the Stanford piece without anger rising. Russell eventually used the
term 'logical empiricism' and these days interest has returned to
social epistemology and how we can trust what a speaker is claiming
and the effects of institutional context. My own view is that this
kind of philosophy is played out and misunderstood if we don't pick up
on it as a game trying to teach in a wider context. Some,of
course,would claim we are just too lazy to take on its challenge.
I do favour a radical empiricism, but in terms of knowledge my concern
is why we really value it so little and other people in such miserable
ways in our 'economics'. When I take my dog for a walk his nose does
a lot of knowledge work I can't. I've thought for a long time that
'the rest must be consigned to silence' bit at the end of the
Tractatus was a 'two-fingers' to the logical positivists and his
atomistic supervisors.
My point is we can trust these 'arguments' or this kind of
'philosophy' and also we are making the same mistakes in not being
able to rock our own world-views.
On Nov 5, 5:43 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> oops, that wasn't supposed to be in there. No, that was not my intent,
> thanks gabby. :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Exercising the reader's intuition does not lead to more power
> > but describes an accelerated decomposition process - is that what you are
> > saying?
>
> > On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 5:12 PM, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:38 PM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > The question why knowledge is distinctively valuable has an important
> >> > historical precedent in Plato's Meno in which Socrates raises the
> >> > question of why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief.
> >> > Initially, we might appeal to the fact that knowledge appears to be of
> >> > more practical use than true belief in order to mark this difference
> >> > in value, but, as Socrates notes, this claim is far from obvious on
> >> > closer inspection. After all, a true belief about the correct way to
> >> > Larissa is surely of just as much practical use as knowledge of the
> >> > way to Larissa—both will get us to our destination. Given that we
> >> > clearly do value knowledge more than mere true belief, the fact that
> >> > there is no obvious explanation of why this should be so creates a
> >> > problem. We will call the issue of why knowledge is more valuable than
> >> > mere true belief, the Meno problem.
>
> >> > You can get the rest here -
> >> >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-value/
>
> >> > I somehow doubt I will be causing much mouse clicking in posting the
> >> > link!
> >> > I did some work on knowledge justification and value whilst
> >> > bored out of my tree, recovering from a serious injury. I was
> >> > discovering most of academic study is 'witterpiss for wuckfits' at the
> >> > time. There's a big snag in the Meno problem in that it restricts us
> >> > to argument not much informed by science. We could sit down all day
> >> > trying to define knowledge, which might be nice under the Greek sun
> >> > with some Rakis, local beer and imported coffee. No one has defined
> >> > knowledge - rather as we don't have a precise decimal for pi. There
> >> > are, of course, many definitions.
>
> >> Knowledge is power, right?
>
> >> I object to some attempts to create an atomic image of knowledge, it
> >> is a handy word we have to represent a multidimensional landscape, not
> >> at all a map though inspection can turn up markers to gain
> >> orientation, direction. I found most of that article an endurance
> >> exercise, maybe I was tired last night or my right-brain cringing, it
> >> seemed to take a very long time for the discussion to even scrape the
> >> surface of my first intuitive inclinations (Craig's
> >> historical-adaptation perspective, pluralism). Caveat the strictures
> >> of educational institutions, whatever they were, it read more as an
> >> assignment than my liking.
>
> >> Outside of the processes for learning and teaching, acquisition,
> >> refinement and transmission of human comprehension I am not sure there
> >> is so much an independent value to knowledge other than we have
> >> developed a rightly firm orientation. To me it is a powerful
> >> adaptation to our environment, an environment that rewards
> >> comprehension with success, it seems a slight advancement over the
> >> process of gene survival albeit highly accelerated. It exists in the
> >> domain of meta I think, as good faith representations (Baudrillards
> >> first order simulacra) of observed phenomena. There is no fundamental
> >> unit, no perfection, but stringent natural processes built on the
> >> tools and faculties
>
> >> Knowledge is not a lucky cup of coffee, neither is a lucky cup of
> >> coffee as valuable as a malfunctional coffee maker. Without reference
> >> these entities simply do not exist, what point would there be to
> >> immaculately produce an entity devoid of reference to any antecedent
> >> causes, purpose, or function and then place values on it presto-magic!
> >> The result is what I think the logical positivist would call 'lacking
> >> in cognitive content', by eliminating reality and dealing entirely in
> >> symbols we are in the domain of third order simulacra, without meaning
> >> (and what is that knowledge), vacuous, unverifiable.
>
> >> Just my irritability speaking- that doesn't mean that the desire to
> >> comprehend these things is without value, I just think it is mostly an
> >> exercise presented in a way that is difficult to derive meaning from
> >> and left mostly to the reader's intuition.
>
> >> > There are lots of teasers like this in philosophy. My take on this
> >> > is :
> >> > 1.there are some things I believe true and have tested scientifically
> >> > or in mathematical proof - these I trust as knowledge
> >> > 2. there are some things I think true and can't do the above with.
> >> > 3. etc. etc. on what I consider reliable or barking.
>
> >> > we worry too much about this kind of stuff and not enough about the
> >> > issues of the condition of ignorance.
>
> >> is a story of accelerated decomposition
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário