2007-10-12 09:09:28 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
NO It's what you do with what you know
2007-10-12 09:12:07 · answer #1 · answered by Lynn H 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since this is a philosophy section I assume your question relates to the study of the nature and limits of knowledge. This is epistemology, which is a wide and varied topic.
A priori knowledge is that knowledge that is known independent of experience; it is not empirical. A posteriori knowledge is that knowledge that is gained from experience; it is empirical. I'll ask you a simple question, Is there anything you know for certain that was gained without sense experience? If you can answer that in the affirmative you have a priori knowledge. And it is sufficient, to you alone, to have that knowledge. If not it is not knowledge but conjecture. It does not come about by any means we can sense.
Des Carte in his statement "Cogito ego sum" stated an a priori fact for him and if you believe your thinking is also proof you exist then it is an a priori fact for you. It is sufficient for you as it was sufficient for him.
Look up "epistemology" in a Yahoo! web search and in the links that come up, wikipedia has a good summary. This is a very deep and involved topic. Good luck in perusing it, good health, peace and love!
2007-10-12 17:44:31 · answer #2 · answered by Mad Mac 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you know through experience then yes the cycle is complete
but if it is only the philosophy belief kind of knowing No
One cant just believe there is a bridge no matter how much bridge philosophy conjecture is shoveled into the brain
it is when one actually gets to cross the water on the bridge
that one really knows there is a bridge
2007-10-12 17:34:23 · answer #3 · answered by genntri 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes, it is sufficeint to know something. But its what you do what that something that is knowledgable.
2007-10-12 16:12:30 · answer #4 · answered by jmsbdunks 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. However, the level of sufficiency and relevance of such knowlegde varies depending on the circumstances involved.
2007-10-12 16:22:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
As opposed to not knowing? Or are you referring to going beyond knowing to experiencing something at a higher level?
2007-10-12 19:00:05 · answer #6 · answered by Ace Librarian 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think to know something is always helpful, but to experience it is the best. it's just the elite of knowlegde. because experience leads to know more, and to be somewhat more curious. experience tells you a lot about yourself and the others, about mankind and things that surround us !!
2007-10-12 16:39:48 · answer #7 · answered by Onega 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Randomly no, you have to know your field, eg of work, or conversation. If I was talking about wood you wouldn't just talk about cement would you?
2007-10-12 16:13:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
...knowing is the first step...
...second is to assimilate & expand "knowledge"...
...third comes the ability to transfer this "something" to others...
...knowing is more than storing data...
...humanity evolves via informative exchanges!!!
2007-10-12 16:16:55 · answer #9 · answered by TASOS 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
it depends on the situaion if it could harm someone then yes
2007-10-12 16:12:19 · answer #10 · answered by lbear 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋