The Pursuit of Knowledge vs. The Pursuit of Wisdom

[Koldo]

As I've said elsewhere, logic doesn't apply here. Neither you nor anyone else has a complete and utter command on the physical laws of the Cosmos. We don't know what we don't know. How can one make logical inferences or deductions without the complete set of factual premises that are require to make them?

Why do you presume we need more factual premises to reach the conclusion that existence can have no source? A priori reasoning is sufficient to reach this conclusion.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Do you not see that knowledge can be weaponized to do serious damage to the world; intentional, and unintentional damages both?

No, I do not look at knowledge in that way.

Human beings entered the continent of Australia some 50,000 years ago. Within a few thousand years after that, 85% of Australia's megafauna, mamals, birds, and reptiles weighing over 100 lbs went extinct. Do you see that occurrance as being the result of excessive knowledge wielded by those pre-historic humans?

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Why do you presume we need more factual premises to reach the conclusion that existence can have no source? A priori reasoning is sufficient to reach this conclusion.

There are no a priori premises related to reality, the real world of experience, as opposed to purely analytic and abstract constructs.

 

[Alien826]

It is a "fact" that my car is outside in the parking lot. This "fact" is only true, however, so long as my car remains outside in the parking lot. But it will not remain there. It will move, and then the fact that was once true will no longer be true. Because it's truthfulness depended on a set of other facts also being true (facts involving the where, and when, and what).

So, a whole set of facts were being assembled into a probable (acceptable) vision of reality involving my car. But the facts are constantly changing as the reality that we exist in is constantly changing. And so the truthfulness of those facts depend on the ever-changing facts they are being associated with.

OK, I'll continue for a while, as what you write here is understandable.

Everything you say here is correct until the last sentence above. These facts remain true if we add enough precision. The car was in the parking lot at a particular time, or span of time. That will never change and will always be true. It then moved to somewhere else that is also true and will remain so if you specify the times places and so on accurately. Yes, it can be complicated, but that adds to the difficulty of constructing an accurate description, and does effect the possible existence of such a description.

So, to your last sentence. The truthfulness of the facts doesn't depend on the fact that they are changing. What it depends on is our ability to measure, calculate and state the various factors involved.

This is why facts do not gain us access to the whole, or to the absolute truth of anything. And why the accumulation of facts (knowledge) does not provide us the "real truth" of things, either. They only gain us a relatively (and momentarily) truthful illusion that we then call "reality" to act on. And sometimes that works for us and sometimes it doesn't.

On the contrary, facts are the only thing that give us any hope of arriving at a better (I won't say absolute) version of the truth. And the accuracy of the facts themselves depend on our ability to determine them. And that depends on the methodology we use. Science, I'm afraid.

It's true that many data points (not facts yet) are momentary and fleeting. So we attempt to gather as many of them as we can to obtain a better overall set of facts. The more we gather and the better our interpretation of them, the nearer we get to truth, or accuracy might be better.

I will admit, if it helps, that our understanding of the physical world can be limited, for many reasons. To me that suggests that we need to get better at observing and interpreting.

Does this help to clarify my assertions for you?

Yes. Now let's move on if you wish, as facts are just one part of your argument I believe. I won't attempt to anticipate what you will say.

 

[Koldo]

There are no a priori premises related to reality, the real world of experience, as opposed to purely analytic and abstract constructs.

You mean we can't say there are no married bachelors?

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

You mean we can't say there are no married bachelors?

No, that does not follow from what I said. In fact, if you read carefully what I said you would see that your statement reflects purely analytic abstractions that I mentioned.

Marriage, being married, and bachelorhood are all human invented abstract concepts or constructs. Humans set the definitions of the terms along with corresponding properties and characteristics. We human beings do not get to define reality and set it's corresponding properties and characteristics. They have to be discovered and learned, i.e. a posteriori.

 

[blü 2]

This clearly illustrates the problem, I think ... the fact that you do not see it.

Yet I've pointed out to you what seems to me the major problem with your argument, and you've made no reply to it.

Perhaps if you were to clear that up, we could move on to lesser problems.

 

[osgart]

No, I do not look at knowledge in that way.

Human beings entered the continent of Australia some 50,000 years ago. Within a few thousand years after that, 85% of Australia's megafauna, mamals, birds, and reptiles weighing over 100 lbs went extinct. Do you see that occurrance as being the result of excessive knowledge wielded by those pre-historic humans?

What about the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons? Shall we allow N. Korea, and Iran to produce nuclear? Anything that gives power can be used for good, or bad. Knowledge bears responsibility.

 

[Koldo]

No, that does not follow from what I said. In fact, if you read carefully what I said you would see that your statement reflects purely analytic abstractions that I mentioned.

The issue is that you said: "There are no a priori premises related to reality". Married men and bachelors are not merely abstractions without any relation to reality. Those are labels that describe properties of real individuals.

Or, by 'related to reality' do you mean that the property itself (such as being married/bachelor) is not part of reality?

Marriage, being married, and bachelorhood are all human invented abstract concepts or constructs.
Humans set the definitions of the terms along with corresponding properties and characteristics. We human beings do not get to define reality and set it's corresponding properties and characteristics. They have to be discovered and learned, i.e. a posteriori.

Existence (and causation) itself is an abstract concept. Since existence is discovered and learned though, would you state then that when I say: "If existence requires a source, that source must exist before existence itself, and since this is a logical impossibility, therefore, existence cannot have a source." that this is a posteriori?

 

[PureX]

OK, I'll continue for a while, as what you write here is understandable.

Everything you say here is correct until the last sentence above. These facts remain true if we add enough precision. The car was in the parking lot at a particular time, or span of time. That will never change and will always be true. It then moved to somewhere else that is also true and will remain so if you specify the times places and so on accurately. Yes, it can be complicated, but that adds to the difficulty of constructing an accurate description, and does effect the possible existence of such a description.

So, to your last sentence. The truthfulness of the facts doesn't depend on the fact that they are changing. What it depends on is our ability to measure, calculate and state the various factors involved.

On the contrary, facts are the only thing that give us any hope of arriving at a better (I won't say absolute) version of the truth. And the accuracy of the facts themselves depend on our ability to determine them. And that depends on the methodology we use. Science, I'm afraid.

It's true that many data points (not facts yet) are momentary and fleeting. So we attempt to gather as many of them as we can to obtain a better overall set of facts. The more we gather and the better our interpretation of them, the nearer we get to truth, or accuracy might be better.

I will admit, if it helps, that our understanding of the physical world can be limited, for many reasons. To me that suggests that we need to get better at observing and interpreting.



Yes. Now let's move on if you wish, as facts are just one part of your argument I believe. I won't attempt to anticipate what you will say.

I will simply point out a few observations in response to your comments.

One is that all facts are determined to be true or untrue relative to other related facts that are determined to be true or untrue relative to other related … you get the picture. And all facts and fact sets are subject to change. Meaning that the truth of any fact is then subject by reason of that change to becoming un-factual. You have suggested that by increasing the scope of the fact set, the changes can be explained so that the facts can somehow remain true. But that really just changing the facts to make them factual, again, and therefor does not mitigate my original point. Because they are now different facts.

Secondly, you seem to have implied that reality is defined by and limited to physicality. And this is not so. Reality is defined by what is possible and what is not. Which is why we humans will never know the truth of what is real and what is not because we simply do not know what is existentially possible and what isn’t. All we can surmise is that reality (existence) is the fulfillment of what is possible, against the non-existing nothingness of what is not possible. And the facts are just an ocean of ever-changing bits of fulfilled possibility; recognized or not, and true or untrue by way of our applied context.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

The issue is that you said: "There are no a priori premises related to reality". Married men and bachelors are not merely abstractions without any relation to reality. Those are labels that describe properties of real individuals.

Or, by 'related to reality' do you mean that the property itself (such as being married/bachelor) is not part of reality?

Human beings themselves are not abstractions, of course, but marriage, nationality, currency, are abstractions. We human beings create, define, and use them. If there were no human beings who knew of and used those abstractions, they would not exist.

Existence (and causation) itself is an abstract concept. Since existence is discovered and learned though, would you state then that when I say: "If existence requires a source, that source must exist before existence itself, and since this is a logical impossibility, therefore, existence cannot have a source." that this is a posteriori?

It may be somewhat hard to get a handle on, but no, reality is not an abstraction. We human beings, however, think in abstraction and therefore must use the abstraction of language, mathematics, etc to represent the non-abstract things we want to refer to and think about. Abstractions used to describe non-abstract real things are said to be synthetic propositions or statements and are true statements if they conform to, or comport with reality, the real world. Conversely, analytic propositions or statements are true or false solely by virtue of their meaning, like your statement, "There are no married bachelors."

In Philosophy and in Science, great care must be taken to make clear distinctions between synthetic and analytic statements. This is refered to by some as the problem of demarcation. This is not really difficult when talking about simple every day things. It becomes much harder to maintain that demarcation when we try and talk about things that are on the edge of our ability to know and understand and to that which lies beyond it.

As to your question above, such an "If" statement has no value because there is currently no possible way to evaluate it. We have no idea as to what prerequisites may or may not be required for our shared reality to be as it is. We do not know if there is only one way or more than one way for it to get to this current state, or no "way" at all (i.e. it just is). It is well outside our current ability to perceive. We do not even completely understand current reality as we ourselve are existing in it.

As frustrating as it may be, I think the only reasonable conclusion is to say we currently can't know and leave it there for now. My preference is to focus more on understanding the current state of things and where they are headed and not obsess much over the question of how it all began. (Not saying you personally are obsessing).

 

[Willamena]

I have been noticing, lately, how often and stridently most of the atheists that come here dislike the idea that they are being denied knowledge. It seems that no matter what someone else's opinion might be on whatever subject, they will demand to know how the other person presumes to know this. Even though the other person was only offering an opinion, and was not necessarily presuming or claiming to know anything. And in fact most of the atheists here base their atheism almost entirely on the idea that they cannot KNOW that God exists, and because they can't know it, they resent and reject the whole proposition.

I see this all the time in their constant demands for "evidence" (which for them means proof) and I am realizing that what they are really demanding is a way to KNOW that what someone else is proposing, is correct. They equate knowing with correctness, and not knowing with incorrectness. Thus, not knowing that God exists means that God's existing is incorrect.

Until now, I have been thinking that this obsession with "evidence" was just blind egotism. And I nick-named it the "kangaroo court" syndrome. Wherein the ego drives the mind to see itself as the indisputable judge of every other mind it encounters. And of course it bases all it's judgments on the presumption of it's on righteousness. Like the judge in a "kangaroo court".

And this was not an entirely wrong presumption on my part.

But it was not entirely a right presumption, either. As I am now realizing that this phenomena is not just an ego manifestation. It's also a manifestation of the idea that knowledge = truth (or at least ascertains 'correctness'). And those who are constantly demanding "evidence" (proof) are really demanding the knowledge that will allow them to accept whatever they are hearing from someone else as being correct (and therefor, true).

Knowledge, for them, is the currency of reality and of truth.

And yet I am not among them in this pursuit. So am I against knowledge, and truth?

No, but I do not believe, think, or feel that knowledge is the currency of reality or truth. I think WISDOM is. And wisdom does not come primarily from knowledge. Wisdom comes from experience and applied intelligence. Wisdom doesn't come from the facts, or the evidence, or the biggest data base and the strictest adherence to logic. Wisdom comes from how clearly we can we 'see' all that data and how creatively and adeptly we can assemble it, and disassemble it, and reassemble it differently, as needed. Knowledge is practical, but wisdom is 'meta-practical'. Wisdom IS 'meta'. It exists beyond the "evidence" and the "proof" and our pretensions of 'correctness'.

So I apologize to all those atheists for my presuming they were simply succumbed to their own intellectual egos. As I can now see that what they have succumbed to is the idea that knowledge = correctness, and correctness = reality/truth.

It's not that they are wrong about this. It's that they are chasing after the wrong Grail.

So don't call it "knowledge." It's not "wisdom," though.

 

[Koldo]

Human beings themselves are not abstractions, of course, but marriage, nationality, currency, are abstractions. We human beings create, define, and use them. If there were no human beings who knew of and used those abstractions, they would not exist.

I take it that when you say 'human beings' you are referring to the instantiations of the concept (as in the individual human beings, rather than the category itself). If so, no disagreement on my part.

It may be somewhat hard to get a handle on, but no, reality is not an abstraction. We human beings, however, think in abstraction and therefore must use the abstraction of language, mathematics, etc to represent the non-abstract things we want to refer to and think about. Abstractions used to describe non-abstract real things are said to be synthetic propositions or statements and are true statements if they conform to, or comport with reality, the real world. Conversely, analytic propositions or statements are true or false solely by virtue of their meaning, like your statement, "There are no married bachelors."

In Philosophy and in Science, great care must be taken to make clear distinctions between synthetic and analytic statements. This is refered to by some as the problem of demarcation. This is not really difficult when talking about simple every day things. It becomes much harder to maintain that demarcation when we try and talk about things that are on the edge of our ability to know and understand and to that which lies beyond it.

What are you calling 'reality'? As in the sum of all things that exist? If so, I agree this is not an abstraction per se. But that's not what I mean by existence. By existence, I mean the very state of being, or at least it's first instantiation.

As to your question above, such an "If" statement has no value because there is currently no possible way to evaluate it. We have no idea as to what prerequisites may or may not be required for our shared reality to be as it is. We do not know if there is only one way or more than one way for it to get to this current state, or no "way" at all (i.e. it just is). It is well outside our current ability to perceive. We do not even completely understand current reality as we ourselve are existing in it.

Speaking of the ways to get to the current state is redundant on this case.

As frustrating as it may be, I think the only reasonable conclusion is to say we currently can't know and leave it there for now. My preference is to focus more on understanding the current state of things and where they are headed and not obsess much over the question of how it all began. (Not saying you personally are obsessing).

You didn't answer my question. But putting that aside for a moment, what viable alternatives are there? My rationale excludes all of them. Present me one that doesn't revolve around a logical contradiction. You don't even need to show it is true.