How do you know whatever you KNOW you KNOW?

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

The verb: to be, the word :Capital, and the country: Ecuador, are all concepts that must be understood before the sentence can be grasped as one holding meaning. When a child learns, it is by rote. We can turn some critical light on what we know, but like children, we must know to learn, and we all reach some point where what we know is taken on faith. I can look at the map, but history shows that maps lie, and so do round globes of the earth, since the earth is roundish and not round.

What what has the fact that a map may be inaccurate to do with whether one can know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. Have you any reason to think that the map which shows that Quito is the capital is inaccurate? I said that I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. I did not say that I was certain beyond all possible doubt that it was. It is possible that I might be mistaken. But why would that be any reason to think that I am, in fact, mistaken?

You might be mistaken about your name. But that does not mean you are mistaken about your name. And if you are not, then don't you know what your name is?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

"I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador" adds to nothing? "It is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador" adds to nothing? By the way, what does "adds to nothing" mean?

Tell me what property is conveyed by "I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador" or "It is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador" that is not conveyed in the statement "Quito is the capital of Ecuador."

The Deflationary Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I also never said that it "adds to nothing" I said it adds nothing. A statement like "It is raining" is meaningful but no less meaningful that "It is true that it is raining" or "It is true that it is true that it is true that it is true that it is raining". Neither of the latter sentences bear any greater substance than the former.

In the end, the weight of a statement lies in the persuasiveness of the speaker and not in the "truth" of his words, because truth is little more than a linguistic tool by which we defend our opinions. When you say that you don't believe my statement, and I say "No, its true!", I have not attempt to validate my statement, I have only attempted to apply more force against your disbelief. Even if I were to add evidence that backs my initial statement, the transparency of truth follows them down all the way until we are reduced to those assumptions that we don't dare or cannot challenge, namely the central epistemological assumption "There is truth". There are a litany of reasons why that statement can neither be supported or denied.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Tell me what property is conveyed by "I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador" or "It is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador" that is not conveyed in the statement "Quito is the capital of Ecuador."

The Deflationary Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I also never said that it "adds to nothing" I said it adds nothing. A statement like "It is raining" is meaningful but no less meaningful that "It is true that it is raining" or "It is true that it is true that it is true that it is true that it is raining". Neither of the latter sentences bear any greater substance than the former.

In the end, the weight of a statement lies in the persuasiveness of the speaker and not in the "truth" of his words, because truth is little more than a linguistic tool by which we defend our opinions. When you say that you don't believe my statement, and I say "No, its true!", I have not attempt to validate my statement, I have only attempted to apply more force against your disbelief. Even if I were to add evidence that backs my initial statement, the transparency of truth follows them down all the way until we are reduced to those assumptions that we don't dare or cannot challenge, namely the central epistemological assumption "There is truth". There are a litany of reasons why that statement can neither be supported or denied.

What would that show about why "It is raining" is true? Why would the sentence, "it is raining" be true rather than false?

@Nitish,

take it a step further,you know the words you read,you read them and ask no question.you see them as familiar and as such they give you comfort.....red is rage in in society...why?..its the colour of blood,death and age old destruction...but flip it and its also the colour of birth...if i have one annoyance it is the qualification of philosiphy..for me philosophy is opinion of life...how in certainty can that be graded

@find me in space,

find me in space wrote:

take it a step further,you know the words you read,you read them and ask no question.you see them as familiar and as such they give you comfort.....red is rage in in society...why?..its the colour of blood,death and age old destruction...but flip it and its also the colour of birth...if i have one annoyance it is the qualification of philosiphy..for me philosophy is opinion of life...how in certainty can that be graded

If your philosophy is opinion, then my filosofee is your philosophy. Let me offer a thought. All words are concepts. They may not all be great, and they may not all be essential, but they are all concepts. And That is how we know. It is like saying books hold knowledge, and book communicte knowledge; but books are made of words, and words are made of concepts. Without the means to fix knowledge in a certain form; form being the equivilant of idea, it is not an idea at all, nor knowledge, but an impression, and emotion, or an opinion.

@Nitish,

Quote:

All words are concepts

What is a concept? What makes a word a concept, rather than something else?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I am honestly asking you this question, because not understanding your view of what a concept is makes your post unclear to me.

@find me in space,

find me in space wrote:

take it a step further,you know the words you read,you read them and ask no question.you see them as familiar and as such they give you comfort.....red is rage in in society...why?..its the colour of blood,death and age old destruction...but flip it and its also the colour of birth...if i have one annoyance it is the qualification of philosiphy..for me philosophy is opinion of life...how in certainty can that be graded

What does, "opinion of life" mean? And how is the philosophical question, "how does belief differ from knowledge" turn out to be, "opinion of life"?

@de Silentio,

de Silentio wrote:

What is a concept? What makes a word a concept, rather than something else?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, I am honestly asking you this question, because not understanding your view of what a concept is makes your post unclear to me.

A word is a concept because it is knowledge, and applied to reality it is a judgement, and as a judgement it can be compared against reality for veracity. Every word has a place in the dictionary, like concepts as we think of concepts in the macro, and like all moral concepts, physical concepts will have a definition, and a classification. So, If I say 'square' I invoke a certain definition, just as with every other word in the dictionary which can be measured against, and also to measure every square in reality. Words are used to label realities, or relationships between realities, and like concepts as usually concieved, words can be used in place of reality to test, arrange, describe, or rearrange reality out of sight of the reality, and as a substitute. So, does that make sense that words can represent knowledge, act as a pointer to a certain reality, can be used to classify, and define, which means it is verifiable, and is used as a mental place holder for the reality on multiple levels?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

What would that show about why "It is raining" is true? Why would the sentence, "it is raining" be true rather than false?

Why must it be either? It certainly is nothing to us if it is false and we are never made aware of it.

Anyways, my point is that our assertion of truth is not tied at all to any metaphysical truth because our assertion of truth is meaningless. The transparency of truth says nothing about the truth of a statement, that is the point, it states that nothing can be said about truth.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Why must it be either? It certainly is nothing to us if it is false and we are never made aware of it.

Anyways, my point is that our assertion of truth is not tied at all to any metaphysical truth because our assertion of truth is meaningless. The transparency of truth says nothing about the truth of a statement, that is the point, it states that nothing can be said about truth.

It doesn't matter to me whether it is now raining in Quito, and I am not aware of whether it is not raining in Quito. But, nevertheless, it is now either raining in Quito. or it is not raining in Quito. I have no idea of what you might have in mind by saying that "our assertion of truth is meaningless".

@Nitish,

It is not statements that are true, exactly, but concepts in relation to reality that are true. And that may be as close to the truth as we can get. If I say: It is raining, or the sun is shining, I am not saying much, or all about it or the sun. I am using concepts correctly in relation to an observable reality, and the observation qualifies me as much as the situation. If I offer a construct of: existence that none can be certain of, reality, that all can have some certainty of, and truth, which is a certain exactness of relationship between our concepts and reality, there is still a level of subjective truth that everyone can be certain of, and no one can express as truth. By this I mean, truth is a stream of individual conciousness of reality always in a moment of time we call now, that is immediate. What you see at this moment may be essentially what I see at this moment of writing this: A keyboard, desk, and monitor. Were I moving, living, and engaged in life it would be impossible to live my life of consciousness and express it with anything approaching truth of detail. So, truth as a social moral concept is in gross. If I say it is raining, even if it is raining on both of us, I have not begun to express anything of the truth of the whole experience for me, for you, or any other person because it is unique, and individual for all, and a complex stream of consciousness. If we experience life as consciousness, we can only hold as memory, and express as communication what we can concieve of, which is itself a small part of any life experience. Anni Defranco, whose poetry I admire said: We barely have time to react in life, let alone rehearse. In the active give and take of life we do not have time to catagorize, or concieve, and usually we take in very little, experience it as emotion, and concieve of it only after it has passed. And every time we stop acting and reacting in life to concieve of what we experience, and to communicate what we experience as knowledge, we sort of lose the time of life that it takes to do so; which means we have to see in knowledge a positive good, and a positive benefit to concieve of it, and communicate it. For that reason we put a premium on truth, because whether we are expressing or accepting as truth -what is in fact false, we are wasting time, which is life, and of a set quantity with none to waste.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

It is not statements that are true, exactly, but concepts in relation to reality that are true.

I know of no concepts that are true (or false) For example, the concept of belief is neither true nor false. It exists. And the concept of mind is neither true nor false, The concept exists, And the concept of God is neither true nor false, but the concept exists. So I know of no true or false concepts. Concepts, of course, enter in to true or false sentences, For instance, "Charley has a good mind" is a sentence into which the concept of mind enters, and is true or false. Concepts, themselves, are neither true nor false,. Truth or falsity is the result of an assertion or a denial being made of a concept.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

I know of no concepts that are true (or false) For example, the concept of belief is neither true nor false. It exists. And the concept of mind is neither true nor false, The concept exists, And the concept of God is neither true nor false, but the concept exists. So I know of no true or false concepts. Concepts, of course, enter in to true or false sentences, For instance, "Charley has a good mind" is a sentence into which the concept of mind enters, and is true or false. Concepts, themselves, are neither true nor false,. Truth or falsity is the result of an assertion or a denial being made of a concept.

Certainly belief truthfully describes a certain psychological condition, and the fact that people apply it to themselves even when it will draw a certain insult from rational people gives the term, when self applied, a sort of objective veracity. Mind, and every other moral concept exist, even when the reality they give meaning to does not exist. Like belief, the belief is real even if the phenomenon believed in is not, and so it has to be given a certain practical reality because it is accepted, and more so because it is not rational, which implies some danger. In your sentence above regarding Charley, there are five obvious concepts, all of which may be true or false, but there is also a whole series of forms of relationship implied, but not obvious in the sentence, like existence, like objective value systems, like property considered as a moral concept, and like language to name the most obvious. When you make a statement about a city in South America which few people have seen, you do not grasp the extent to which one is presented with a complex layering of concepts, most of which are taken on faith, and for granted. Something like language as an essential medium of communication does not work because people think about it, -and its complexity, but because they can use it to think without having to think about it.

Physical concepts are easier to use as an example of truth in concepts because they can very often be easily checked against reality. If the concept of conservation of motion is correct, it can be easily demonstrated, if not exactly proved. Moral concepts like virtue are supposed on slight evidence, and it is for us in application of those concept to our behavior to prove them to ourselves and society. If our concepts are good, they should make us better.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

It doesn't matter to me whether it is now raining in Quito, and I am not aware of whether it is not raining in Quito. But, nevertheless, it is now either raining in Quito. or it is not raining in Quito. I have no idea of what you might have in mind by saying that "our assertion of truth is meaningless".

I am saying that what we say is true necessarily has no correlation to what is true.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I am saying that what we say is true necessarily has no correlation to what is true.

I'll see that and raise you. There is no possible way to know the truth, let alone tell it. But, to work for us concepts must have some correlation with reality. Since most concepts are handed to us whole, they work or they are so much useless baggage.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

I'll see that and raise you. There is no possible way to know the truth, let alone tell it. But, to work for us concepts must have some correlation with reality. Since most concepts are handed to us whole, they work or they are so much useless baggage.

You don't know that it is true that this is the year 2008, and that you were born, and that you had parents, among many other things? It is hard for me to believe that. And, if you step back, I think it would be hard for you to believe that too. Why would you say such a thing is what I wonder.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I am saying that what we say is true necessarily has no correlation to what is true.

You mean that sometimes we make mistakes, or lie? I agree with that. But now I am going to say (or rather write) something that is true. "I was born". Here is another truth, "I had parents'. Here is still another truth, "Quito is the capitol of Ecuador". What makes you think that none of these sentences is true? How could I be writing to you if I hadn't been born? How could I have been born if I had no parents? And you can easily look up the capitol of Ecuador in many reliable sources.

@Nitish,

Quote:

You mean that sometimes we make mistakes, or lie? I agree with that. But now I am going to say (or rather write) something that is true. "I was born". Here is another truth, "I had parents'. Here is still another truth, "Quito is the capitol of Ecuador". What makes you think that none of these sentences is true? How could I be writing to you if I hadn't been born? How could I have been born if I had no parents? And you can easily look up the capitol of Ecuador in many reliable sources.

I think his point is the general objection to knowing anything with certainty - we might be wrong.

Which is true, we cannot be absolutely certain about the truth of some claim, but we can come close enough to say it is either raining in Quito or not and still be accurate. There is a difference between what is true, and the truth as best as we can arrive at it. That you have parents is difficult to dispute.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

I'll see that and raise you. There is no possible way to know the truth, let alone tell it. But, to work for us concepts must have some correlation with reality. Since most concepts are handed to us whole, they work or they are so much useless baggage.

I wonder what you mean when you say that concepts are handed to us whole. I accept the idea that thoughts do not come from us, but rather happen to us in a sense, but I don't really view concepts in an atomistic way.

Also, I can re-raise you: Concepts and understanding do not necessarily have correlation with reality, so much as they must produce actions of some satisfactory nature. It is entirely possible that we can have a horribly misinterpreted understanding of our surroundings, yet because of evolutionary factors we still behave in ways that promote survival.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

You mean that sometimes we make mistakes, or lie? I agree with that. But now I am going to say (or rather write) something that is true. "I was born". Here is another truth, "I had parents'. Here is still another truth, "Quito is the capitol of Ecuador". What makes you think that none of these sentences is true? How could I be writing to you if I hadn't been born? How could I have been born if I had no parents? And you can easily look up the capitol of Ecuador in many reliable sources.

It is not they are true or not true, but that human understanding and language is not equipped to handle truth. I freely admit that there may be things we think we know that are actually true, but it doesn't matter because our opinions, debates, and actions are rooted in utility and that doesn't necessarily imply truth.

Philosophy Forum

How do you know whatever you KNOW you KNOW?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know