Freeper Investigation: What kinds of "Knowledge" exist, and how "certain" are the various types?

4/6/2005 | Various Freepers

[hosepipe]

[ 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. ]

True..
It seems it all started at the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil(right and wrong)[in Genesis].. and has grown progressively worse ever since.. If we would Not have touched that damned tree... Oh! well we did.. That tree produced TWO smart alecks as progenitors.. and this thread displays that in spades.. Nice work... We are ALL guilty.. LoL...

[AntiGuv]

The day I receive a Spiritual revelation will probably be the day I have a heart attack..

Actually, I think God might've spoken to me once. It sounded like: Don't even bother! ;^)

[RightWhale]

it was Hegel

Everybody blames Hegel. Everybody has read analyses of Hegel. Who has read Hegel? Schopenhauer was exceedingly bitter about the adulation heaped on Hegel, called him many things except philosopher. Hegel was of course talking about some things that most philosophers haven't got around to, namely the origin of the state and of rights. Very difficult and ill-defined topic to this day.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your list of "types" of "knowledge" and your valuations of their certainty!

And thanks for sharing that "intelligence" discussion from your psychology course!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your view of knowledge and certainty!

Well I suepct you know my prejudice, which is that, like most questions, 'what is knowledge' is ceasing to be philosophical/epistemological and becoming scientific, in fact, it's being actively investigated by cognitive psychologists.

Indeed, that's basically what I would have expected to be your view. Your experiences with observations, i.e. birding, was unexpected. Thanks for sharing that!

[AntiGuv]

The one thing that I wanted to add to that was that revelation can be deemed a source of empirical knowledge, but it is not a type of knowledge. It is just another (alleged) observation of which one might (or might not) then evaluate the reliability/credibility (or lack thereof).

[Alamo-Girl]

LOLOLOL! Thank you so much for that post!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post, amom!!! I look forward to reading your views on this subject.

[RightWhale]

For philosphers it is not what you know, but how you know. Or, for entertainment at faculty parties, AKA symposia, with dozens of PhDs attending, how do you know that you know. They say they are not philosophers, and you may ask what PhD stands for. This will reduce your required attendance at future faculty parties.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing your views! Indeed, Truth has been raised in several reply posts on this thread - some that God is Truth, some that Truth proceeds from Reality, and now yours that knowledge is an attempt to describe truth. Thank you for sharing!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

We can know by the principle of sufficient reason. Schopenhauer identified four kinds of sufficient reason.

Would you care to elaborate?!

[Alamo-Girl]

What a beautiful post, Billthedrill! I particularly like this:

I take my guidance here from Kurt Godel - within each logical system, and what we are describing here is largely that - within each system of sufficient power a statement may be made that is true and yet unprovable. This being the case, any attempt to describe "knowledge" categorically is doomed to fail in the face of knowledge that may not be reached through the strictures of the logical system through which it is described. Another way of saying this is that while God may be unlimited in this fashion, human knowledge is not only limited but provably so.

I strongly agree with you!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for sharing that wisdom, Heartlander!

[RightWhale]

Not now. He wrote the small book at the beginning of his career and it is the basis of all that followed. A person should read it and see the development of sufficient reason. There are four types of sufficient reason in his system, ranging from direct perception/intuition to revelation. The language is technical, so any quick statement or synopsis would be meaningless to most.

[Alamo-Girl]

Oh, please don't go! I'm thoroughly enjoying all of your insights!!!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post! I do hope you'll share any thoughts you might have as to what you consider to be 'knowledge' and how certain you are of different types of knowledge.

[RightWhale]

He annoyed the Vienna Circle followers with that although he refused to argue with them directly, being a member himself and opposed to positivism. He also caused the followers and developers of Artificial Intelligence to choke on their symposium snacks, which resulted to this day in Goedel being ignored like a bad dream.

[Red Sea Swimmer]

There are many modes of consciousness. Some people are in touch with more of these modes of consciousness than others. Prophets have a very interesting collection of modes. They are both cursed and blessed at the same time.

[Alamo-Girl]

Fascinating, Rightwhale! I do hope you decide to tackle the term "truth" as a project. It would be very interesting to know how the meaning of the term has changed over the years.

[FredZarguna]

Because of your position against universals,...

I am not opposed to universals, per se. What I claim is that they have no existence independent of God. I do not say "independent of some consciousness" as the referenced thread does (which is just a rewording of George Berkeley's [1685-1753] contention). What is the "essence" of the number 7? It is a truth that God knows, and which I, in his image, can know. Nothing more--but also nothing less. Imagine: that we can know things that are in the mind of God. That have been, that always shall be. This is a thing ignored by fideists: because of the gift of reason, we are in Eternity...even now.