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]

You seem to have lost the gist of the conversation. I'm not demanding an answer to that unanswerable question. You are claiming that logic is applicable in answering it, and I am simply point out that that is not the case.

I am responding to your comments, "philosophical" or otherwise, because this is a discussion forum and I am not only addressing you but also any who may be reading along, and therefore providing them an alternative take (if that is what I see as appropriate) on your comments. If I agree with your comments I might simply provide a thumbs up emoji or similar, or respond with why I agree or to expand on your point.

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.