Posted on 04/06/2005 11:36:46 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
Freepers began a most engaging dialogue at the end of another thread! It is not only a fascinating subject - it also presents us with an opportunity to clarify ourselves and hopefully help us appreciate our differences and thus relieve some of the contention on various threads (most especially science and philosophy threads).
The subject is knowledge - which, as it turns out, means different things to different people. Moreover, we each have our own style of classifying “knowledge” – and valuing the certainty of that “knowledge”. Those differences account for much of the differences in our views on all kinds of topics – and the contentiousness which may derive from them.
Below are examples. First is PatrickHenry’s offering of his classification and valuation followed by mine – so that the correspondents here can see the difference. Below mine is js1138’s offering.
Please review these and let us know how you classify and value “knowledge”! We’d appreciate very much your following the same format so it’ll be easier for us to make comparisons and understand differences.
PatrickHenry’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties:
1. Revelation: Spiritual understanding divinely communicated.
Alamo-Girl’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties:
js1138’s types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties
2. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
3. Conclusion from evidence: I conclude from the verifiable evidence that ...
4. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
5. Acceptance of another's opinion: I provisionally accept the opinion of X (an individual or group) as knowledge because (a) I haven't worked it out for myself; and (b) I have what I regard as good reason for confidence in X.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Internal emotional state: I feel I'm happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
Separate List for theological knowledge:
2. Faith: Belief in a revelation experienced by another.
2. Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another, i.e. Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit.
4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.
5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.
6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.
7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.
8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know …
9. Internal emotional state: I feel I'm happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.
10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that …
11. Determined facts: I accept this as fact because of a consensus or veto determination by others, i.e. I trust that these experts or fact finders know what they are talking about.
12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.
2. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet. I am aware that this has limitations, but what choices do I have? I learn the limitations and live with them.
3. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning. Same limitations apply, except that they are more frequent and serious.
4. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true. The trueness may be unassailable, but the conclusions of axiomatic reasoning are only as true as the axioms, which may be arbitrary. Outside of pure logic and pure mathematics, axiomatic reasoning drops quickly in my estimation of usefulness. People who argue politics and religion from a "rational" perspective are low on my list of useful sources.
5. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week. I am not aware of any scientific theory that I understand which has failed in a major way. Some theories, of course, make sharper predictions than others. Eclipses are pretty certain.
6. Conclusion from evidence: I conclude from the verifiable evidence that ... Oddly enough, "facts" are less certain in my view than theories.
7. Acceptance of another's opinion: I provisionally accept the opinion of X (an individual or group) as knowledge because (a) I haven't worked it out for myself; and (b) I have what I regard as good reason for confidence in X.
One last comment about the Greeks. There were a variety of Greek cosmologies - precisely because there was no ultimate, absolute godhead envisioned from which all Truth emanated in an arbitrary fashion - that might best be summarized as follows: the Truth was the essence of the universe. There were two basic solutions to the search for Truth: (1) revelation; (2) reason.
Pythagoreanism is emblematic of the first: at its most basic, reality is the harmonics of the universe and you can reveal it by attuning yourself to the universe (a very 'Buddhistic' sensibility). There were variations depending on how one could achieve such a state and to what degree the Truth could be revealed, but they involved the same basic mindscape.
Of the second, there were two exemplars, one represented by Platonism and the other by Aristotelian thought, but one identical conclusion: The Truth was the essence of the universe. The difference between them was that the former perceived of this as independent Forms while the latter perceived of this as inherent forms. Now, it's worth noting that Plato was a rather bit eccentric by his own contemporary standards, but the basic conceptual division serves here.
In Plato's view, the universe was an illusion, and the Forms were eternal universals. The Forms were basically the archetypes of all that is, and could only be understood by pure reason. The gods were gods because they had no impediment between them and these ideals. They were not gods because they were the standard of Truth; rather, they were gods because they had a perfect knowledge of the Truth - i.e., the true essence of reality.
By contrast, Aristotle held that entities were self-contained forms - that an entity held within itself all the forms that it would express throughout the totality of its existence. So, although he agreed with Plato that the Truth was the essence of the universe, he disagree with Plato's notion that the essence of the universe was separate from the expression of the universe.
And all the Greeks basically fit to some degree or other within the boundaries outlined above: the Truth is the nature of the universe.
Mere semantics here, my dear man. Taoism stands or falls by the question of whether there exists a preexistent truth by which it can qualify its observations and researches in terms of a truthful standard -- an infallible standard of "measurememt" is what we'looking for here. IMHO. But the very name of truth in historical human culture has ever tended to be: God. (Go figure.)
And I, a student of human history and culture (for whatever that's worth) would be very surprised to learn that "orthodox" Taoism construes this problem otherwise.
In general, I find fewer "confrontations/contradictions" with Eastern philosophical modes than I do with those of the Western "secular humanist kind," these days.
FWIW. ZZZzzzzzz.....
Excellent StJacques. Perhaps we shouldn't discard Descartes all so quickly. I'll send a note to Antonio R. Damasio.
I didn't even Taoism; I just described it.
The difference is that I described it accurately and you did not.
I don't know about that...
And, might I add, it is not mere semantics. Taoism was a very clearly articulated spiritual system, as were all these others. If you simply wave your hands and say, "Whatever whoever considered Truth was God" then indeed everyone agreed that "God is Truth" as you presume. The fact of the matter is that most non-Judaic systems left the question of the ultimate Truth quite open, unlike Judaic systems which pretend that it is not. In general, the ultimate Truth was a pure unknown that one could merely hope to uncover on a visceral level, without any presupposition as to what that might be. The Judaic solution - also preserved by Christianity and Islam - is simply to wave the question away and pretend it doesn't exist. The question might be framed: "Where did God come from?"
And this, is absolutely false.
I strongly agree with betty boop that skepticism is an ideology - I assert that the ideology is metaphysical naturalism as b_sharp's Sagan list would also suggest.
And much like my list of "types" of "knowledge" and valuations of certainties begins with Spiritual understanding - the skeptic list would surely come with that materialist prejudice from the very top.
That is probably why it is both futile and frustrating for correspondents to try to argue with me using the logical tools of metaphysical naturalism. They probably believe they are being quite intellectual and logical - but to me, they appear tunnel-visioned and uninformed. LOLOL!
The bottom line is that there are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers to the question posed by this thread. We only wish to get to know one another better.
The Tao that can be spoken of is not the eternal Tao.
A key feature of Chinese world perception, the spectral qi force weaved erratically through the cosmos as the vital essence and breath of life which became the Supreme Path of Dao. ... Existence appeared as a dynamic movement of perpetual change, a space-time continuum of fluid energy in which man and beast, meadows, forests, rocks, mountains, clouds, rain, wind, river, and sea were all indissolubly merged. Nothing was because everything was in the process of becoming. Effectively, the reader who reaches the end of this sentence is no longer the same being as the reader who began reading. ... All the elements are in a continuing state of undulation. When one advances, another must retreat. When one contracts, another expands. There is no active without a corresponding passive, not positive without a compensating negative. ... The passive Yin and active Yang epitomized the opposing yet complementary cosmic forces that perpetuate the universe in a chain of permutations that propel qi along the Supreme Path.
And that's Daoism at its most basic right there. If you want to personify the qi then go right ahead, but the Chinese didn't.
Here's my list:
Ronzo's types of “knowledge” and valuation of certainties:
1. Everything | that which is one greater than nothing.
2. Nothing | that which remains when everything is elminated.
Well, I hope that helps! ;^)
Yet, as you suggest, since Hegel it has become unfashionable to "do" science without metaphysical blinders on. And the metaphysical naturalists would have the same blinders applied universally - from schools to currency.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.