When did knowledge exist?

[Shibolet]

if the omniscient is omniscient then the omniscient would know they would eat when directed not to...but of course if the omniscient were omniscient the omniscient wouldn't be 'looking' for them after they did...

of course none of it existed...so we gotta look deeper at the story

If your view of God was not so anthropomorphist, you could probably understand the allegory about the Genesis account of Creation.

 

[wil]

lol....if you knew me at all, (and we've had this discussion before) you'd know my view of G!d is not at all anthropomorphous....metaphor and metaphysic, allegory and parable, myth and story....tis my bag

but this IS how I respond to those who do anthropomorphize G!d

 

[The Adept]

Conviction is not the same thing as knowledge...

Belief is not the same as knowledge.
To think we know something does not mean that we truly do know it.

 

[Shibolet]

lol....if you knew me at all, (and we've had this discussion before) you'd know my view of G!d is not at all anthropomorphous....metaphor and metaphysic, allegory and parable, myth and story....tis my bag

but this IS how I respond to those who do anthropomorphize G!d

Hey, don't take me wrong in this one! You can anthropomorphize God at your heart's content, but in metaphorical allegories and parables. The problem resides in the literal reference to God in anthropomorphic terms.

 

[wil]

Metaphorically I like to see G!d as a grandmotherly figure and to nuzzle up on her lap and fall asleep in her bosom.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Trying to get down to the primal point of knowledge is, in my humble opinion, a waste of time. Philosophers from the beginning of time right down to the present give me a headache with their endless finessing of reality until what we end up is that we can know nothing!

It’s like the famous fable of Medieval scholars debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. Whether or not they actually debated this particular issue is irrelevant. What IS relevant is that there was a fair amount of this type of discussion going on. Specifically endlessly debating topics of no practical value.

Such nonsense was hardly limited to Medieval scholars. As I mentioned up front, philosophers from all ages loved to get into these kinds of discussions. And they continue to do so today. And will probably continue to do so for as long as there are humans around.

This kind of thing may have entertainment value, in which case, carry on. But to mentally butcher oneself over what is truly, really, absolutely, pinky finger swearing true knowledge as anything other than a thought exercise is a complete waste of time.

So when does knowledge exist? My response would be ‘Who Cares!’ I believe it is more important to have the wisdom to understand how far knowledge will get you.

After all, we are trapped into a reality that to our meager senses appears ‘real’. But we know for a fact that our reality is not real. The chair I am sitting on is not a solid object. It is composed of a gazillion subatomic particles that bounce around in such a way to create what I perceive is a solid chair.

The wisdom is in the knowledge that even if the chair is not solid, in the reality in which I reside it will always seem solid to me. And that is good enough!

Knowledge exists when the value of the topic has been reaffirmed enough times that we can reasonably expect it to be so. But it is vital to remember, we can never truly be sure of anything. All we can hope for is that we have enough knowledge to be ‘sure enough’ to get by.

And to always remember, we ain’t so smart as we think we are!

 

[Shibolet]

Trying to get down to the primal point of knowledge is, in my humble opinion, a waste of time. Philosophers from the beginning of time right down to the present give me a headache with their endless finessing of reality until what we end up is that we can know nothing!

IMHO, there are so much to know, that the more we study the less we know. So, why study at all?

 

[Devils' Advocate]

the more we study the less we know

You miss the entire point of the quote. It is not that we get more stupid the more we study. The more we study the more we learn. The more we learn the more we come to the realization that there is so much more to learn.

The more we study, the wider our knowledge base becomes. The wider our knowledge base, the wider our understanding that there is ever more to learn above what we have achieved thus far.

 

[Thomas]

Hey, DA, if I may pinch your moniker for a mo' –

Trying to get down to the primal point of knowledge is, in my humble opinion, a waste of time.

But following that line of reasoning back and we arrive at the ape who says to the proto-hominid, 'walking on your hind legs is, in my opinion, a waste of time...'

Expanding the horizon is what we humans do. I think it's our defining characteristic.

In every age there are those who have said, 'That's it, this is as far as we're going to get.'

Philosophers from the beginning of time right down to the present give me a headache with their endless finessing of reality until what we end up is that we can know nothing!

That's a really interesting point.

The reason we can know nothing is the knowledge is borrowed, it's not ours, we have not made it our own, and we don't know how to appreciate or value, or even use, what we have ... so in the end we say 'so what?' or 'who cares?' ... It's a particular problem in consumer cultures.

It’s like the famous fable of Medieval scholars debating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Or Columbus' sailors thinking they were going to fall off the edge of the world.

Whether or not they actually debated this particular issue is irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. If they didn't then your next point is irrelevant.

What IS relevant is that there was a fair amount of this type of discussion going on. Specifically endlessly debating topics of no practical value.

A practical joke by college professors is not proof of anything (except maybe they had too much time on their hands?). You've gone from acknowledging a fable to investing it with actuality.

I would say the point is – How do we 'value' a discussion? I have read Stephen Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time' from cover to cover, but could I critically appraise it? No. And what to do with it? I have no idea.

How would we know how to value a discussion between say, Paul Dirac and Erwin Schrödinger?

How many useful scientific breakthroughs emerged from pursuing research for its own sake, research with no immediate 'practical value'?

Such nonsense was hardly limited to Medieval scholars.

But the trick is to discern between what's nonsense and what's not ...

So when does knowledge exist? My response would be ‘Who Cares!’ I believe it is more important to have the wisdom to understand how far knowledge will get you.

This kind of argument stands until what you didn't care about comes to haunt you.

After all, we are trapped into a reality that to our meager senses appears ‘real’. But we know for a fact that our reality is not real.

Only because a philosopher questioned the nature of the real.

The chair I am sitting on is not a solid object. It is composed of a gazillion subatomic particles that bounce around in such a way to create what I perceive is a solid chair.

Ditto.

The wisdom is in the knowledge that even if the chair is not solid, in the reality in which I reside it will always seem solid to me. And that is good enough!

But that's a philosophical position ... do you believe everything everyone tells you?

But it is vital to remember, we can never truly be sure of anything.

Actually you can't say that. It's an absolute ('never') and you're arguing we cannot make absolute statements.

What you can say is, 'I can never be sure of anything' or more accurately, 'there are certain things I am currently not sure of' ... but that is a relative circumstance dependent on contingent factors ... and it applies to you alone, not necessarily everybody.

And to always remember, we ain’t so smart as we think we are!

But we have our moments!

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

DA, your post seems rather paradoxical. At first you render all previous discussion on knowledge irrelevant (rudely one might say even though it wasn't intended as such) but then go on to discuss what knowledge is and isn't to substantiate your argument that arguing what knowledge is or isn't is pointless. Gets my head spinning just thinking about it.

I understand you must see it very differently but to me it looks the same.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Yeah, words on a page can be hard to decipher what the writer's intent was. No rudeness was intended on my part. Some things do get on my nerves and leaves me frustrated, and what you read as rude was more likely my own frustration showing.

Thomas you made some good points; and some, well, not so much. I will respond soon as I can. One quick example. My knowledge of the chair being what it is in actuality (atoms), and my knowledge of what the chair will always be according to my senses (a solid object) - that is not a philosophical view. It is a realistic one.

You park your butt in a chair and you are sitting in a chair. I cannot imagine any situation where anything else can happen (someone rigging the chair to collapse as a joke is not valid as the chair has been tampered with). That is the reality of chairs. Anyone anywhere on planet Earth will experience the same thing.

 

[Thomas]

One quick example. My knowledge of the chair being what it is in actuality (atoms), and my knowledge of what the chair will always be according to my senses (a solid object) - that is not a philosophical view. It is a realistic one.

Realistic only if you know about atoms. That started as a philosophical inquiry, thousands of years ago, and stayed that way until early last century ... and the idea probably seemed a bit dumb at the time, that's my point. I'm sure someone has asked how many atoms can you balance on the point of a needle?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Thomas you made some good points; and some, well, not so much. I will respond soon as I can. One quick example. My knowledge of the chair being what it is in actuality (atoms), and my knowledge of what the chair will always be according to my senses (a solid object) - that is not a philosophical view. It is a realistic one.

Could you expand on the difference between realistic and philosophical knowledge?

 

[Shibolet]

the more we study the less we know

You miss the entire point of the quote. It is not that we get more stupid the more we study. The more we study the more we learn. The more we learn the more we come to the realization that there is so much more to learn.

The more we study, the wider our knowledge base becomes. The wider our knowledge base, the wider our understanding that there is ever more to learn above what we have achieved thus far.

So, I go straight to the bottom line and say: The more I study the less I know because the more I find out that I don't know.

 

[wil]

It is only true.... Until the telescope we had a level of knowledge that we were certain of....looking through it changes everything...same with the microscope. Same with theology or the study of anything.

We live our rudimentary existence thinking we know something...until we study it, then we discover the breadth and depth of the subject and realize we know very little...

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Yes, we don't know less after we learn something, but though our understanding we see how much more there is to know.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

Yep. What Cup said!

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

But better spelt perhaps?

 

[wil]

dinkel has been cultivated for 5,000 years...is there a new variety?

See, something else I didn't have knowledge of... with the answer to every question more are created.


Unless of course you are a small child...

Dad, why are there rainbows?

It is G!ds promise to never again perform mass genocide on 99.99% of his creations.

Cool! Look squirrel!

 

[Shibolet]

It is only true.... Until the telescope we had a level of knowledge that we were certain of....looking through it changes everything...same with the microscope. Same with theology or the study of anything.

We live our rudimentary existence thinking we know something...until we study it, then we discover the breadth and depth of the subject and realize we know very little...

That's the whole truth; nothing but.