thanks gabby. :)
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 12:03 PM, gabbydott <gabbydott@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 <ashkashal@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:38 PM, archytas <nwterry@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