-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No one can serve two masters
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
ppp
Well-Known Member
But you didn't make a point. The act of making a point involves making a series of declarative statements in support of a specified conclusion. There is nothing in the sentence "I think you should consider the relationship between knowledge and ignorance, and the etymology of the latter" that could reasonably be construed as such. If you were making a point, then you would have
- Established which one of the many assorted definitions of knowledge and ignorance that you were using.
- Explained how each word was relevant to the post to which you were replying
- Why etymology matters more than usage.
- Constructed and supported your conclusion.
- Explained how your conclusion relevantly intersects the statement I made.
Congrats! You got me to do 1/3 of your homework.
I've felt that sometimes. The answer for me is knowing that seers/teachers/gurus/... have agreed that the Truth, God, is revealed in our hearts. I could quote from many different sources but to me the message is that in order to know God's will we have to work on listening.
Sure, I could always believe what you claim about God but why should I?
Why should I believe any claims you make about God.
I have sought out many teachers/Gurus. The message was always the same. To follow them.
Jimmy
King Phenomenon
I agree
There are a gazillion false teachers with many many fewer real ones. I find these three quotes illuminating:
"There are more fake gurus and false teachers in this world than the number of stars in the visible universe. Don’t confuse power-driven, self-centered people with true mentors. A genuine spiritual master will not direct your attention to himself or herself and will not expect absolute obedience or utter admiration from you, but instead will help you to appreciate and admire your inner self. True mentors are as transparent as glass. They let the light of God pass through them." Shams of Tabriz
"A true leader does not seek followers, he wants to teach others how to be leaders. He does not want control, he wants the truth. He does not impose his leadership on others, nor does he take away anyone's autonomy. He inspires by love, not coercion. When it comes time to take credit, he makes himself invisible; but he is the first to arrive at the time of need, and he will never shrink away in fear. He is so passionate about your welfare that when you consult him for guidance, it is like coming face to face with yourself for the first time." Rebbe Menachem M Schneerson (Lubavitcher Rebbe)
"Beware of any system which discourages questioning. Anyone who stifles questions is afraid that it could uncover the falseness of the beliefs." Rabbi Noach Weinberg
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
I am familiar with Godel's work and it's implication for there being objective truth. But I don't think Godel cuts us off from objective knowledge all together. He simply shows that some things (while true) may never ever be shown to be true. Plato certain didn't accept this. He thought everything that existed was "intelligible."
To me, I just chalk this up to another case where "Plato is wrong." But I do think there is merit to his approach concerning the many, many things that ARE intelligible and whose truth is discernible one way or the other.
Could you clarify what you mean exactly? I think I get it, but I don't want to write a lengthy thesis only to find I missed the point of the question.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Is there a distinction to be made between objectivity and intelligibility? I think there must be. It's a reasonable assumption, perhaps, that everything we may perceive to exist is intelligible, if by that we mean that the human mind can make sense of it. True objectivity, however, is in principle denied to the subjective observer. Every view is from somewhere, there is no view either from everywhere or from nowhere; and if there is it must, by definition, be a God's eye view.
As for what I mean by modes of understanding being tautological, it's that every world view, every paradigm, is founded on axioms and assumptions which cannot be independently proven; they are verifiable only within the context of the paradigm they underpin.
Are you familiar with Thomas Kuhn's 'Structures of Scientific Revolutions'? Kuhn's argument is that scientists - this may apply equally to philosophers - operate within a given paradigm, which is self sustaining and internally consistent, until sufficient unresolved anomalies build up to cause a revolution leading to a paradigm shift. The old paradigm is abandoned in favour of the new, founded on a different set of axioms and assumptions, and the scientific community falls into line with the new way of seeing and doing things (true revolutionaries are rare, revolutions rarer). For me one of Kuhn's most interesting insights, was that terms and concepts are often incommensurable between paradigms; indeed he first began to formulate his theory of scientific revolutions when preparing a course on Aristotelian physics. He came to the realisation that 'motion' (Greek kinesis) meant something entirely different to Aristotle than it did to Newton, for example.
So to return to the point of my question; while we may produce ever more successful models by which to understand the world and our place in it, how close can we ever come to apprehending objective reality? Is it the case that nothing is ever quite as it appears to us, and that the best we can do is to interpret symbol and metaphor and construct from them a series of meaningful, but ultimately illusory narratives? And if objective reality cannot be apprehended through the use of logic, reason, observation, gathering and interpretation of evidence etc, is there any other way in which we may transcend the limitations imposed on us by our perspective and perception?
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Yes. There is a big difference. When we talk about objectivity, we mean things that are "perspective-independent" or true regardless of people's beliefs and opinions. Intelligibility refers to an aspect of reality that can be apprehended and understood. There is no contrast with opinion or perspective going on when we talk about "intelligibility." But this contrast very much exists between objectivity and subjectivity.
I agree with that, except the bit that seems to equate a tautology with axioms. Tautologies are obvious truths, but they work within a logical framework. Axioms on the other hand, are things that are clearly apparent or self-evident. No logical framework is needed to to propose that an axiom is true. It's simply obvious that axioms are true.
Yes. Very familiar. And I agree that Kuhn's observations may not just be confined to science, but also other modes of systematic observation, including philosophy. Although it's more pronounced in the sciences than it is in philosophy. That is because I think science is more procedural than philosophy. And the paradigm shifts happen at certain thresholds of procedural viability. Philosophy, while careful and meticulous, is not procedural like the sciences are. And thus, Kuhn's system is not so easily copy/pasted to a philosophical format.
"Closer than we were" to genuine knowledge is good enough for me as far as science and philosophy goes. I'm not so much concerned with THE objective and correct account of reality as I am with an account that is MORE objective and correct than its predecessor.
It's a possibility. But I'm not nearly so pessimistic about it. I'm no "blind optimist" either, mind you. But I'm not about to discard all we've acquired in our journey towards knowledge as mere construction of new narratives.
Well, I mean, I'd have to write an entire book about epistemology to answer that question, wouldn't I? To me, logic helps us be more objective. but it doesn't produce some sort of (capital "O") Objective truth. But it gets us closer to one.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Here I thought you were going to say Trump and Jesus.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Wisdom and action.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I'm not a pessimist either, at least as regards humanity's efforts to grow in understanding. Nor am I either a solipsist or a nihilist, though I've been accused of both by people I believe misunderstood my position. I believe knowledge has value, and it's pursuit for it's own sake is never futile.
But nothing in this floating world is static; there is no fixed point of methodology or epistemology, to which we may anchor the ship of knowledge (to paraphrase Carlo Rovelli) and we should be particularly cautious when considering those truths which appear most axiomatic; it's often those things which appear obvious, that are most likely to be illusory.
Whilst I do value logic and reason, I consider intuition, inspiration and even revelation, to be valuable aids to human understanding and insight. And categorical statements about objective reality, are wont to make me reach for my imaginary revolver.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
I never took you for a solipsist, man.
Solipsism is pretty rare. I've only met one or two my whole life. It's gotta be lonely being a solipsist, y'know? They must feel like they're the only one.
What about the Pythagorean theorem? Does that not hold true in Euclidean space no matter what? Doesn't its truth-status remain unbothered by the fact that "there is no fixed point of methodology or epistemology, to which we may anchor" it? Can we really even ever suggest that the Pythagorean theorem is an illusion? I see many good reasons to think it is true... regardless of where we may place our anchors. There are facts about Euclidean space, and (I'd go further in saying, there are facts about the world) that are objectively true.
But that being said, I agree with you and Carlo Rovelli. When we try to finally decide what is true or not, we should be cautious. So long as we make careful statements and are mindful of flaws in our observation and thinking, we are good to go. (Even though even then we will still make errors.)
What do you think about intuition, inspiration and even revelation.... but without appeal to logic at all? How much valuable knowledge is that going to produce? To be fair, I think logic alone, without inspiration or imagination is ALSO rather going to be a rather bad way to pursue knowledge. But my point is this: logic is necessary in apprehending the world more clearly. It removes a lot of rubbish. It discloses additional truths and gives us access to them if we are willing to run what we already know (or think we know) through its processes.
***
Which of the above things do you agree with? Which do you disagree with?
And would you mind writing a paragraph or two summarizing your basic views on epistemology?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
It’s certainly remarkable that there is an order in nature, which is amenable to human reason. Those ancient Greeks do seem to have discovered fundamental truths about the world. Geometry is nevertheless an abstraction, one which works perfectly only as an ideal. When Euclidean geometry is applied to real world situations such as navigation at sea, or laying foundations for architectural projects, don’t adjustments have to be made, to account for the fact we live on the surface of a globe? So Euclidean principles do not hold true in all circumstances; and there are non-Euclidean geometries.
From Plato to Roger Penrose, the question whether maths and logic have some fundamental reality of their own, independent of human imagination, remains unresolved. Geometry is a language humans use to describe the world, with remarkable accuracy; But models of the world are not the world are they?
Regarding intuition and inspiration, I agree we are apt to lead ourselves astray if we do not submit insights thus achieved, to test by logic and reason. Epiphanies have value, and are not to be confused with hallucination or delusion; but we can wander into the latter if we allow insight to go unchallenged.
I don’t subscribe to any particular principles or doctrine of epistemology. I incline by nature towards metaphysical questions, but if I want to brush up on my French before a trip to that country, I’m probably not going to read Chomsky on the theory of language acquisition. And I don’t need to understand quantum electrodynamics, to install new lighting in my kitchen. So an interest in metaphysics need not bevincompatible with a utilitarian approach to knowledge and learning.
I think we can learn things of real value and substance, sometimes through experiment, but also through listening to teachers who we trust; which teachers do we trust though, and why? That’s a big question in itself, too big to answer here; are the best teachers in any case, the ones who encourage us to think for ourselves, and to go on asking the most difficult questions? Perhaps. Thomas Kuhn wrote that “science students are distressingly willing to receive the word from professors and texts.”* I’ve heard at least one Anglican priest say something similar about his parishioners. But who can blame an undergraduate with end of year exams to think about, or Sunday churchgoers concerned about the week ahead, for not wanting to challenge the foundations of either science or faith? Not everyone wants to address the deepest mysteries of existence, but something in many of us does, and this is where the limitations of our capacity for knowledge becomes acute. Mostly we tell ourselves stories about the world, stories we can live with, and which help us to navigate through life; if there were no truth in the stories, or the truth didn’t apply in a particular domain, they would fail us and we’d need to write new ones. Scientists do this, historians do it, whole societies do it. Most of all, we all do it about ourselves and our own lives.
Returning again to Pythagoras and Euclid, have they revealed to us certain incontrovertible, eternal truths about nature? Perhaps they have, more so than many other great minds since, including Newton and Einstein. I’ll have to think about that some more.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Yes. There are non-Euclidean geometries. But there is also Euclidean Geometry. I think it's fine for me to appeal to Euclid's determinations about space. Both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry gives us accurate information. "Euclidean" geometry is not therefore untrue just because space can be bent. In all instances of flat space, even if it isn't perfectly flat, Euclidean geometry gets the job done.
vulcanlogician
Well-Known Member
Did you not catch the solipsism joke? Or did you just not think it was funny?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I got the joke. Not sure how you register a wry smile, or even a chuckle online. Perhaps there’s an appropriate emoji
Last edited:
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
Pretty sure that physics is a master we can’t avoid.