academics' - I'm doing a conference next year likely to be full of it
- in order to share a few days with an old mate. Neither of us has
seen a sociological idea in years and don't expect to find any (one
always hopes). There is a further issue on the 'shiteness' however -
and that's one on training people not to believe at the drop of a hat
and in learning to think for themselves. My own view is we need a lot
of de-schooling - yet this can only be achieved with some education.
I regard this as a resolvable paradox. If our group had need to
manufacture nitroglycerin (heaven forbid) I'd guess the job would
morally fall to me or another chemist (on knowledge and survival
likelihood) - but as communities we seem to allow leadership as though
such technical skills are involved (on economics etc.) - in a way that
takes away decision making from us where there is no real evidence we
need this to protect us from harm or that we get benefit from allowing
it (I take it 'no nitro no pay'). Around the world we end up with
elites justifying themselves as necessary to keep the ones elsewhere
from doing harm to us. In the supposed western democracies we are at
war (just as Orwell predicted) and are either unaware or have no of
false clue as to why. This is the model for global freedom?
The Meno protagonists are also sitting around on the hard work of
others debating knowledge. This component of knowledge is quickly
forgotten in moral assertions of copyright and equivalents. I think
we have moral questions and value questions on knowledge all wrong.
In short we should not be paying tax to Microsoft - and more generally
we should limit the financial gains from ideas in ordder to encourage
them (which may seem contradictory but probably isn't).
On Nov 4, 3:13 pm, Edward Mason <masonedward...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Value of KnowledgeFirst published Tue Aug 21, 2007; substantive
> revision Wed Nov 2, 2011Value of knowledge has always been a central
> topic within epistemology. An important question to address, which can
> be traced right back to Plato's Meno, is: what is it about knowledge
> (if anything) that makes it more valuable than mere true belief?
>
> Hello everyone! Seems to me one easier way to perceive Knowledge to a
> certain Truth, would be to understand the value of the Hebrew's
> rendition of the Term, while being mindful that Moses was Learned in
> All The Knowledge of The Egyptians. According to some Hebrew legends
> Knowledge is not an item. It is an Entity. One of the three main
> principles of existence as we know it to be. Knowledge, Wisdom,
> Understanding. By these did YHVH establish the Heavens and the Earth.
> These are the three main properties that comprise The Tree Of Life!
> Heaven! Except in our case and age we suffer the imbalance of
> Knowledge having increased with Man beyond the red-zone. So many run
> to and fro.. Also, bear in mind that the fall of Adam & Eve was that
> they ate from the Tree Of Knowledge; They saw a difference between
> (gained more Knowledge) Good & Evil.......
>
> Edward
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 1:38 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.
>
> > 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