Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 19, 2011, 03:22 (4865 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,-We need to progress step by step. It seems when I try to write more comprehensively my style simply leads astray...-
> This definition even allows for your distinction between knowledge and truth, so do you accept it? If not, why not? And if not, would you please define what YOU mean by knowledge. Perhaps then we can proceed a little more systematically.-I differentiate between "knowledge" and knowing. If you hear something from someone else, and don't test it or examine it--you don't have knowledge. You don't know.-The state of a being who knows is one where he has experienced in some fashion what he thinks. -This is confusing; my problem is that I don't know alternative words to express myself. If i'm told 2+2=4, I don't know it. Knowing only comes after I understand what 2 means, and what addition means, and what equality means... -The problem I have with the definition you provide, is that it's like I can tell you that 2+2=5 and if you didn't know anything about math, that's fine. (Think 1984.) Knowledge by democratic vote is not knowledge. -As for my assertion about "The only thing we can know for certain..." Agrippan skepticism--it's a "black boundary." Only when lighting a candle can you see; this form of skepticism keeps you in check about what you can really know about a topic. -Perhaps (by your scholarly prodding) I'm confusing terms of truth and knowledge myself... maybe I should start over...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"