i've always contended understanding and judgement rely on knowledge...
And I've contended that judgment is antithesis of knowledge and that understanding is for want of knowledge.
Knowledge of good and evil is - Thought (High thought) that precedes idea of the two before they are 'put into practice.' In realm of knowledge, the two do not exist, which means, they do not actually exist. But as beliefs based within relative framework (that is illusion, or dream, or nightmare, or what have you), the two are judged to exist in relativistic way. One relying on the other for both existence and understanding. Knowledge is not deceived by any of this. Knowledge supersedes the two (really two sides of same coin) and is why judgment is antithesis of knowledge.
you don't know what glipper means, so why make up a definition?
To make clear the point that all concepts have made up definitions. That all things that are perceived (judged) are given meaning by the perceiver.
do you normally have conversations in a language you don't know to communicate? of course not.
Glipper is an english word. It is in language that has as much sensibility as any other word. Only difference is that it is not a commonly accepted word, yet. But that is really (really really) a minor difference, for that can be overcome rather easily, simply by using glipper in whatever context makes sense to you.
where did i say knowledge needs understanding?
what do you think i meant when i said, knowledge is the foundation of judgement and understanding?
That without knowledge (of a particular thing) a judgment cannot occur, or that understanding cannot occur. Such that, in context of this thread, I think you are attempting to work backwards to make a point that lacks validity. I think you are saying that since we can judge good and evil, and that we understand what the terms mean, then these two things must exist, and that knowledge of them (as two ideas) must come after they have already existed. Which would then lead someone to conclude that 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' must be (allegedly) put there, in Garden, by entity that knows good and evil exists and understands what they are, in similar way to how we have come to understand the terms (starting around 6000 years ago).
And to this general idea, I have said, "Understanding relies on judgment, and judgment lacks knowledge."
In which you've asked me to:
a) do you know what a glipper is? explain your understanding of it...
b) explain how can you define what you don't know?
c) how can one judge what they don't know?
And in response to these questions, I have demonstrated how one can define a term that they do not know, while explaining understanding of it. To which you then replied (and judged really), "you don't know what glipper means, so why make up a definition?"
So, either you're not grasping how things work with judgment and understanding, or we keep going over and over what we've gone over and over about 2 to 3 times so far. To perhaps make it more clear, I fully believe that you can define what you do not know and judge what you do not know. I think making the point easier / clearer for you, would help if you did this with the concept of 'glopper.' If you don't know what glopper is, then it is perhaps ideal example of how you can define and judge something you claim to not know.
At this point, you may say, "but, I'll just be making it up." To which I would say, yes, and that is partly how one defines, judges, understands what they do not know. It is key part really, but once that is taken for granted, the 'made up' part, is no longer seen for what it is - that you give all meaning to that which you think you know. So, imagine you make up definition to glopper, and flash forward 15 years from know, and Oxford Dictionary is now entering glopper as term in their dictionary, that matches your original definition. And at this point, many people use the term in the way you originally understood it, and explained it. It is now a common term. Think at that time, when it is part of common language that you'll have integrity to say, "I still don't even know what glopper is really?" I doubt it. Not so much because if your individual integrity, but more because once the term is used in relational way, it won't matter if it is made up. It may still matter to you, but I would say given enough time and usage, it will get to point where pride replaces doubt, and you conclude to more or less know what glopper is, as if you've always known.
Hence, judgments and understandings of 'good and evil' work the same way. People (like you and me) think we know what these concepts mean, feel we can explain them, provide context to their usage, and in the way language takes things for granted, we might claim, "yes, I know what good and evil are." In reality, we don't know. Not really. And with these two particular concepts, even while there is lots and lots and lots of information about them, all around us, the fact remains, humanity is still making up what these terms mean. Giving them all meaning that they have for us, and taking for granted the process of how the meaning 'returns to us' in a relational way, as if we aren't only one making things up.
let me put it this way, have you ever experienced knowing what tomorrow brings?
you and i experienced the expectation of what tomorrow may bring..but certainly not knowing what it will bring, to do so requires an audacious stance, do you agree? because it is impossible to KNOW what tomorrow will bring
While I don't disagree with added spin, I am saying and believe I was saying, I haven't experienced tomorrow. So, having not experienced that, I would agree it is not possible to know what something I haven't experienced, would bring. I originally said on this tangent: I don't know what the future will bring, and don't know that tomorrow exists, will ever exist. But would you like for me to provide you a definition of tomorrow?
So, I don't know that tomorrow exists, because I've never experienced it, and more or less pretend to know what it references, but the actual idea is not something I believe actually exists. It is literally made up, and while it works in contextual understandings, it has no basis for being empirically known, nor observed.
empirical knowledge is required in order to define anything...
I'll take this as you stating another way of my point that all definitions were at some point made up. To whatever degree you wish to contest that, feel free to use "tomorrow" as working example. I am saying no one reading this has experienced 'tomorrow' while it may be (empirically) deduced in an argument along the following lines:
1 - All days exist
2 - Tomorrow is a day
3 - Therefore tomorrow exists
Even that seems like stretch to me (given premise of all days exist), but is how I think someone would reason that tomorrow exists, even while no one has ever experienced it. If you have another way of explaining how tomorrow actually exists, I'm open to hearing it.
i find it interesting that you made up the definition for glipper...
when you have nothing to go by, no empirical evidence that supports the definition of it, you yourself said it...you made up the understanding FOR YOURSELF i have no way of confirming your definition...it's just a made up word. what can give this made up word meaning is empirical knowledge of what it is defining.
And that empirical knowledge in many cases will come from judgment. I fully believe with a proposed definition of glipper being 'melancholy' that you could find experience in your past where, based on your judgment or say judgment of mental health professional (that you give credence to), you could be persuaded to say, 'instead of all the other words we have for that state of mind, you now think glipper is the most appropriate to your mood at that time.' And thus, this would be one way in which you could confirm the definition that has been provided to you. At a certain level, it doesn't really matter if you confirm it, or even reject it because you see it as made up word. If it gains legs, and people use it, it will gain empirical knowledge all on basis of people thinking it applies, and has (profound) meaning in their lives.
lets say for the sake of argument there are 2 swedes having a conversation next to you and you don't know a lick of swedish, would you understand what they are talking about? it would be preposterous to say you would, why?
Because at no point has anyone explained to me the made up definitions that go with swedish language. Until I have awareness around those, and perhaps use them in reference to my own life, then I will think the words are without any meaning. I may have someone right next to me who says, "yep, their words are not sensible." So, I could conclude that it's not me, but is swedish words, since I found another who agrees with me. Or, I could (probably would) eventually realize that the made up words, do have made up interpretations that are judged as 'very common' among swedish speakers, and that I too can learn the language and apply these to my own experiences.
Just like you could do with glipper given definition I provided.
