were broadly without science, particularly modern brain science that
shifts us away from the rational in decision-making to a fair degree.
In the current economic disaster we have loads of people telling us
they know what to do and extraordinarily boring news coverage of their
farcical deliberations. At stake around the world is that democracy
we have only had in promises - one of peace and reasonable
equality.Most in history that has been claimed as fact or knowledge
has turned out to be myth,fable or reliant on grand narratives
(various gods and ethics) and manipulated by dominant groups of one
kind or another. Gabby has always been quick to point this out with
one sting or another. Vam's put forward a kind of sane standard that
still leaves us with the problem of the criterion - the paradox of
what comes first - knowing what or knowing how? - and thus how
reliable are our methodologies.
My own frustrations with philosophy led me to science - but the
frustrations with science's clerks can be more intense - and both
areas lack something literature can give and that religion promises.
On the odd occasion one could find people prepared to pull each
other's ideas apart the spirit was often brilliant and very unlikely
to lead to 'Molly's withdrawal'. The spirit of such dialogue gives
one a sense of security - at lower levels criticism really just
produces 'backfire' - the situation in which false smearing of the
other arises and evidence of the contrary opinion leads to a hardening
of incorrect belief. There is substantial psychological and
sociological consideration of this.
It seems to me that one of our first considerations on knowledge needs
to be the extent to which its influence is legitimate and I doubt much
of it is. I don't do 'god solutions' though I'd go a long way with
RP's 'structured human responsibility' from another thread. What I
want to know more about is how knowledge is generally denied human
beings. I've taken on teaching some really thick kids once a week and
may need a brain surgery manual to get anything through. One or two
of them have gathered they get something unconditional from me - some
of the others can't grasp the Dylan lyrics I play on 'farming the
mind'. The are resistant to school and their teachers have noticed
classes easier to teach with them out of them. Yet away from the
specifics of their problems, education seems to have done little for
all of us in our ability to control the small,powerful group who rule.
I suspect knowledge is much more implicated with dark power than
enlightenment. And I suspect teaching has little to do with producing
resourceful humans who can't hack he highly constrained curriculum.
The Meno question is an irrelevance for me because it has already
excluded the real difficulties, a key error in problem definition.
I was lucky enough to spend some days with African Bushmen years ago
and their knowledge was very different from mine - but distinctly one
I'd have needed to learn to survive their environment. Pity I've lost
touch - I have a feeling they could teach my class more effectively
than me.
On Nov 3, 5:22 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure... I was aware of that in your context ! Thinking about knowing
> is not knowing enough. It is the being with the knowing that is
> knowing indeed.
>
> On Nov 3, 3:19 pm, Molly <mollyb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > More and more, I find myself preferring a quiet mind, beyond the
> > thinking about knowing.
>
> > On Nov 3, 3:54 am, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I do see why "you" should considering the Knowledge vs Belief as a
> > > teaser. It is valid question and has a defined answer.
>
> > > Knowledge is preferable than Belief... because -
>
> > > 1) It is found on known FACTS, usually many more than those specific
> > > to a central matter < way to Larissa >, triggering familiarity with
> > > surrounding terrain too ! So, if there was a cloudburst or a landslide
> > > on the way of belief, knowledge will perhaps offer an alternate way or
> > > the nearest shelter.
>
> > > 2) It comes in a package including the knowledge of secondary or
> > > adjunct facts, paths and PROCESSES, tertiary and sub - processes...
> > > which makes our awareness of any matter, thing, being, person, event
> > > or phenomena more complete, detailed and certain.
>
> > > 3) It always leads to MORE KNOWLEDGE... more accurate, more extensive,
> > > things new, more deep...
>
> > > So, why is it considered a teaser... to those of us ?
>
> > > On Nov 3, 1:38 am, 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.
>
> > > > 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.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário