The assertation of "I know so and so..." essentially means that one is without doubt, that one is certain, that one cannot be mistaken...

If it is used in any other way would be an incorrect usage, for what would it be like to claim something of this nature?

I know what my name is, but I may be mistaken??? That would be senseless. One knows because one is certain, without doubt, and cannot be mistaken in that. That is not to say that if evidence warrants a change in thinking that one cannot say "I thought I knew, but...". Being mistaken is what happens when one is placing confidence and value into an incorrect notion, concept, etc. that later turns out to be wrongfully placed. Until then, one does not say... I know, but I may be mistaken!

One cannot doubt everything, and for one to make the claim that we can truly know nothing would be senseless. What would an affirmation of that claim even look like?

It cannot be done!!!

How can we ever hope to know what anyone else knows. What if what I call a car is what you call a flying monkey. If we know anything it is only what we know ourselves.

An intelligible discourse within the same language can solve that.

Inherent problems similar to the one mentioned lie within the ability to effectively express certain concepts between two different languages. Traditional Eastern thinking purposefully leaves things unsaid, and some languages do not have the ability to express Western concepts as a result of the difference in the content of the concepts themselves.

experience, percentages.. proven truth.. Why is it so hard for people to say they DONT KNOW 100% that should be the real question. We know somethings to be so and true, from results. things are.. What do we do? Do we get into symantics? We need words to describe what we believe is so, or have found to be true, some things ARE more likely than others. I have a sense of reality, if you have less of a sense of reality I suppose your lines of reality will be further smudged by continuous doubting ALL things. I go back to the idea of acceptance.. we often accept things and move on. I would encourage anyone to do research, find the percentages if it matters so much, hopefully come to some acceptance, and move on. Some things have been proven "true" more than others.. check, research, ask around, or admit, or be ok with acceptance. basic problem solving ability weve used since birth.

Thomas I just put it out there quoting that i felt it was an interesting debate, not a personal one. The info was not aimed at any one person, or group in particular for that matter. It just WAS.

I agree wholeheartedly.

We could be talking about pink peeps with sprinkles.

What makes it what it is?
What makes anything what it is?

There are defining characteristics which have lesser and greater impact on the function of the object.

So a peep is what?
Its marshmallow, with food coloring, with sprinkles added while the peep is still hot enough for them to stick (I am guessing BTW)

Whats its function? Its supposed to be a tasty piece of Easter candy.

So how do we know a pink peep when we see it? How can we REALLY know its a peep? We have to see the color and document in our mind,"yes that is pink", we have to touch the peep and know its soft like marshmallow is, we have to taste the peep to make sure its sweet and sugary like marshmallow and then we have to crunch into the sprinkles to know that they are indeed sugary sprinkles and not bits of glass . . . .

We have to analyze it with our senses and compare what we analyze with our list of characteristics that make a peep a peep. We could use tools that we trust to be in good calibration, I mean I could stick the peep into a mass spectrometer and determine is ingredients then match that against the real pink peeps ingredients.

The reason god is near useless as a word in this regard is becuase no one can come up with meaningful positive characteristics like we can for a pink peep.

Language is often used incorrectly... myself included.

I feel that if one cannot comprehensively express what it is that holds true for them, then they do not understand what it is that they know.

On Knowing...


Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the french I took

But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be

Don't know much about geography
Don't know much trigonometry
Don't know much about algebra
Don't know what a slide rule is for

But I do know that one and one is two
And if this one could be with you
What a wonderful world this would be

Now I don't claim to be an "A" student
But I'm trying to be
So maybe by being an "A" student baby
I can win your love for me

Don't know much about history
Don't know much biology
Don't know much about a science book
Don't know much about the french I took

But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be

La ta ta ta ta ta ta
(History)
Ooh ooh ooh ooh ooh ooh
(Biology)
La ta ta ta ta ta ta
(Science book)
Ooh ooh ooh ooh ooh ooh
(French I took)

But I do know that I love you
And I know that if you love me too
What a wonderful world this would be

Truth(keeping in mind that the capitalization results only from beginning a sentence) has inherent issues in meaning. It is a property - or not - of a statement. A statement owes it's very existence to language. Language is man-made. Therefore 'truth' is also... man-made.

'Proven truth' simply means that which is deemed as correct, according to that which has previously been accepted as correct. It is a circular statement, which gives no clear direction for the conversation to travel.

I do not think that it is hard for people to say that they do not know 100% about some things...others things, however, may be a different story!

If one says they know something... anything... then they do so(or at least should do so) with absolute certainty. Any other use of the term know would be senseless. What would it be like to think like this?

"I live in a house."

With the above assertion, comes certainty which is inherent in language and meaning... knowing. One does not have to say that they know this. It is automatically inferred by anyone who understands the terms being used. This is displayed by another thought... what would it be like to say this???

I know I live in a house. That would be nonsensical unless it had been in question beforehand.

Would one say, "I think that I know that I live in a house!" It would be senseless.

Is this why people drink and use drugs? lol jk... Im tired of analysing this. Are we not in fact man? or man kind.. things being man made is a fine concept with me.. men have created alot of good things.. crappy things too.. but Im allright with that. We could be wrong about stuff, but its allright. I just dont profess a whole lotta crap as fact, when in fact it is not, or redicuulous, or whatever, and after enough people telling me somethings crap, I start to say.. hm... might be crap,question it in some way, or .. good idea not to advertise crap.

Im under the distinct impression that this thread was started by a guy who was posting ina forum other than this talking about attraction, considering he started this at the same time as he was posting in the other forum mentioned.

I "think" that is how this was all spawned. The original post I am refrencing was a continuous thread of someone convinced some information many found questionable, and still they were unmoved, believing this was very much so, theyre belief in something as fact.

I personally wasnt buying the concept. Didnt seem feesable, or credible, sane, proven, sensical, and contridicted itself to the point of defeat.

Im ok with a world of physical, spiritual.. faith.. BUT the reason I was against it was it sounded like someone preaching something dangerous, and crazy for myself or others to partake in and was based on fiancial gain.. masked as spiritual enlightenment.

Do I believe that is so.. yeah.. Do I try my best to do my homework?. u bet.

Anyway my feloow thinkers, hope your all having an awesome day! This being allthough slightly tiresome.. has been fun. I enjoy your energy, and higher thinking.

MMM PEEPS! MARSHMALLOWY GOODNESS! Ill bet decent debators are really passionate in bed.

Ps.. Ive seen alot of peeps, but physically.. I dont know if "God" wears track pants.. drives a camarrooo.. But its cool.

epistemology

The point made earlier about the term 'truth' being man-made had underlying meaning. Because the notion of 'truth' is man-made, it is completely determined and applyed by our knowledge(or not).



Actually this thread began a week before the other. It is an understandable assumption, but inaccurate, none-the-less.



I want to say that if a claim contradicts that which one holds as an absolute, then the claim is dismissed, or goes unbelieved, or whatever. While the specific content matters not, new information is always weighed against old, in some way.



Thank you, I always try to improve upon myself.

Higher? I suppose that depends upon what is being compared!

belief and knowing are illusions,a hickup in the stream of info that is infinite.when we believe or know something we have stopped assimilating info.healthy growth requires us to stay in a state of nonjudgment which is difficult at best when we consider the influences of the human condition,also,we must deal with a level of self awareness that no other species has.we know we will die,this awareness directs our lives at the most fundemental level.the abilitys of the brain and its eminations are still unknown.and so,we comfort ourselves by believing and knowing things because it gives us a sense of stability and foundation...

Nonjudgement is an impossible state for a human to be in, at least it is in my thinking of the term 'judgement'...

Care to define it so that we both understand what it is that you are meaning?

This line of thinking seems awkardly impossible to me...

That statement is, in itself, a judgement in my thinking; there is nothing illusory about it. I would hope that every word one speaks is one which the speaker knows the meaning of. One must know the meanings of words to speak or write coherently.

That is not to say that that which we hold as true/accurate(our knowing) does not have the possibility to evolve as new understandings are encountered. One cannot doubt everything, it is impossible. Although I am not closed to the idea, I can think of no way to use language in an effort to express an objection to that claim without sounding inherently nonsensical. What would it be like to attempt to say otherwise... how would it be done without knowing which terms to use in order to do so, and the meanings of those as well.

Language is the foundation of our knowledge... it is dynamic and alive so that it can change as our understandings evolve. Those understandings are and will always be based upon what it already known, in some way shape or form.

It is quite a fruitless and circular operation to attempt to doubt all of which humans have come to know in an attempt to express the simple idea that we do not know everything.

That is obvious, is it not?



The thread that runs through the way...

Can one go on stating or believing that what we know is an illusion? Would that not be the same as saying that everything that we have learned is wrong? That all that we know is a mistake? Mistakes themselves must have grounds and be able to fit into what is known, and therefore to speak of doubting everything or mistaking everything is nonsensical...

That is surely not the case, is it?

What would a valid contradicting proposition look like? How could it even be expressed without using some of what we already know? How could one develop the line of thinking required to show a mistake - of any sort - without comparing it to previous knowns?



I find this to be untrue. Knowing does not equate to removing the ability to learn more.



This argument(that all knowledge is illusion) uses previous knowledge an attempt to support itself, which contradicts the substance contained within it's own foundation.

At least we know what the terms being used mean, right? Are they not a tool used to convey ideas and/or thoughts? Do these things not match something in nature by which we measure their accuracy to the world around us? Our use of words give them meaning and content. That of which we can base further understandings upon. Words add content to our understanding, they give us the ability to establish a shared meaning. They allow us to be able to understand what it is that we observe and/or think about.

I want to say that I wonder what could be learned by contemplating the differences between believing and knowing...

By knowing, or stating that we know something - anything - do we not automatically take that, whatever it may be, to be true? Does it then become an element of our perceptual faculty, which may in fact, remove the possibility of further consideration regarding contradictory information?

I wonder if this was the direction intended from the quote below...



Although I can see where this could be the case, it does not follow that it must be. That which has been accepted as an absolute - as that which cannot be wrong - is to be considered in this instance. Do we not treat all knowledge as though it cannot be wrong, at least until evidence shows it to be mistaken? Whereas in a case of belief that refers to the relation between a notion and the observer, the case of a known references a fact, does it not?

Facts exist until proven otherwise... by other facts, therefore they cannot all be wrong, can they?

The only time I use the word is to stop someone from elaborating on information I have been exposed to.

Other than that, I don't claim anything. I can just do stuff. That's it.