The Radical Academy Discussion Forum
Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
|
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 2) |
| Author | Comment |
Kevin
 Jan 2, 08 - 1:50 AM |
Richard on the "need" for a Universal Definition of Knowledge (2 parts).
PART I: Previously, Richard "thought" that he had a refutable "definition" of Knowledge (Knowledge is justified true belief), which philosophers had used for centuries. But Plato refuted him. Now his thesis is that philosophers NEVER HAD ANY DEFINITION of Knowledge, "needed", to "ground" philosophy in LOGIC, which is yet to be "the case". RICHARD: Kevin, The fact that ideas about the nature of knowledge are radically different from philosopher to philosopher makes it absolutely hilarious when anyone DEMANDS that discussing the nature of knowledge should be bound by the ideas of one's ’ favorite philosopher. REPLY: I make no "DEMANDS". I simply prefer philosophers (like Socrates and Aristotle) who are honest to those alleged "philosophers" who are dishonest (like Descartes and Kant). Prove that all philosophers CONTRADICT each other on the nature of knowledge, Richard, since you imply that they ALL have "radically different ideas"! They don't. Those philosophers who agree are probably in the right, provided that they are real philosophers and NOT either sophists or merely critical dialecticians. The fact that some supposed philosophers CONTRADICT each other, on the nature/structure of knowledge merely proves that either:- (1) NO "philosopher" KNOWS the nature/structure of knowledge; OR (2) SOME "philosopher" KNOWS the nature/structure of knowledge AND (3) SOME (other) "philosopher" does NOT KNOW the nature/structure of knowledge. Socrates honestly admitted that he did not know what "KNOWLEDGE-itself" was. Aristotle honestly admitted that Knowledge was a RELATION between a known thing and the knower OF that thing --- knowledge (on the part of the knower) of both a FACT and the CAUSES of that same FACT. In contrast to both Socrates and Aristotle, your repetitive "ARGUMENT", Richard, seems to indicate "(1)" as your preferred OPINION:- "NO 'philosopher' KNOWS the nature/structure of knowledge." If you have some other OPINION, then tell us what it is. But your OPINION, whatever it really is, doesn't change the FACT that Socrates always KNEW when he KNEW something and, also, and more importantly, always KNEW when he DID NOT KNOW something. That FACT constituted Socrates's "wisdom", if any, according to both Socrates and Plato. In short, Socrates KNEW when he KNEW and he KNEW when he did NOT KNOW, without KNOWING the nature/structure of Knowledge "itself" Requote, SOCRATES: "...if you (Theaetetus) remain barren, you will be gentler and more agreeable to your companions, having the good sense NOT TO FANCY you KNOW what you DO NOT KNOW. For that, and no more, is all that my ART can effect..." And again, Richard, if you doubt Socrates's address to Theaetetus, there is Socrates's almost final "quote" in making the same point, quote: SOCRATES: "...and this ignorance, which thinks it KNOWS what it DOES NOT, must surely be the most culpable. This, I take it gentlemen, is the DEGREE, and this the NATURE of my advantage over the rest of mankind, and if I were claim to be WISER than MY NEIGHBOR in any respect, it would be in this --- that NOT possessing any REAL KNOWLEDGE of what comes after death, I am also CONSCIOUS that I do NOT possess it (KNOWLEDGE). You, Richard, in sharp contrast to Socrates, think that you KNOW what you DO NOT KNOW. eg. You thought you KNEW that, requote, RICHARD: "For centuries, (ALL? MOST? SOME?) philosophers claimed knowledge is 'justified true belief' and is not constructed.", which Plato proved to be FALSE, from The Theaetetus. Again you thought you KNEW that, requote RICHARD: Philosophy is the accumulated WRITINGS of thinkers who never understood the NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE ITSELF, thus philosophers have never understood how KNOWLEDGE IS CONSTRUCTED. REBUTTAL: Against that, we have Socrates who did NOT understand the NATURE OF KNOWLEDGE ITSELF, but who WROTE nothing. Then we have Plato who WROTE a lot, exemplifying Socratic "elenchus" (and in addition, LAW), but who refused to WRITE anything on "philosophy itself" --- practicing what he preached by establishing an ACADEMY for philosophical teaching, rather than writing "sceptical gems", like Uncle Bertie Russell. Back to you, Richard, you "expert" on philosophy, quote: RICHARD: I have long held the belief that an education in Philosophy destroys ones’ ability to think rationally and your DEMAND supports this belief. REBUTTAL: As I said above, I make no DEMANDS, unlike you, you entirely conrovertible hypocrite. It was you who demanded that I "unshackle" myself from "traditional Academic philosophy" and "think for myself". END PART I KB |
|
Kevin
Jan 2nd, 2008 - 3:33 AM |
Re: Richard on the "need" for a Universal Definition of Knowledge (2 parts).
Requote from PART I RICHARD: I have long held the belief that an education in Philosophy destroys ones’ ability to think rationally and your DEMAND supports this belief. REBUTTAL (contd.): As I said above, in Part I, I make no DEMANDS, unlike you, you entirely conrovertible hypocrite. It was you who demanded that I "unshackle" myself from "traditional Academic philosophy" and "think for myself", as per requote: RICHARD: Get real man, unshackle your thinking from the senseless ideas of Traditional Academic Philosophy, and do your own thinking. COMMENT: You are the hypocrite making "demands", Richard. Not me. You can "shackle" yourself to anyone you admire, which, I think in your case, is primarily your own personal self. But, not me. I prefer Socrates and Aristotle, in philosophy, to either you or myself. You'll arguably be happy to know that my formal academic training was in Medical Laboratory SCIENCE, since you seem to admire SCIENCE so much. However, in truth, you only admire your own "ideas", since you are incapable of hearing anything WRITTEN to you, as you prove below. RICHARD: Socrates is my favorite philosopher but how rational would I be to shackle my thinking to his ideas, about knowledge, when I know he would have different ideas if he were still living. Get Real! COMMENT: Right! Socrates is "your favorite philosopher"!!! Well, then, why don't you take his advice and admit you DON'T KNOW what you DO NOT KNOW? Why don't you take his advice, Richard? --- Because you haven't digested that advice! You can't possibly "KNOW" that Socrates would ever change his "ideas" about 3 things and 3 sorts of persons. (1) When he didn't KNOW something, he admitted it. (2) Then there were all of the people he questioned who merely thought they KNEW what they didn't KNOW. You CONFORM to "(2)", Richard. Finally, for Socrates, there were, (3) Those who KNEW and proved they KNEW various mechanical ARTS (which they possessed). They taught him many fine things which he did NOT KNOW. But they had the same problem as POETS and POLITICIANS: Just because they KNEW some "art", they thought they KNEW EVERYTHING. RICHARD: The reason I harp continually about understanding the nature of knowledge is because knowledge is the one abstract universal that must have a definition engraved in stone for Philosophy to be grounded on logic. REBUTTAL: Absolute crap. Universals are imperceptible. And knowledge always proceeds by means of the COMMENSURATE UNIVERSAL, which cannot be written in stone, which is CONCRETE. But since minds are not concrete any mind may grasp IMPERCEPTIBLE UNIVERSALS --- with you, Richard, being an arguable exception to the general rule. As to knowledge, definitions thereof, and LOGIC: Anyone may have an almost infinite KNOWLEDGE of any given REAL THING, without taking one course in LOGIC or inference and while being entirely ILLOGICAL in almost everything other than what they KNOW. Idiot savantes are perfect examples. Give a "savante" any kind of mathematical problem and they can answer that mathematical problem even faster than computer programmers can input what might be called "Russellian data"! But such "savantes" can't feed themselves or tie their own shoe-laces. Some of them can't even speak their own parents's languages. Yet give them a mathematical problem and out "pops" the correct answer. Nobody, least of all the "idiot savante", KNOWS why or how they do such things. FORMAL LOGIC, in particular, has nothing to do with KNOWLEDGE of FACTS --- only with KNOWLEDGE of correct vs. incorrect inferences. LOGIC and KNOWLEDGE are not the same THINGS, although KNOWLEDGE of LOGIC is the same thing as KNOWLEDGE of how to SLAM DUNK a basketball, or fix a car. You either KNOW how to "slam" or not. You either know how to fix a car or not. You either KNOW how to reason-logically or not. But no one needs a definition of KNOWLEDGE to actually DO any of those things (slam; fix; or reason). RICHARD: Without a realistic comprehensive universal definition of knowledge it is IMPOSSIBLE to understand how knowledge is constructed and no degree of certainty that the WRITINGS of philosophers will have any relevance to the reality of what their (ie. they are) WRITING are about. COMMENT: Still talking non-sense about WRITING, eh Richard, despite Plato's 7th Letter "refutation" of your non-sense. Thank God that Socrates, your "hero" and mine, WROTE nothing and Plato WROTE that philosophy has nothing to do with WRITTEN treatises. But you didn't hear Plato, did you Richard? You don't hear rational rebuttals of your "beliefs"! REBUTTAL: Since you haven't provided a "REALISTIC COMPREHENSIVE UNIVERSAL DEFINITION OF KNOWLEDGE", neither you, nor I, can KNOW what "reality" you write about. (TEE HEE!) ADVISEMENT (not demand): You may buy or borrow a dictionary. Try "K" for knowledge or "E" (episteme) in Greek. KB |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com