2007-03-19 11:25:24 · 29 answers · asked by Source 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Arguably anything that is real.
Dig this. Knowledge can't really exist without a knower, right? So it would seem that the most direct disentanglement of knowledge from non-knowledge would suggest that anything that can exist when knowers don't is knowledge.
Don't forget to include the BODIES of the knowers, either. A brain-dead knower arguably doesn't know too much, but still counts as something that is. Even an active brain would count as long as its state is not directly indicative of one that could only exist when knowledge is present.
That gives you a good start. If you want to get further than that, you are going to have to refine exactly what you mean by 'knowledge'. Is an imagining knowledge (knowledge of the not-real)? Is a lie knowledge (knowledge of the not-true)? Or are you going to exclude everything but factual information? There's enough room among those possibilities for a rather interesting discussion of them, I suspect.
Until then!
2007-03-19 12:09:34 · answer #1 · answered by Doctor Why 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Knowledge is only an interpretation of things observable. If your question is about perceptions only (you can't compare knowledge to objects for example) then non-knowledge includes all perceptions/opinions/interpretations of things that are:
1) non observable or
2) observable only to some people (factoring out special training or enhancement of observing abilities)
2007-03-27 09:59:01 · answer #2 · answered by Basil 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What is not knowledge is an idea that hasn't been embedded to the mind. The mind is the seat of all knowledge. There is knowledge when the mind recalls these ideas.
2007-03-19 11:44:51 · answer #3 · answered by oscar c 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Others experience is not your knowledge, its just a piece of information. When we actually experience it , it becomes knowledge, till then it isn't knowledge
2007-03-25 23:47:57 · answer #4 · answered by ajilu2002 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question, Source. Very goo one.
It is easy actually to answer that.
You see: given what knowledge is, the negation of its bases means what "is not knowledge". Got it?
Follow me: knowledge is the content that results from the relation between the world and a declarative proposition. Example: imagine a falling ball; then someone says: "a ball is falling"; so this enunciation in this context is a true and the content of this truth is the knowledge.
So, to say what knowledge is not, we have simply to say that it is the non-correspondence between the world (or reality) and the proposition in case (or "what is said").
Got it? I hope my English was enough to you understand it all!
Bye,
i e - b r a z i l
2007-03-19 11:51:04 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Wisdom. The two are often used interchangeably, but they are actually quite different. For example, knowledge allows you to take something apart; wisdom helps you put it back together. Which is better? Wisdom, of course.
2007-03-23 23:04:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
When someone points his/her finger at the moon/star to show you where it is, you do not need the finger anymore as you have knowledge of the moon/star now.
What is'nt knowledge is when you can not comprehend and/or look beyond what was pointed to you....
That begs one question; Is'nt wisdom knowledge or is'nt knowledge wisdom!!!???
2007-03-20 08:41:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There isn't such a thing. Everything in this world adds to our knowledge, whether we want it or not.
2007-03-25 20:41:08 · answer #8 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ignorance.
2007-03-25 12:49:03 · answer #9 · answered by dynamite_boy619 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
objects aren't knowledge; for example, an orange isn't knowledge, its just an orange.
2007-03-19 11:36:31 · answer #10 · answered by Hans B 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋