Having a greater understanding of how and why one acquires knowledge may indeed change one's perspective on choice, and why choices are made. There are those who believe everything we choose is by our own 'free will' there are those who think not, though I have found all to depend on 'affects' in one way or another to guide thought and choice...The nature of knowledge...epistemology.

From Freud to Plato there have been great thinkers who have laid out their own reasoning and logic behind the phenomenon of knowing. There seems to be a central 'character' which governs thought and acceptance of notion(s) regardless of the thinker. I would like to start with a Liebiz example to get the conversation engaged...

This example has been altered slightly by myself for added clarity and was taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy... it serves as a good starting point.
----------------------------------------------------------------

According to Leibniz, knowledge is either obscure or clear; clear knowledge is either confused or distinct; distinct knowledge is either inadequate or adequate; and adequate knowledge is either symbolic or intuitive.

Now, clear knowledge means being able to recognize something that is represented to us, for example, a rose; and knowledge is both clear and distinct when one can recognize the differences which distinguish a rose from other things. This enables one to possess a distinct notion and is thus able to give a nominal definition of the thing. Further, if all the differences that form part of a distinct notion are themselves distinctly known, then the cognition is adequate. And, finally, if a notion is complex and we are able to consider all its component notions simultaneously, then our knowledge of it is intuitive. Ultimately, Leibniz holds that human beings have intuitive knowledge only of primary notions and propositions.

Leibniz believes his distinctions also serve to show the difference between true and false ideas. “An idea is true,” he writes, “when its notion is possible and false when it includes a contradiction.”

Now, possibility can be established a priori and a posteriori. On the one hand, we can know a priori that something is possible if we can resolve it into its component notions which are themselves possible and if we know that there is no incompatibility among those component notions. On the other hand, we know a posteriori that something is possible merely through experience, for the actual existence of a thing is proof of its possibility.

sorry but i dont understand this one bit...not been rude or anything by that either...but i am honest

what?

Indeed, I also do not have a complete grasp of the concepts either...

If I hold a rose in my hand.

1.) I 'know' it is a rose, because I have learned that items that look like this are a rose. I recognize it as a rose as a result of the distinctions between it and some other flower, a 'daisy', let's say, because of the difference of it's components, ie.- shape, color, texture, etc.,etc.... This is clear and distinct...

2.) The furthered understanding of shapes, colors, textures, etc. lends the notion a greater understanding, as a result of understanding all of the roses components, which makes it an 'adequate knowledge'...

3.) If I had a rose and another flower, of which I did not have enough understanding to name what kind it was, although I would hold the same level of 'adequate knowledge' concerning the rose, I would not have the same level of knowledge concerning the other flower.

4.) I would be able to distinguish the flower from my hand, per se, which would give me only the 'obscure knowledge' of it being a flower, based on the my recognition of the components which most or all flowers have, petals, leaves, stamen, pollen, etc.


Now this may seem a bit trivial, until one applies it to something else... the construction of a bridge... think of all of the components that need to be understood to have an adequate knowledge of that notion????

Apply that to the knowledge of religion?

What are the components of religion...

How well are each understood...

How much adequate knowledge can one actually have?

Does 'adequate' make it true???

Philosophy is the ulimate paradox because it claims to be the study of what's knowable. But it will always be unknowable as to whether anything can be knowable.



Well, Leibniz is clearly wrong here. The mere fact that anything at all exists is a contradiction. Therefore by his conclusion our very existence is false.

The universe by it’s very nature is a paradox and therefore any attempt to apply logic to discover truth is a futile pursuit.

Consider the following:

Kurt Gödel proved using logic that any self-contained system must be both incomplete and inconsistent.

Well, duh! The universe is self-contained. (and this includes any God that might supposedly exist). In other words, God would be self-contained.

What does Gödel prove prove? It proves that “reality” is not logical. Or to state that another way, it shows that our idea of logic is insufficient to describe reality. So any logical approach to philosophy is futile. Logic arguments will ultimately always end up being circular. This is what Gödel

We cannot explain our existence via logic. Gödel showed that logic is insufficient for this purpose.

Warner Heisenberg has shown with his uncertainty principle that the universe can never be reduced to a single descriptive state. This isn’t just a matter of human limitation. Heisenberg showed that this is the true nature of the universe. (i.e. the universe does not behave in a logical manner) The universe is ultimately illogical.

John Stewart Bell proved that there can be no logical solution to quantum entanglement. His prove is simple eloquent and undeniable. It’s not that we just aren’t cleaver enough to come up with a better idea. Any solution to the problem must defy what we consider to be logical ideas.

The universe is not logical. Therefore any philosophy that is based on logic and attempts to get at the truth of the universe must necessarily fail. Because the truth is that the universe is illogical.

At least with respect to what we currently consider to be logical.

The quantum world does not obey logic as we know it. Pure and simple.

So trying to get at the true nature of our existence via pure logic must always fail and become circular.

Are you not aware of this Michael?

James,

I am aware that Godel proved that any mathematically applied truth must have an inconsistency...

I never claimed I agreed with Leibniz's claims...

Good starting point non-the-less...

James discounting philosophy is discounting mathematics...

James ...

We could all just sit around veggin' out and say 'hell with it'!!!

Gödel already discounted mathematics! That’s what I’m saying!

On that point, I’m actually writing a book at this very moment that addresses this very problem. Not to show that Gödel was wrong. But rather to show that our current formal mathematics is wrong! I do more than just claim that it is wrong. I show where it is wrong and how to correct it. Moreover my correction removes mathematics from the realm of being a self-contained system thus making Gödel’s proof inapplicable to the corrected version of mathematics.



I’m not saying that at all. On the contrary I applaud your intellectual pursuits. You have the potential to be among one of the greatest thinkers of our time. Students in the future may well be reading of the achievements of the great philosopher “Creative Soul”.

I’m only suggesting that you need to move forward from the traditional realm of logic. And, of course, this is what you are doing. These things just take time.

Don’t mind me I’m just impatient, I’m anxious to see you bloom beyond the classical thoughts of Leibniz, etc. But I suppose we must all ultimately climb upon the shoulders of those who came before us before we can stand on them to tower over them.

In truth though I think you are wasting your time posting these deep thoughts here on this religion forum of a dating site. You’re efforts would be much more rewarded if you post on philosophy forums where there are people who can actually understand what they hell you are talking about.

They are the people who will give you more perspective. Many of them will have already considered the thoughts you propose and will offer you their insights and conclusions helping you to move forward more rapidly. On this forum all you are going to get for feedback are posts like “Quit challenging the existence of God! Behave yourself and repent!”.

Not to imply that I would like to see you leave. It's just that you aren't going to get any feedback here that is going to be of much value.

And now I'll probably get booted for suggesting that you leave the forums. That's wasn't my intent!

James:

It is my opinion, that for a more complete understanding, one must indeed read and understand, for themselves, the material on which the grounds of any system have been built upon, in order to extrapolate effectively.

I can tell my child over and over what I have 'known', yet the child must willingly perform some 'action' to his own satisfaction prior to actually 'knowing' for himself then he truly 'understands'.

Your complimentary language is indeed deeply appreciated, and your ability to 'feel' my intent is self-evident.

Thank you.

----------------------------------------------------------------



I am not so sure of this James. His own proof is faulty, by it's very definition. There are arguments against Godel which I have seen that are quite perplexing.



You have spoken of this in past, I hope to see it's success soon.



I do indeed frequent philosophical discussion forums, and have heard much philosophical debate for years(family), however, I have only recently began delving into it myself... for myself... by myself.

I find myself battling ways of old upon confrontation which get in the way of the new. We all have our vices.

A fine example of this was a sarcastic response by me towards another after his repeated sarcasm was displayed. As a result of my trying to 'allow water to find it's own level', I actually allowed that guy to walk away unknowing. His explanation was faulty, and I knew it... and told him it was 'perfect'. That was not a lie, in the sense that his explanation was a proof of that which he tried to explain. He was the example in the proof. He knew it not. Damn ego.

There is no 'wasted' time time in personal communication, James, just furthered experience.

The ego comment above is referring to my own.

Thank you again.

I confess to being guilty of sloth in this department. I seem to have misplaced my motivation and can’t find it again. I spend far too much time on these forums being unproductive!

It really is an addiction. And I’m not even sure why! I was enjoying that “Projections” thread, but it seems to have died.

I should go work on my math book right now!

that knowledge is just the flow of recycled information that takes on different variations but leads to the same conclusion ...but that conclusion is most likely never truth



when trying to explain possible truths using perception



when attempting to explain supposed reality through observation



when attempting to explain fantasy of delusion through belief



a rose is not truth but only perceived as being truth, a rose is actually something constructed of other components to possible carry out or serve a certain function ...for example the possible distribution or displacment of energy

Ahhh... funches...

Where have you been all these days? I suspected that you had been capable, much more capable that you had shown while playing around...

I will further respond in a minute or two...

how rude

According to Leibniz, knowledge is either obscure or clear;


Of course our 'knowledge' is recycled, as you say, and built upon successive accepted truthes all of which become our knowledge. As you have just displayed with your own expression, which was indeed your own 'mountain' of accepted truthes.

Truth itself is a fallacy, yet it is all humans have to go on. If one tells themself over and over enough times that something is true, it becomes true... it is true... to the one who thinks it to be, moreover believes it to be.



clear knowledge is either confused or distinct;



What else does one have funches? Reality is perception is reality. Our language relays the truthes of this world to us in an understandable way. It may or may not be an accurate perception, either way. There are always unknowns, and there will always be. Regardless of that, yours seems confused.



distinct knowledge is either inadequate or adequate;



See above...



and adequate knowledge is either symbolic or intuitive.



Here we agree, to an extent. According to Leibniz, it seems to me that he claims that God has infinite intuitive knowledge, whereas humans have quite a limited capacity for it. However I think he also claims that intuitive knowledge in humans is not innate, rather the pinnacle of knowledge in man.



Now, clear knowledge means being able to recognize something that is represented to us, for example, a rose;



The claim does not say that a rose is truth. It claims that a rose is a rose, because that is what it has been identified as through language, which is our only way to verbally communicate thoughts and/or ideas.It is how we recognize the world, although this is indeed a simple example, our recognition of experience comes through not such simple means.

Using your example...

a rose is not the truth...

then follows...

funches is not the truth.

We are all confused... none of us know anything really!!!