In response to a previous question, many respondents asserted that no one can KNOW that they're right and that no one can KNOW the truth... so would this revelation not then inevitably indicate our ability only to collect perspectives and speculations? Can we even claim that anything is a "fact" if we can't KNOW that it is?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071019202451AAhgGLC
2007-10-19 16:44:44 · 13 answers · asked by ZER0 C00L ••AM••VT•• 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
In deference to Silver Tongue, his theist thesis is lacking.
The way to acquire knowledge is not in merely gathering opinions and searching for what fits. Many theists do just that. While I'm not a Christian, that is a part of what I've done. Still, there is no way of knowing that what I have is absolute truth.
We may not be able to "Know" in an absolute or philosophical sense, but we can "know" in the sense that we can believe without ambiguity.
Kant, if coming up against a person with a gun, would likely experience fear. If a brigand threatened him with death if he had failed to turn over his wallet, it is reasonable to assume that he would have handed over his wallet. While philosophically, he may have questioned the "reality" of the gun in other circumstances, the reality (imagined or not) of the situation is such that philosophical questioning is unlikely to change the outcome. In a philosophical setting, one can question what reality actually is, but on a more mundane level, we are afraid of guns and bombs because we "KNOW" they kill.
One may wax philosophical about knowledge and reality, but the truth is that we each have systems that have shown themselves to function in the "real" world.
2007-10-20 05:00:45 · answer #1 · answered by Deirdre H 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The truth will silence all the questions. Having knowledge does not necessarily mean one has an understanding of truth. Real truth burns with reality and leaves no confusion, whereas most knowledge is dependent on understanding of the recipient and the teacher presenting the knowledge. Mortal knowledge is not truth but a perception developed from the experience of the person. As the individual gains more experience, the knowledge changes. It was an accepted knowledge that the world was flat, until through experience, the truth was finally given.
There is only one truth, and one truth alone. This truth resonates and escapes all language barriers and transcends human speculation and understanding. Prophets know the real truth and have not been affected by the vain and foolish imaginations of humans who are not suppose to know the real truth, having been placed in mortality to experience an existence without it. All prophets are experienced in "not knowing" the truth, or better, they have been "trained for the ministry" by belonging to some religion or spiritual movement before they were taught the truth. None of them came up with the truth on their own, but were instructed therein by someone who knows the real truth.
There's no such thing as "personal revelation" and insight of the real truth. It's this human perception that has convoluted and corrupted the real truth. When a man or a woman feels they have received a "special calling" or personal revelation from God, that person automatically creates the truth he or she believes and leads any other who will listen away from the real truth as they preach their "revelation." In other words, (and let this guide all people), IF YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THE REAL TRUTH FROM THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL MOUTH OF ONE WHO KNOWS TRUTH, YOU HAVE BEEN MISLED BY "LUCIFER" (i.e., your flesh).
2007-10-26 19:28:50 · answer #2 · answered by smallone 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You've just posed a hypothetical argument there with the antecedent: "If we can't KNOW anything" as premise. The consequent or conclusion is the question: "How is it possible to acquire knowledge?"
If we can't know anything, it necessarily follows that there's no other way we can acquire knowledge and the consequent above "How is it possible to acquire knowledge?" is therefore irrelevant and does not follow.
Likewise, how do we know that the action "collecting" and the quality "perspectives" are bits of knowledge if we have assumed to be true the antecedent that "we cannot KNOW ANYTHING?"
Ergo, If we can't KNOW anything, it's not possible to acquire knowledge which includes collecting perspectives.
2007-10-20 00:34:30 · answer #3 · answered by Lance 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is a good question. The way to look at is as thus; to acquire knowledge is to gather multiple interpretations and perspectives, in doing this the truth will become clear, for within most theory there is a small truth. different authors write different things, they all write their own feelings and their own perspective, the thing to do is gather as much info as you can and then make your own theory. Truth is relative to the reader.
the problem with theists, is that they don't search for alternative material and perspectives, they only know one. That is why you see alot of Atheist speak of ignorance within Theism.
knowledge is the key, without it we can not unlock the truth for all to see.
2007-10-20 04:45:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Such a person is a nihilist. I don't agree that we cannot know anything. There are a great many things we don't know, and there are probably a great many things we can't know, but there are also a great many things we do know.
To me, the term "know" means I believe something and that something is true. So it may not always be possible for me to know whether what I believe is in fact true, but certainly in many cases it is possible. The evidence is convincing, there is no reason to doubt the validity of my memory or my physical evidence, and so on.
Also, if a thing is logically or mathematically true, we certainly can know it. 2 + 2 does in fact equal 4.
2007-10-20 03:19:47 · answer #5 · answered by auntb93 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have all my collective knowledge sorted by state and county - so I'll be correct wherever I travel.
If you adjust for Latitude and Longitude you can use some knowledge in two places.
At the speed of light all knowledge is the same.
2007-10-19 23:58:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Kant emerged a fairly -cut theory of the mind as the only source of knowledge. He held that the mind can know nothing in this world, this 'thing-in-itself'. The mind receives impressions accdg to its nature or categories and shapes them into patterns which conform not to the outside mind, but to the nature of the mind. Space and time for example, are not realities existing by themselves, but are ways our minds have of receiving an shaping sensations. 'Take away the thinking subject', Kant argues, 'and the entire corporeal world will vanish, for it is nothing but the appearance in the sensibility of the subject.
2007-10-19 23:57:27 · answer #7 · answered by oscar c 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
One can use dialectic synthesis and logic to show that there are no direct contradictions in any body of 'knowledge'. But, aside from that and Occams Razor, the whole thing may just be a giant computer simulation.
Doug
2007-10-19 23:49:51 · answer #8 · answered by doug_donaghue 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In logic, the formula is : premise, premise, conclusion. Just like a mathematical problem x+y=z. You just have to replace the variable with the right solution to solve the equation. Easier said than done, I know, but then life would be so boring.
2007-10-19 23:48:48 · answer #9 · answered by Hot Coco Puff 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
By knowing the limits we can imply the unlimited, which is itself, alone, knowledge.
I.e. it is Socrates "I am wise in that I know that I do not know."
By knowing the limits, we know everything else by comparison, at least as something to defer to, when our limits have been found...
Thus Socrates, and most the Prophets were killed for telling people their limits.
God bless.
2007-10-20 00:16:26 · answer #10 · answered by Gravitar or not... 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋