How do you know whatever you KNOW you KNOW?

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

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.

If by "absolutely certain" is mean, "infallible" and without the possibility of error, then "to err is human". It is always possible to be mistaken. But that doesn't mean, of course, that we are (in fact) mistaken. When I claim to know, for instance, that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, I am not claiming that it is impossible that I am mistaken. Rather I am claiming that I am not (actually) mistaken. So that it is no objection to my claim to know to point our that I might be mistaken, if it is allowed that I am not mistaken. Would it not be silly to say that although it is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, I am wrong to claim to know it is because Quito might not be the capital of Ecuador. What difference would it make that Quito might not be the capital of Ecuador to whether I know that it is, as long as Quito is, in fact, the capital of Ecuador? None that I can see.There is certainly a difference between whether I proposition is true, and whether I know that the proposition is true. But that difference is not between whether I know that the proposition is true, and whether I am certain that the proposition is true, since in both cases, I know that it is true; for even if I am not certain the proposition is true, it does not follow that I don't know that the proposition is true.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

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.

I am certain of this stuff without the least of means to prove anything objectively; and worse than that, even the mean I have of concieving of something as true or false is given to me at birth by culture. If we relax our standard of proof we can say we know more and know relatively less. If we hold the standard of proof high, then we reject the means we have finding new knowledge, since every bit of knowledge begins with insight, and insight is not rational, and can be based as much upon faith as knowledge. And after all is said, and done, we only reach a greater or lesser degree of certitude by questioning knowledge throughout our lives.

Perhaps you can consider that truth, knowledge, certainty, belief; and on and on are only a grade of meaning we give to the reality we sense about us, and that for even the most objective physical reality we can know, we still know it as meaning rather than being, and do not know it as it is; but as it is concieved, -through the medium of ideas. We see even the most objective realities through a lense of moral forms. What does it mean to you, to me, to them, and to future people? That is something that we can almost know.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

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.

If Concepts do not reflect reality they become useless, and are discarded. It is their utility that gives us the sense that they reflect reality. Do let me agree with you in some repects. We very often have elevated our misunderstandings of humanity and human nature into idealistic forms of relationships that have been out right disasters for humanity. Everyday we recreate reality in a fashion we desire out of basic concepts of reality as it is. We are only too ambitious for our own good, doing too much, and considering the effects too little. But yes, most, if not all of our concepts, which are the means by which we consider reality, are recieved whole. I have murdered many words in my life, but I have not added a single word to any dictionary, and it is safe to say that every word represents a distinct idea. I am accidentally original. I recombine ideas after some fashion, and the action helps to illustrate all ideas. But, if I say Capital is a form of relationship, it is little different from Marx saying: Capital is a relation. I believe I am correct in the way I say it, and not certain that he did not mean essentially the same thing. But, saying capital is form of relationship is generic. I can say that truthfully of every economy, and in fact, of every idea we can concieve of. And there is the meat. When we see the human element in every idea we come face to face with the promise and the problem with ideas. When our forms of relationship do not work we have two things we can change: form, or relationship. Neither is distinct from the other, and both are resistent to change.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

I am certain of this stuff without the least of means to prove anything objectively;

You cannot prove you had parents, or that you were born? Why would you say such a thing?

1. If I had not been born, then I would not exist.
2. I exist.
Therefore, 3. I was born

1. If I had no parents I would not have been born.
2. I was born.
Therefore, 3. I have parents.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

You cannot prove you had parents, or that you were born? Why would you say such a thing?

1. If I had not been born, then I would not exist.
2. I exist.
Therefore, 3. I was born

1. If I had no parents I would not have been born.
2. I was born.
Therefore, 3. I have parents.

You skip over the essential arguments of epistemological skepticism with your first assumptions, so you need to back your proofs up a little bit.

At the beginning of your proof must be some axiom that we accept independently of knowledge upon which to base knowledge, since this is impossible, I doubt you will be able to give us a reliable proof.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Let me paraphrase Anni Defranco, we have time to live only and not time to prove or disprove anything. We take stuff on faith, believe as others believe, speak as others speak, and through concepts think as others think. Absolute truth and proof elude us; and yet it leaves us with a question: If the common wisdom works.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

If Concepts do not reflect reality they become useless, and are discarded.

Not necessarily.

Quote:

It is their utility that gives us the sense that they reflect reality.

This is very true, but you should note that it is the apparent reflection of reality that keeps them from being discarded, and as you state it is utility and not actual reflection of reality that causes this notion.

It is the question of whether understanding be valid to be useful that needs to be addressed because of this. If we can benefit from incorrect understanding, and I don't see any reason we cannot, then there is no reason to assume that we have correct understanding.

Even this very line of thinking is circular, we must assume correct understanding to advocate any position. This denies me from making statements about the nature of truth, but it creates a situation for the advocates of the existence of truth where they must bite the bullet and base their truth on an absurdity.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Let me paraphrase Anni Defranco, we have time to live only and not time to prove or disprove anything. We take stuff on faith, believe as others believe, speak as others speak, and through concepts think as others think. Absolute truth and proof elude us; and yet it leaves us with a question: If the common wisdom works.

Truth and proof only come to us through their utility in argumentation. They are one of the many conceptions that come along as a byproduct of the interplay between detractors and cooperators within a social network.

Appeals to truth convince and nothing more.

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Truth and proof only come to us through their utility in argumentation. They are one of the many conceptions that come along as a byproduct of the interplay between detractors and cooperators within a social network.

Appeals to truth convince and nothing more.

The only proof of truth is us, and does truth succour life?

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

You skip over the essential arguments of epistemological skepticism with your first assumptions, so you need to back your proofs up a little bit.

At the beginning of your proof must be some axiom that we accept independently of knowledge upon which to base knowledge, since this is impossible, I doubt you will be able to give us a reliable proof.

Which assumptions do you mean? But every proof must have assumptions. They constitute the premises of the proof, and without premises, there can be no proof. What objections have you to my premises. It is not an objection simply to doubt them. You must have a reason to doubt them. I know that I exist. Don't you? After all, even if you suppose you do not exist, you must exist in order to suppose you do not exist. And, have you any real doubt that you would not exist unless you had been born? Or do you suppose you are either Adam or Eve.

Remember, I did not say I was absolutely certain that I was born, or even that I exist, or that I have parents. I said that I knew that these things were true. And you do not have to be absolutely certain in order to know. I know when I have no reasonable doubt that some proposition is true. I am certain when there is no possible doubt that some proposition is true. I have no reasonable doubt that I was born, or that I have parents.

@Nitish,

Quote:

1. If I had not been born, then I would not exist.
2. I exist.
Therefore, 3. I was born

Unless I am mistaken, you have negative premises; from which a positive conclusion cannot follow.

@kennethamy,

My guess is that he means by assumptions that you have to accept everything to prove anything.

@de Silentio,

de Silentio wrote:

Unless I am mistaken, you have negative premises; from which a positive conclusion cannot follow.

No. First of all that is only a rule in the classical syllogism.
But, in any case, the same argument can be framed as follows:

1. If I exist, then I was born
2. I exist

Therefore, 3. I was born.

They are equivalent arguments.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

My guess is that he means by assumptions that you have to accept everything to prove anything.

Well, in an argument the premises are "given". That is, they are assumed true for the sake of the argument. The question is, then, whether the conclusion follows from the premises. And if the premises are true, and the conclusion follows, then the conclusion must also be true. Of course, it is always possible to object to the premises. But, then, of course, you should be able to give some reason for your objection.

So, if I argue that:

1. if I exist, then I was born
2. I exist.
Therefore, 3. I was born,

It is clear that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises (since the argument is of the valid form, modus ponens. So if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. To which of the premises (1 or 2) do you object? And what reason have you for your objection?

@kennethamy,

de Silentio wrote:

Unless I am mistaken, you have negative premises; from which a positive conclusion cannot follow.

kennethemy wrote:

No.

Which part of my statement is false? Are you saying that a positive conlusion can follow from negative premises?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Well, in an argument the premises are "given". That is, they are assumed true for the sake of the argument. The question is, then, whether the conclusion follows from the premises. And if the premises are true, and the conclusion follows, then the conclusion must also be true. Of course, it is always possible to object to the premises. But, then, of course, you should be able to give some reason for your objection.

So, if I argue that:

1. if I exist, then I was born
2. I exist.
Therefore, 3. I was born,

It is clear that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises (since the argument is of the valid form, modus ponens. So if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. To which of the premises (1 or 2) do you object? And what reason have you for your objection?

The premise is a tautology. Life is considered as a special form of existence. The conclusion follows: If I exist, then I exist, I exist, therefore, I exist. Give me a break. We do not have the means to prove our existence, or even to define existence. We equate life with existence when life may be entirely animus, or an accident deliberately repeated, or may in fact be enirely related to the matter it is founded upon. Or nothing.

What's life? What's existence? What is being? We have not proved the first thing and yet take it all for granted. What nonsense! I don't think I can point to any form of relationship, or any ritual and behavior we hold so dear without recognizing in them the need to evidence our existence. I know I am here when I am recognized. What do I know? Nothing in fact; but the fact that I recognize my existence, and others do as well, offers proof that I do, in fact, exist. We do not have proof, but testimony in favor of our existence. Most are contented with that.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

The premise is a tautology. Life is considered as a special form of existence. The conclusion follows: If I exist, then I exist, I exist, therefore, I exist. Give me a break. We do not have the means to prove our existence, or even to define existence. We equate life with existence when life may be entirely animus, or an accident deliberately repeated, or may in fact be enirely related to the matter it is founded upon. Or nothing.

What's life? What's existence? What is being? We have not proved the first thing and yet take it all for granted. What nonsense! I don't think I can point to any form of relationship, or any ritual and behavior we hold so dear without recognizing in them the need to evidence our existence. I know I am here when I am recognized. What do I know? Nothing in fact; but the fact that I recognize my existence, and others do as well, offers proof that I do, in fact, exist. We do not have proof, but testimony in favor of our existence. Most are contented with that.

I do not know what premise you mean. But neither one is a tautology. A tautology is a statement that is true by definition, like, all bachelors are unmarried men. And neither if I exist then I was born, nor I exist, is true by definition. In fact, both statements could be false. For example, Adam and Eve existed, but they were not born; and I exist might be false, and indeed, alas!, will some day be false.

But the fact is that I do know that I was born, that I have parents, and that I exist. And so do you.

The rest of what you say is, I am afraid, quite irrelevant to the question of whether we know some things.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

I do not know what premise you mean. But neither one is a tautology. A tautology is a statement that is true by definition, like, all bachelors are unmarried men. And neither if I exist then I was born, nor I exist, is true by definition. In fact, both statements could be false. For example, Adam and Eve existed, but they were not born; and I exist might be false, and indeed, alas!, will some day be false.

But the fact is that I do know that I was born, that I have parents, and that I exist. And so do you.

The rest of what you say is, I am afraid, quite irrelevant to the question of whether we know some things.

Take the next step; and ask why we feel we need to know something, and why we put such a premium on the truth. Is it all just some philosophical exercise? Not! This knowledge we crave is essential to life, and that is the true test of knowledge. So, Say you exist because you were born, or were born because you exist. It is mere tautology because both are different sides of the same thing, and neither proves the other. You might better say you exist because you were concieved, and exist because you can concieve because each is essential to our exitence as humans. If you want to prove you exist today, you must be here tomorrow. The value of truth is that it supports existence, and it is not made more true by being more proved. So, get rid of the need for veracity, even out of tautology. To live our lives we must take most of what we will ever think we know on faith, and the only method we have of proving truth is to test it with our lives. What is false leads to death, destruction, war, famine, and pestilence. Whole societies die of falseness, and with it their individuals. Knowledge is as wisdom does, which is often very little. Do no harm is the first order of all knowledge.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Take the next step; and ask why we feel we need to know something, and why we put such a premium on the truth. Is it all just some philosophical exercise? Not! This knowledge we crave is essential to life, and that is the true test of knowledge. .

You mean that I cannot know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador unless that knowledge is essential to life (whose life?)? Why would you say that? It is manifestly false. It is not essential to my life to know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, but nevertheless, I know that it is. And so, now , do you.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

You mean that I cannot know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador unless that knowledge is essential to life (whose life?)? Why would you say that? It is manifestly false. It is not essential to my life to know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, but nevertheless, I know that it is. And so, now , do you.

What is it about Quito perhaps being the Captial of Equador? Did some one give you a hard time about missing that one on a test? Consider that the value of truth is what is hanging on it. If nothing is hanging on what others say is happening in South America, and I don't know, I don't say I do. If the answer held the point of a Gun in my direction I would say what the man with the finger on the trigger wanted to hear. Since I don't personally know one way or the other I will stick with Lincoln, if you can believe him, that a person should not say is true what they do not know to be true. People suffer and die from falsehood ever day in quantity. Since they die in greater numbers from ignorance and old age no one seems to mind a few incidental deaths chocked up to prevarication, equivacation, disinformation, and down right lies.

Trying to deny a certain reality in favor of belief, and asserting a certain reality in the face of overwhelming force has caused many avoidable deaths. And it has killed civilizations, and nations. So the test for truth is not that difficult really, but it is impossible without some individual honesty at every level. If people will pile to one side all they know for themselves, and on the other side pile all they do not know for you; they will always find they are quite ignorant, and never with enough knowledge to fight for, and only enough knowledge to justify running away. I am not telling you to run. I am telling you if you see me running it is time to scoot.

Philosophy Forum

How do you know whatever you KNOW you KNOW?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know