'. As I have stated, I am a-moral, and I have no room for 'morality' (sin) in MY world-view.


You have no room for the concept of priori knowledge in your world-view, either, apparently.

Quote:
And that 'dangerous' stuff... The only 'danger' in 'truth' is when some a$$hole tries to cram THEIR 'truth' up someone (who has their own 'truth') else's butt! Then we're in the land of egoic pride and emotional belief, the land of fundamentalism and it's attendent 'delusional' symptomatic behavior.
But, there isn't much that I can say about 'truth' because, from this perspective, it is a meaningless concept.


Oh God, I can't go on. It hurts too much.

In any case, you did get around to addressing the subject of the thread, on page 5, when you simply dismiss it.

But, thankfully for Billy, we got to hear all about your ideas of truth and perspective.

Alright, I'm gonna go have some more lemonade. Even before taking a sip, I know it's gonna be good.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2007 05:59 am
@hamletswords,
hamletswords wrote:
A seat in the shade on a hot day?! Oh wow, that made me laugh, in a good way.

What would be the point of picking it apart? Maybe, helping him? At least get Nameless to the point where he can respond to a thread on topic without diverging into long asides about what he believes, which usually involve the idea that people shouldn't believe so strongly in things, which is, obviously, ironic.

But then again, as Agent Rigg learned in Saw IV from the dead Jigsaw, "You can't save everybody." Not on the internet, anyway.

A seat in the shade on a hot day. LOL. The best part is, you did get him to respond on topic with that reply.

You, Fido, have mad internet message board skillz.

What skills? It's all braille method. Like Nameless, I'm a space age'r in the computer age. To me, conversations are not supposed to stay put. It is good to try to keep to a topic, and yet, it is rare when some intrigue will not challenge another on a whole range of ideas. I come to philosophy from a great number of life interests, and I trust this is true of Nameless, and others. -And this statement maybe untrue of many who write from one particular viewpoint, or a disciplined study of the subject. I am here for insight, and to organize my thoughts. I'll dump my bag of tricks, and let others rectify.

hamletswords wrote:


I almost killed myself at this point in the thread.


11. Watch your Step. (Don't trip on a metaphore.)

12. Don't jump to conclusion. (I saw where a guy died that way)

13. Keep your hands to yourself. (Where they'll be handy)

14. Think fast, think right, think twice, think nice.

15. Thou shalt.


And you thought there were only ten? Don't forget this rhime: truth is a river and takes its time.

nameless wrote:
Some things shouldn't be 'picked apart', like a fine dinner. All flavors work together, in their ratios and quantities, balanced, would lose much of it's 'savor' if it were 'intellectualized' too much...
Not 'set to it' at all. In fact, if I continue to post, please notice the different perspective, some of it rather 'major', in 'subsequent' posts 'from' here. 'It' is still in the same 'neighborhood', though.
That ought to put to rest the unfortunate rumors of my death!


I love the poetry of your passion! Live LARGE and drain it to the dregs! I do!!
Rock on, my friend!

Rock on back at ya. Philosophy is not about truth, or knowledge, exactly; but it has the real purpose of a good life, and as the name suggests: Love. If that is where your path has led you, to a good perspective and the ability to balance all your wants and passions; then what need have you of philosophy. I trust that there are plenty who deny reality who always take the door and never walk into walls. I do not argue with the meaninglessness of life, or its futility. To seek absolute knowledge is to seek absolute frustration. Even the point of this thread, of a'priori knowledge is a point beyond proof. It is metaphysical, and as such I tend to reject it out of hand. The one sort of knowledge that is apriori has nothing to do with rationality. It is emotional intelligence. It is the ability to love and return love; and this love of people which most seem born with, cannot be taught; but the understanding of it, the understanding that knowledge has meaning as people give it meaning, that their being is essential to the truth of knowledge- this is the knowledge of love for philosophers to learn. I think philosophy is a backwards word. That is why the truly happy care little for it. What need have those who can love for knowledge since they know all the mysteries of life before hand. If your goal is your home your journey is over. Take off your shoes and kick back.
 
nameless
 
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2007 02:32 pm
@hamletswords,
hamletswords wrote:
Oh, you gone and did it now. You bolded and colored. The gloves are off...

Sorry, you are going to have to play by yourself. I won't be part of your 'hurt-pride' thread hijack. And you are still off topic.. go figure..
Now, how does this 'ignore' function work...
Bye bye..

Fido wrote:
Philosophy is not about truth, or knowledge, exactly; but it has the real purpose of a good life, and as the name suggests: Love.
truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

I didn't have to search for this definition, it was the first that popped up on dictionary.com.

Quote:
It is metaphysical, and as such I tend to reject it out of hand.
Metaphysics;

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite

metaphysics;

The field in philosophy that studies ultimate questions, such as whether every event has a cause and what things are genuinely real.


or

The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
(used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
(used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
(used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.


Not everyone is interested in what is 'real'. And most, to varying degrees. So?
(I would question, then, the reason for your presence here; spread the good word?)

Quote:
The one sort of knowledge that is apriori has nothing to do with rationality.
I understand what you are saying.

Quote:
It is emotional intelligence.
Or an infection of the 'belief virus'. But I can see your perspective... and?

Quote:
It is the ability to love and return love; (hard when you feel isolated and disconnected, eh?) and this love of people which most seem born with, cannot be taught; but the understanding of it, the understanding that knowledge has meaning as people give it meaning, that their being is essential to the truth of knowledge- this is the knowledge of love for philosophers to learn.
Now you are just 'testifying' to your 'beliefs/faith'. I do no't discuss people's 'beliefs' with them. Or I end a discussion when I find that 'beliefs' are involved. Too dangerous.

Quote:
That is why the truly happy...
More testimony? What does 'the truly happy' mean? Someone that is happy all the time according to your definition of happiness? Yourself? Can two people be standing before you and saying that they are 'happy'. Would they both be 'truly happy' or would you discriminate according to some internal rule? Is anyone ever 'happy all the time'? There has been no evidence to suppory that fantasy.
'Truly'! That usually interprets as "according to what feels right to me" (what I know to be "TRUTH" = 'belief') as in 'my happiness is 'true' and yours isn't.'
Point to an example of your fantasy. Who would you say is 'truly happy', and, of course, you can only speak from your experience/perspective, which means that you can only speak for yourself. And if not you, then the concept itself is just more fantasy/testimony (sentimental nonsense, from this perspective).

Quote:
What need have those who can love for knowledge
Sounds like sour grapes to me. If you had 'knowledge', you would have understood that your statement is a false dichotomy, fallacious cognition, error (as per common definition). Why is it an either/or situation? Humans come in all shapes and sizes, all have their amounts and ratios in each moment of either. Even you have some 'intelligence/knowledge'. You need not 'deny and degrade' that with which God did not grace you. But, perhaps you do. Personally? I'm just peachy with 'knowledge/the ability for creative critical thought' and also 'love'. I feel like a 'whole' human, no problem.
Also, if your statement were true, it would hold if the 'integers' were reversed;
"What need have those with knowledge for love?"
Logical examination seems to highlite the absurdity of the statement. But, absurdity doesn't bother you because you don't care for 'truth/reality'. I understand the perspective, I simply don't share it. Live and let live..

Quote:
since they know all the mysteries of life before hand.
More personal 'testimony'? I can't do anything other than meet 'testimony' with silence. It is not avaliable nor responsive to critical examination.
Like your statement.
When speaking of people in general, as in the above, why do you avoid the term 'we' (including yourself in the group)? Why do you exclude yourself from 'people'? Do you feel isolated? Wouldn't that 'feeling' affect your 'loving relationship' with 'others'?

Quote:
If your goal is your home your journey is over. Take off your shoes and kick back.
Sorry, I don't have discussions with old dusty bumperstickers.

Am I hearing right in that you do not 'trust knowledge' because of your 'beliefs/faith' (in 'love', for instance), and I am skeptical of 'knowledge' due to 'knowledge' itself, and 'intuitional experience'. So, if correct, we do have 'common ground', just differing perspectives. No problem.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2007 05:37 pm
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

I didn't have to search for this definition, it was the first that popped up on dictionary.com.


What do you suppose that word really means as if it were a word that actually said something on its own. Was that Duke Ellington who said: if you have to ask you will never know?

Quote:

Metaphysics;

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition - Cite

metaphysics;

The field in philosophy that studies ultimate questions, such as whether every event has a cause and what things are genuinely real.

or

American Heritage Dictionary -


n.
(used with a sing. verb) Philosophy The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
(used with a pl. verb) The theoretical or first principles of a particular discipline: the metaphysics of law.
(used with a sing. verb) A priori speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment.
(used with a sing. verb) Excessively subtle or recondite reasoning.

You are playing dictionary with the wrong bibliophile dudete. Let me ask you a question: Do you think metaphysics was the word Aristotle used for the book later called Metaphysics? I mean; I am the first to paint poopy all over physics, but I do not contrast it with meta-physics. So, again. What does the word say, literally?
Quote:

Not everyone is interested in what is 'real'. And most, to varying degrees. So?
(I would question, then, the reason for your presence here; spread the good word?)

Word, turd; something of that nature, sure. It is the moral world, that is beyond our senses that is the most troublesome for people. We could easily master the physical world if we could manage the moral world.
Quote:


I understand what you are saying.

DeGall's line from "The Day of the Jackel"?
Quote:


Or an infection of the 'belief virus'. But I can see your perspective... and?


Now you are just 'testifying' to your 'beliefs/faith'. I do no't discuss people's 'beliefs' with them. Or I end a discussion when I find that 'beliefs' are involved. Too dangerous.

First of all, it is neither belief nor faith. And what are you afraid of. I am the English Spy in the House of Love. I know everything. The fear of fear is the worst fear. And lonelyiness brings up the rear.
Quote:


More testimony? What does 'the truly happy' mean? Someone that is happy all the time according to your definition of happiness? Yourself? Can two people be standing before you and saying that they are 'happy'. Would they both be 'truly happy' or would you discriminate according to some internal rule? Is anyone ever 'happy all the time'? There has been no evidence to suppory that fantasy.
'Truly'! That usually interprets as "according to what feels right to me" (what I know to be "TRUTH" = 'belief') as in 'my happiness is 'true' and yours isn't.'
Point to an example of your fantasy. Who would you say is 'truly happy', and, of course, you can only speak from your experience/perspective, which means that you can only speak for yourself. And if not you, then the concept itself is just more fantasy/testimony (sentimental nonsense, from this perspective).

Yes, I am pretty happy, loved, satisfied, tolerated, well fed. Truly happy would not be to think about it, but just to be it, and enjoy it. I can't keep from looking under a bandage, and I can't help but look a gift horse in the mouth. I have such a long history of thinking about everything that I just do it even when I wish I could quit, as I do at times. I know plenty of people who are happy. They don't worry further than their wants. They maintain and thrive in relationships. They do not carry a load of hate. They can forgive themselves and others and enjoy this day. So, it is not a contest. A happy person is not happy relative to another, but only to themselves when they are unhappy as everyone is at times. Attitude is everything, and those who put their lives behind their optimism find reason to be happy. And they get to go to the party too because no one wants the blues.
Quote:


Sounds like sour grapes to me. If you had 'knowledge', you would have understood that your statement is a false dichotomy, fallacious cognition, error (as per common definition). Why is it an either/or situation? Humans come in all shapes and sizes, all have their amounts and ratios in each moment of either. Even you have some 'intelligence/knowledge'. You need not 'deny and degrade' that with which God did not grace you. But, perhaps you do. Personally? I'm just peachy with 'knowledge/the ability for creative critical thought' and also 'love'. I feel like a 'whole' human, no problem.
Also, if your statement were true, it would hold if the 'integers' were reversed;
"What need have those with knowledge for love?"
Logical examination seems to highlite the absurdity of the statement. But, absurdity doesn't bother you because you don't care for 'truth/reality'. I understand the perspective, I simply don't share it. Live and let live..
I know it is not particularly obvious unless it becomes too common to avoid; but rational people are often that because they are not so abapt at emotional relationships. Rationality offers them some distance, perspective, and control. Those who are good at relating to people on an emotional level, through shared feelings, and mutual support and encouragement stick with it. Have you ever tried to do your taxes and actually enjoyed it? It takes an incredibly small amout of energy to use a head and yet people act without thought. Why? I can't say, but it appears that people think as a last resort; so why is the last resort of most people the first resort of the philosopher? My guess is that it is the usual last resort of philosopher too, and some climb in and never climb out. I see that people in love, with spous or life or job or hobby do not pursue rationality beyond necessity.


Quote:


More personal 'testimony'? I can't do anything other than meet 'testimony' with silence. It is not avaliable nor responsive to critical examination.
Like your statement.
When speaking of people in general, as in the above, why do you avoid the term 'we' (including yourself in the group)? Why do you exclude yourself from 'people'? Do you feel isolated? Wouldn't that 'feeling' affect your 'loving relationship' with 'others'?


Sorry, I don't have discussions with old dusty bumperstickers.

Am I hearing right in that you do not 'trust knowledge' because of your 'beliefs/faith' (in 'love', for instance), and I am skeptical of 'knowledge' due to 'knowledge' itself, and 'intuitional experience'. So, if correct, we do have 'common ground', just differing perspectives. No problem.

I am sort of isolated. I don't know anyone who has had my kind of life. I don't know anyone as poorly educated as myself who has read as many books. I don't know any one who has been as much a whore or hero as myself. At this stage in my life I pretty well know my wife and my family, and my dogs. This is my social life, and that is actually enough. I have had a lot of miles under my butt, and I don't even like to drive around the block. In spite of that, I am happy. Life bends to my desires. I know a little bit about everything and enough about the important things, and if I had ten life times it would not be enough. The problem for me is not exactly a distrust of knowledge. Of physical knowledge we have enough. Moral knowledge, Aesthetics, Ethics. All the stuff we cannot measure that finds our measure is my concern. Reality needs to be more user friendly, and to have that we must quit kicking the answers out of it. And the truth I seek is for the masses. General, generally true, looking good on the back of a beater. Pees.
 
nameless
 
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2007 07:49 pm
@Pythagorean,
You have the last word. I already said what I had to say.
But remember that the science and math that you seem to eschew, next time you want to buy a computer (like the one that you are using) or need surgery or a pacemaker, go to someone skilled in 'emotional intelligence'. Perhaps you can get your next car from one, that 'he' built... (rolls eyes)
 
Billy phil
 
Reply Thu 27 Dec, 2007 08:48 pm
@hamletswords,
hamletswords wrote:

But, thankfully for Billy, we got to hear all about your ideas of truth and perspective.


Here it is again in other words:

In some ways, we gain perspective when we elevate one view, and devalue all the other views, which inadvertently gives rise to the illusion that one's perspective is an actuality or the 'truth'.

Billy
 
hamletswords
 
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 09:11 am
@Billy phil,
Billy wrote:
Here it is again in other words:

In some ways, we gain perspective when we elevate one view, and devalue all the other views, which inadvertently gives rise to the illusion that one's perspective is an actuality or the 'truth'.

Billy


It is a good idea. I just question it when the source seems to elevetate his view above all others (not in an "I'm right and you're wrong" kind of way, but in a "I don't even recognize ideas I haven't already had" kind of way). This very well could be me stereotyping Nameless, but hey, we all do it. He's passionate about posting on this board, at the very least, which is a good thing for the board, I'm sure.
 
Fido
 
Reply Fri 28 Dec, 2007 09:38 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
You have the last word. I already said what I had to say.
But remember that the science and math that you seem to eschew, next time you want to buy a computer (like the one that you are using) or need surgery or a pacemaker, go to someone skilled in 'emotional intelligence'. Perhaps you can get your next car from one, that 'he' built... (rolls eyes)

Maybe it is one of those things you need to have to appreciate. I would not doubt you have a few such things, if intellegence could be considered as a thing.
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 01:37 am
@Fido,
I've enjoyed some of our conversations and hope that I've provided at least some food for thought, but I'm feeling that its time to leave you to your conversations, so..
Happy Holidays
Peace
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 29 Dec, 2007 06:23 am
@nameless,
nameless wrote:
I've enjoyed some of our conversations and hope that I've provided at least some food for thought, but I'm feeling that its time to leave you to your conversations, so..
Happy Holidays
Peace

Hurry back. I miss you already.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/20/2019 at 11:24:09