PDA

View Full Version : On the matter of knowledge



Eagleheart
05-11-2006, 03:21 AM
In the frames of our reality we may enjoy certain absolutized knowledge...Give reasonable explanations...Have a sense of what we all live for...and even if we do not-we have a vague feeling that it should have some sense, but as I mentioned only in the frames of our relity...One/with all my respect I do not seem to remember his name/...has said that the basic question to answer is what is the point of a living planet in the spaces of a big dead universe...Beyond our knowledge I must say....Our life has only the certainties we have created..And it is in itself a contradiction...Certainties are not created..as are laws that govern our existense...No one seems to have the answer of this basic question...in the middle of this big dead universe..Not even Niezsche...


Share your thoughts because one can always get confused in his/her vicious circle of thoughts...I will be happy to see another viewpoint

ShoutGrace
05-11-2006, 03:54 AM
In the frames of our reality we may enjoy certain absolutized knowledge...Give reasonable explanations...Have a sense of what we all live for...and even if we do not-we have a vague feeling that it should have some sense, but as I mentioned only in the frames of our relity...One/with all my respect I do not seem to remember his name/...has said that the basic question to answer is what is the point of a living planet in the spaces of a big dead universe...Beyond our knowledge I must say....Our life has only the certainties we have created..And it is in itself a contradiction...Certainties are not created..as are laws that govern our existense...No one seems to have the answer of this basic question...in the middle of this big dead universe..Not even Niezsche...


Share your thoughts because one can always get confused in his/her vicious circle of thoughts...I will be happy to see another viewpoint


Is this a naturalistic discussion? Because I think that theists will postulate ideas that may be entirely different to the kind you are wanting to discuss.

Eagleheart
05-11-2006, 06:50 AM
Shoutgrace,
need some clarification...What do you meen by naturalistic?I define my searchings as essential to life...Theists can always have answers fairly because they never search for them, They have a whole set of prepared statements that have never reviewed by themselves...I am not really anxious to discuss on the basis of any religion...Though one can argue that only religion tries to explain life...in a whole...God is everything that IS but the same old question remains-Why???? What is IS ?

Gallantry
05-11-2006, 05:13 PM
Shoutgrace,
need some clarification...What do you meen by naturalistic?I define my searchings as essential to life...Theists can always have answers fairly because they never search for them, They have a whole set of prepared statements that have never reviewed by themselves...I am not really anxious to discuss on the basis of any religion...Though one can argue that only religion tries to explain life...in a whole...God is everything that IS but the same old question remains-Why???? What is IS ?

that is rather presumptuous. "Theists never search for them". As a theist and a philosopher I find that rather..., as I said, presumptuous. Maybe many theists don't but then again, many naturalists don't either.

Xamonas Chegwe
05-11-2006, 05:50 PM
Why is there something rather than nothing? Is that what you are asking? If so, it is probably the most fundamental question of philosophy - and the one least likely to be answered with any degree of conviction by anyone other than a theist - and then only with a nod towards the kind of pat, dogmatic answer which you have already rejected.

On a day to day basis, you just have to accept that there is an IS, and get on with things. But thinking about the WHY of the IS can tie your brain in knots in the most wonderful way. It's like mental abseiling - scary as **** but the most fun you can have with your clothes on. It's also like greased soap - as soon as you get close to grasping the question (let alone the answer), it squirts off into the corner of the bathroom.

Keep asking this kind of thing and your life will be interesting - probably not happy - but definitely interesting.

Geoffrey
05-11-2006, 07:43 PM
The universe may be thought to be big or dead, but we are here now and not before or after - The universe is growing bigger every second of everyday, so it certainly is big, but can something that grows be dead?

...Man will look for answers to the un-answerable as long as he lives and when he finds none, he will create his own, so others will have an answer to find.

Eagleheart
05-12-2006, 02:46 AM
Xamonas, some interesting observations ...The fundamental question imposed on us...is Why? -because You see I do not think one can live in a full-blooded way...if he/she is not aware of the reasons...People certainly bear their suffering far more easily when they are not confined to the narrow limits of "What happens-just happens"-this is a torturing thought...We can draw conclusions from our daily basis ...As Niezsche says:" One always can stand everything "how" as long as he knows "why"...true enough here on Earth...Imagine how complicated the issue becomes beyond what we have defined as our reality...Our life can be well-established in our nice hometown...have the sense you need to continue...But beyond it is the same torturing thought......

mono
05-12-2006, 02:06 PM
You have a lot of interesting thoughts, Eageheart, and welcome to the forum, by the way. ;)
Much of your discussion, I think, rests on the vast differences that most likely exist between the inevitable subjectivity of human perspectives and any objective something that may exist beyond the perception and imagination of subjectivity. In a humanistic point of view, I believe we do create our so-called certainties, yet whether they, in any way, reflect the objective appears far beyond our scope (as Socrates said: "I only know that I know nothing").
Another large part of your discussion focuses greatly on faith and reason. Faith, a more holistic perspective, often attributed to religion and some spirituality, own its beliefs according to requiring no empirical proof. Reason, a more linear perspective, often attributed more to philosophy and some spirituality, owns its theories according to empiricism, always asking 'why,' and finding conclusions with multiple syllogisms. Both, however, restrict themselves entirely to human knowledge, perception, and imagination, and which seems necessarily 'superior' appears more a matter of opinion; neither will reach the ends of the universe, nor the end(s) of time, nor the alleged 'frames' of reality.

bhekti
05-12-2006, 05:23 PM
... The fundamental question imposed on us...is Why? ...

Yes, we always ask "why?" and I think that's because we can ask "why?" It is socially and linguistically acceptable. We cannot give this "why?" its answer, or we give it answers but none of them fits to it. When an answer fits that's because we, tired and sick, pick that one up and play make-believe to ourselves either scientifically or religiously (the birth of philosophy). Inside we know that we can always switch for another, then another, then another as long as language permits and safe we feel. But we get sick and tired again, and now bored. So we hang out and try to forget (the birth of modern art). But we can't forget for we keep on asking "why?" even on daily basis. So we laugh and make puns.

O I was just thinking about the origin of this "why?" And nothing came to my mind. Then I went on thinking about this something I call "nothing"...

ejf
05-12-2006, 06:41 PM
Going back to theists and simple answers to the "why" question:

Imagine that a theist (or anyone) somehow at some point in the past did learn the answer to the question and was willing and eager to share that answer with anyone and everyone. The long term result would probably be a new religion (and assuming the existence of absolute truth, it would be the one and only right and true religion), and the religion would, over centuries, develop traditions and dogma, and have its ups and downs etc.

Would you then reject that religion's answer to the "why" question just because the answer seemed simple and was associated with an established religion?

Rejection of all religious or theistic answers often leads to the assumption that the "why" answer is, for some reason, necessarily elusive, complex, mysterious, and probably has not and never will be answered to anyone's satisfaction. Is this assumption reasonable?

Gallantry
05-12-2006, 07:32 PM
I agree with your train of thought completely. C.S. Lewis, a Christian and obviously theist, once compared it to a math problem. From this view there is only one right answer although one may deduce several answers due to mishaps along the way.

EDIT: Also alot of people consider the validity of a claimed absolute truth by the actions of those who believe or claim to believe in it. This may be valid or not I need to think on it more but I'm inclined to lean more towards not. I wrote something to do with this, if anyone wants to read you're more than welcome too. There are two pieces: "The Path to The Sun" and "The Road to Vision" which should be read in that order. Link is Here (http://Writing.Com/authors/clown)

bhekti
05-13-2006, 08:49 AM
... What is IS ?

Below is from R.D.Laing's The Politics of Experience:

"The sky is blue" suggests that there is a substantive "sky" that is "blue". This sequence of subject verb object, in which "is" acts as the copula uniting sky and blue, is a nexus of sounds, and syntax, signs and symbols, in which we are fairly completely entangled and which separates us from at the same time as it refers us to that ineffable sky-blue-sky. The sky is blue and blue is not sky, sky is not blue. But in saying "the sky is blue" we say "the sky" "is". The sky exists and it is blue. "Is" serves to unite everything and at the same time "is" is not any of the things that it unites.

None of the things that are united by "is" can themselves qualify "is". "Is" is not this, that, or the next, or anything. Yet "is" is the condition of the possibility of all things. "Is" is that no-thing whereby all things are. "Is" as no-thing, is that whereby all things are. And the condition of the possibility of anything being at all, is that it is in relation to that which it is not.

So it is the relation that matters. This relation "defines" our existence. About relation defining human existence, I recall something from Kierkegaard's Sickness Unto Death:

Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. But what is the self? The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation [which accounts for it] that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but [consists in the fact] that the relation relates itself to its own self. Man is a synthesis of the infinite and the finite, of the temporal and the eternal, of freedom and necessity, in short it is a synthesis. A synthesis is a relation between two factors. So regarded, man is not yet a self.

I think there is enough sign of Kierkegaard being "the father of" psychology there. Man is not yet a self. Wow. So regarded, what is knowledge? what is our knowledge but "a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes"?

Eagleheart
05-13-2006, 12:25 PM
Well it seems we have a lot to discuss...but First I want to emphasize that I do not despise religion or underestimate its merits/nor the evil it has caused/...It is just that I hold a really different notion about what religion is...If i am correct the origin of the word from Italian is as follows-"a back connection,connection with the source,the initial source", so it is clear enough that there is something in the core of everything...maybe the Reason The answer to the "WHY", the relation between all the existing...If we all agree that everything is related ...so we should all agree that everything has reasons/because this is what to have a reason is ...to see the reason meens to know the origin, the past ,to what is prior to some outward appearance...A popular eastern parable says that whenever a butterfly initiates a movement with its wings in one part of the world a hurricane ocurrs in the other part of the world...All related -all has reasons...our knowledge of them does not create or destroy them...So I believe that this what the religion should really be grounded on-the connection with the initial source...No dogmatic postulates ...no high -ranking officials/understand the Pope/ can provide this...And in this case- yes- religion could be the fundemental answer...It does not have to be "elusive or mysterious"...perhaps it is in the natural appearance of everything...as there is relation in every aspect-no fragmented realities-there should be a unifying source -"ONE REASON"

bhekti
05-13-2006, 10:29 PM
...If i am correct the origin of the word from Italian is as follows-"a back connection,connection with the source,the initial source", so it is clear enough that there is something in the core of everything...maybe the Reason The answer to the "WHY", the relation between all the existing...If we all agree that everything is related ...so we should all agree that everything has reasons/because this is what to have a reason is ...to see the reason meens to know the origin, the past ,to what is prior to some outward appearance...A popular eastern parable says that whenever a butterfly initiates a movement with its wings in one part of the world a hurricane ocurrs in the other part of the world...All related -all has reasons...our knowledge of them does not create or destroy them...
...there should be a unifying source -"ONE REASON"

A unifying source. Eagleheart, I agree with you. I can see the work of this source everywhere (even in modern art!). However, I'd rather call it "force" than "reason". And, I think this source is plural.

But I have some questions: What do you think is this source? I mean, what is the form of this source? (My opinion: this source takes the form of story, or essay).

It is now the trend of the world to think of a unifying source as a uniforming source which is always totalitarian and repressive. What do you think about it? How do you take this trend (that is, of course, if you agree with me that there is such a trend)?

The french philosopher Jacques Derrida saw this source and called it logos and, I think, disliked it so. ( But, I doubt if the word "dislike" correctly describes the case)

Eagleheart
05-14-2006, 02:51 AM
When I am using "initial source" I regard the matter as the nature and sense in the core/and I am not necessarily saying the beginning-because I do not believe in the beginning/...I am inclined to think of this source as unpersonified certainly,moreover I do not think it has a form/the form again is a term of adaptation/...The new physicists promulgate energy as the nature of everything...they are more close to the truth than anyone else according to me...And you mentioned a remark about the "uniforming"-reasonable/I agree/...Einstein is the ardent adherent to the thoery of "Unifying force" and was well aware of the difference...We all know that there is no point of the truth when you have not reached it yourself...

bhekti
05-18-2006, 05:19 PM
...We all know that there is no point of the truth when you have not reached it yourself...

When I was thinking about unifying source as I read the words in your previous post, I remembered words like "paradigm", "worldview, "doxa", "meta-narrative", "prejudice", all of which came to me through texts written by some scholars named post-structuralists or, sometimes, postmodernists.

I remember now an essay on Mikail Bakhtin that says:

Any language has certain centripetal forces which work to render it monoglossic , a "unitary language" -- forces of regulation, of discipline; this includes the literary. Any language, however, as it is lived, socially, over a variety of social, professional, class and so forth positions, is really an interacting and at times contesting amalgam of different language uses. Hence every language instance is marked by centrifugal (heteroglossic, socially distinguishing) as well as centripetal (monoglossic, societally unifying) forces. (Warning: Bakhtin at times uses the term 'language' to refer to the use of a particular class of persons, sometimes to refer to the language as a whole.)....Each of these 'languages' embodies a distinct view of the world, its own sense of meanings, relations, intentions
Bakhtin sees the 'language' or ideolect of a class or social position, etc., as a potentially a prison-house, constructing its own set of understandings beyond which the person imaginatively cannot go -- a dogma, he says, "a sealed-off and impermeable monoglossia." It is clear, then, that Bakhtin believes that one can think only what one's language allows one to think.

The last sentence" ...one can think only what one's language allows one to think" is not about language as commonly understood (English, Japanese, Javanese, etc.) but more about that unifying force I'm trying to talk about. It's in the mind, human mind.

Science, religions are languages and "...all language use is language use from a point of view, in a context, to an audience. There is no such thing as language use which is not dialogic (having an addressee, real or imagined), which is not contextual, and which is not (hence) ideological."

Eagleheart
05-19-2006, 05:37 AM
Very appropriate for the theme Bhekti, moreover,i think this is the link...when we are referring to a common ground we are used to saying that have found the universal language/the mystical innate knowledge of everyone that brings together the Japanese and the Tibetians and Germans/...The feelings are the universal knowledge that far outwieghs the fragmented scientific systems and patterns...

bhekti
05-19-2006, 12:46 PM
...The feelings are the universal knowledge that far outwieghs the fragmented scientific systems and patterns...

Yes.

But, what has become of these feelings now? They don't serve right anymore.

Desire.
Will.
Need.
Passion.

All the same.

Something is lacking, someone is lying.

bhekti
05-22-2006, 08:41 PM
Whatís the point of knowing how or knowing why if it does not change anything? In the end it is not knowledge that we desire, it is change.

We tend to think that in order to change knowledge is pre-requisite. We tend to think that knowledge is that power. But is that true? Is it true that change results from knowledge? What kind of change that result from our knowledge? What does it mean to have this knowledge and the change that results from it?

I am a student of letters, not of science.

Because we have knowledge, we interpret. And, what is interpretation if not chaos produced by that curse called knowledge? Now I would say that our knowledge is a curse.

Knowledge is the name of our downfall. Before we experience this downfall, we express as the fire expresses light and light bright.

Now here we are, full of knowledge, thus of anticipation, remorse, angst. Here we are full of knowledge and thereís no way back to that initial state. Alas, we donít even know what this initial means, or is like! We are caught in our own craftiness, the web of interpretations, losing the sense of direction. We exist, time and space defined, death become.

We learn even to love. Love becomes an object of learning. And, to learn is to question. Questions! Thanks to knowledge! Thanks to the consciousness that knowledge has awaken! Everything is under the tyranny of questions now: what, which, how, why, where, when, who.

In the beginning was knowledge. This knowledge was there with me and then it was within me. The knowledge was within me and I became of this knowledge, an interpretation. Then the picture shows there are many interpretations out there and they are all connected, forming a net like spider web, growing bigger and awaiting. I become conscious of this picture and feel alone, unfocused. I feel lost, longing for death, the spider.

Death is forgetfulness, the forgetting. Forget everything and you will be saved. Forget everything and you will have knowledge of where you are, who you are, what you are, what to do. Forget everything and you will have a reality, a life. Forget everything and you will not question anymore.

But I canít forget. I am a student of letters, not of science. I can only remember. Itís awful, itís acute. I have chosen not to forget and thereís no way out from that. I feel violent.

I have come to a situation where change is most desired. I know nothing about what is there to change into. Corrupted, shocked, deceived, I cannot give information. I cannot give anything. I can only do what I can do. And, thatís unworthy, contemptible.

Promises are my only hope, my dreams. I want awakening in dreams. I want dreams to come true.

Gawaine
05-23-2006, 10:11 AM
Knowledge brought on The Fall, that much we can be certain of. And I say this not from a historical point of view, but a philosophical one.

I have checked the rules of this website, and I did not see any that stated this is against the rules. However, moderators, if you deem to remove this part of my post, please do so:

Questions like these are difficult, but I would highly recommend some hallucigenic drugs if any of you have 'gone as far as you can go'. I am convinced many of the greatest philosophers of history have used drugs to assist themselves. My own experiences with them tell me that they open up an entirely new way of thinking of things. Certainly one must analyze them later when you come out of whichever stupor you have chosen, but there is great value of understanding in these drugs. And, not all of these drugs are illegal in every country.