Philosophy Discussion Forums

Atreyu wrote: There is no way that a giraffe or an amoeba can understand a given amount of knowledge the way an organism like ourselves can.

Perhaps, just perhaps, they can "understand" THEIR way. And, perhaps, just perhaps, their way is better for them. Is that possible?

I would like to speculate that out of all of the species on this planet, homo sapiens might be the only one who believes that s/he is better than all the rest [which appears to be the exact opposite of what might be the case].

Synthesis wrote:

Atreyu wrote: There is no way that a giraffe or an amoeba can understand a given amount of knowledge the way an organism like ourselves can.

Perhaps, just perhaps, they can "understand" THEIR way. And, perhaps, just perhaps, their way is better for them. Is that possible?

Of course, but that's not the point. The point is being and the fact that it exists on quite different levels.

I would like to speculate that out of all of the species on this planet, homo sapiens might be the only one who believes that s/he is better than all the rest [which appears to be the exact opposite of what might be the case].

Sure, but again, that's not the point here at all. A higher level of being doesn't necessarily mean "better" or "more important". It simply means a greater capacity to assemble and understand a given amount of knowledge.

Your insistence on making this about the human ego and the need to diminish it, has prevented you from understanding my point.

The point is understanding knowledge and being, and understanding how the two are related to one another. With a given being, only so much knowledge is possible. And at some point, in order to get more knowledge, one must necessarily rise to a higher level of existence. It's not just a question of getting more and more knowledge, or more precise or exact knowledge. It's also a question of changing what one is...

Atreyu wrote:The point is understanding knowledge and being, and understanding how the two are related to one another. With a given being, only so much knowledge is possible. And at some point, in order to get more knowledge, one must necessarily rise to a higher level of existence. It's not just a question of getting more and more knowledge, or more precise or exact knowledge. It's also a question of changing what one is...

I understand, Atreyu, but my point is, where did you come up with this? Your idea of what knowledge is and your idea of what being is, is one of an infinite potential number of such ideas. This is not about ego, instead, about our inability to understand, period! Do you really believe that you are capable of understanding what 'essence' or 'being' is?

My contention is that human beings are simply incapable of accessing reality. If you can accept this premise, from where can your understanding emanate? What can knowledge be other than a guesstimate of a speculation?

Synthesis wrote: I understand, Atreyu, but my point is, where did you come up with this? Your idea of what knowledge is and your idea of what being is, is one of an infinite potential number of such ideas. This is not about ego, instead, about our inability to understand, period! Do you really believe that you are capable of understanding what 'essence' or 'being' is?

My contention is that human beings are simply incapable of accessing reality. If you can accept this premise, from where can your understanding emanate? What can knowledge be other than a guesstimate of a speculation?

I didn't "come up" with this. I learned the principles of knowledge and being from studying certain esoteric teachings. And yes, I am capable of understanding the difference between the two. TBH, I don't think it's really that difficult to understand. I think the real difficulty is that people don't want to understand. They already have preconceived notions and are so reluctant to part with them that they don't even want to consider anything new.

As far as humans being incapable of accessing reality, of course I accept that premise. That's a basic truth that men have known since the Stone Age. However, that doesn't mean that all "knowledge" must be a mere guesstimate or speculation. Guessing and speculating is not knowledge at all. Knowledge can be had because it's been accumulated since remote antiquity, it's just that this knowledge has never been widely known. It's always been in the hands of the few, and cannot be something "most everyone" knows, due to its very nature. That is why it's called esoteric knowledge. It's "esoteric" because few men are even prepared enough to even begin digesting it.

Rather than oppose the idea at first glance, just because it doesn't comport with something you happening to be thinking about in the moment, why not just try to understand the principle and then tell me what you think about it? To me, the idea is pretty self-evident once one understands it.

Atreyu wrote:

Synthesis wrote:I didn't "come up" with this. I learned the principles of knowledge and being from studying certain esoteric teachings. And yes, I am capable of understanding the difference between the two. TBH, I don't think it's really that difficult to understand. I think the real difficulty is that people don't want to understand. They already have preconceived notions and are so reluctant to part with them that they don't even want to consider anything new.

As far as humans being incapable of accessing reality, of course I accept that premise. That's a basic truth that men have known since the Stone Age. However, that doesn't mean that all "knowledge" must be a mere guesstimate or speculation. Guessing and speculating is not knowledge at all. Knowledge can be had because it's been accumulated since remote antiquity, it's just that this knowledge has never been widely known. It's always been in the hands of the few, and cannot be something "most everyone" knows, due to its very nature. That is why it's called esoteric knowledge. It's "esoteric" because few men are even prepared enough to even begin digesting it.

Rather than oppose the idea at first glance, just because it doesn't comport with something you happening to be thinking about in the moment, why not just try to understand the principle and then tell me what you think about it? To me, the idea is pretty self-evident once one understands it.

Allow me to thank you for your equanimity in this conversation. There are few who can be challenged without taking it personally. This is greatly appreciated!

Then the question becomes, "What is knowledge?" My answer would be that it is pure guess based on our faulty powers of observation/interpretation. If [indeed] we are incapable of accessing reality, than what can knowledge be?

I am not suggesting that we can not [or do not] use our intelligence to some capacity, but what we are able to grasp happens before our interpretive functions kick-in. This is why our first impressions seem right so often. The first perception takes "near reality" and makes it into our personal reality. This so-called knowledge is a chimera, which is why knowledge is ALWAYS changing. Anything knowable is impermanent, whereas actual Reality is permanent and unknowable.

Again, what we can "understand" happens in the non-temporal moment before our interpretive powers initiate. Subsequent, it's all speculation, i.e., the human mind attempting to process an infinite number of variables. As evidenced by peering out of any window, the later doesn't work so very well.

Synthesis wrote: Then the question becomes, "What is knowledge?" My answer would be that it is pure guess based on our faulty powers of observation/interpretation. If [indeed] we are incapable of accessing reality, than what can knowledge be?

I am not suggesting that we can not [or do not] use our intelligence to some capacity, but what we are able to grasp happens before our interpretive functions kick-in. This is why our first impressions seem right so often. The first perception takes "near reality" and makes it into our personal reality. This so-called knowledge is a chimera, which is why knowledge is ALWAYS changing. Anything knowable is impermanent, whereas actual Reality is permanent and unknowable.

Again, what we can "understand" happens in the non-temporal moment before our interpretive powers initiate. Subsequent, it's all speculation, i.e., the human mind attempting to process an infinite number of variables. As evidenced by peering out of any window, the later doesn't work so very well.

I agree with everything you've said. However, it appears that you're not differentiating between "real", "true", or "objective" knowledge, and "so called" or "subjective" "knowledge", which, of course, is not really knowledge at all. What you're calling "knowledge" isn't really knowledge in the least.

It appears that you're basic point is that we are incapable of having any real knowledge, because we're incapable of absolute objective perception/cognition. My position, however, is that this depends on the individual. Even in the midst of our subjective experience of the world, a man can obtain real knowledge, it's just that knowledge can never be called "absolute" or "all encompassing". We may be limited in the amount of knowledge we can have, but this doesn't mean that we can't learn real things about the world, i.e. have some actual knowledge .

"Knowledge" does not imply you know everything about the subject in question, nor does it imply that you see things the way they really are. It simply implies that it sheds some light on the subject in question, i.e. moves us closer to an objective understanding of things...

Atreyu wrote:

Synthesis wrote: Then the question becomes, "What is knowledge?" My answer would be that it is pure guess based on our faulty powers of observation/interpretation. If [indeed] we are incapable of accessing reality, than what can knowledge be?

I am not suggesting that we can not [or do not] use our intelligence to some capacity, but what we are able to grasp happens before our interpretive functions kick-in. This is why our first impressions seem right so often. The first perception takes "near reality" and makes it into our personal reality. This so-called knowledge is a chimera, which is why knowledge is ALWAYS changing. Anything knowable is impermanent, whereas actual Reality is permanent and unknowable.

Again, what we can "understand" happens in the non-temporal moment before our interpretive powers initiate. Subsequent, it's all speculation, i.e., the human mind attempting to process an infinite number of variables. As evidenced by peering out of any window, the later doesn't work so very well.

I agree with everything you've said. However, it appears that you're not differentiating between "real", "true", or "objective" knowledge, and "so called" or "subjective" "knowledge", which, of course, is not really knowledge at all. What you're calling "knowledge" isn't really knowledge in the least.

It appears that you're basic point is that we are incapable of having any real knowledge, because we're incapable of absolute objective perception/cognition. My position, however, is that this depends on the individual. Even in the midst of our subjective experience of the world, a man can obtain real knowledge, it's just that knowledge can never be called "absolute" or "all encompassing". We may be limited in the amount of knowledge we can have, but this doesn't mean that we can't learn real things about the world, i.e. have some actual knowledge .

"Knowledge" does not imply you know everything about the subject in question, nor does it imply that you see things the way they really are. It simply implies that it sheds some light on the subject in question, i.e. moves us closer to an objective understanding of things...

OK, give me an example of knowledge that is "real" or "true." I would contend that all things knowable are relative and transient.

Synthesis wrote: OK, give me an example of knowledge that is "real" or "true." I would contend that all things knowable are relative and transient.

This is an incorrect use of words to the context... Knowledge is "true" by definition, it becomes "real" with "understanding".

Ranvier wrote:

Synthesis wrote: OK, give me an example of knowledge that is "real" or "true." I would contend that all things knowable are relative and transient.

This is an incorrect use of words to the context... Knowledge is "true" by definition, it becomes "real" with "understanding".

This is why I say that you can not know anything.

This is a semantic "play" of words. We all have "knowledge", as in one "knows" one's name, where "knowing" is not the same as "understanding". Someone may "regurgitate" a "knowledge" that one "knows" but may not "understand" any of that "knowledge". Computers or AI do it really well.

Synthesis wrote: OK, give me an example of knowledge that is "real" or "true." I would contend that all things knowable are relative and transient.

Human perception is subjective.

Ranvier wrote:This is a semantic "play" of words. We all have "knowledge", as in one "knows" one's name, where "knowing" is not the same as "understanding". Someone may "regurgitate" a "knowledge" that one "knows" but may not "understand" any of that "knowledge". Computers or AI do it really well.

What I am attempting to get across is that there is no need to "understand." The best we can hope for is to see [perceive] things as close to reality as is possible. This does not involve understanding and allows the user to interact with his/her environment with the greatest efficacy.

-- Updated September 29th, 2017, 11:33 am to add the following --

Atreyu wrote:

Synthesis wrote: OK, give me an example of knowledge that is "real" or "true." I would contend that all things knowable are relative and transient.

Human perception is subjective.

All things knowable are subjective and constantly changing. This is why we can not access reality [and therefore, are incapable of true understanding]. The silver lining is that the alternative is MUCH better. Give up the desire to "know," and you will understand.

Synthesis wrote: All things knowable are subjective and constantly changing. This is why we can not access reality [and therefore, are incapable of true understanding]. The silver lining is that the alternative is MUCH better. Give up the desire to "know," and you will understand.

The laws of physics and mathematics are not going to change anytime soon, I can assure you....

The laws of physics have constantly changed in the past and will almost certainly keep changing in the future, so long as there are physicists around to change them.

If we don't believe that, then we believe that "the laws of physics" are not human constructs but are an unknowable ideal towards which our human-created approximations are always striving but will never reach. In that case, since by definition we can never know what these ideal objectively existing laws of physics actually are, we can't know whether they're changing or not.

Atreyu wrote:

Synthesis wrote: All things knowable are subjective and constantly changing. This is why we can not access reality [and therefore, are incapable of true understanding]. The silver lining is that the alternative is MUCH better. Give up the desire to "know," and you will understand.

The laws of physics and mathematics are not going to change anytime soon, I can assure you....

They are changing EVERY moment [it's just difficult to perceive]. Let me give you an example.

Eventually, people will realize that the current understanding of math is incorrect, that is, there is no such thing as more than "one." Each potential space in the Universe is affected differently therefore rendering each potential spacial occupant unique. Now, you might say, "Well, who cares about that," right? One day they will, because somebody will come with another system of math to replace the current [and it will be just as bogus (although people will swear by that one, as well)].

And because math is the language of physics, physics will change, as well [although most of physics is pretty much wild guesses, anyway].

EVERYTHING knowable changes EVERY moment. It can't be any other way.

-- Updated September 30th, 2017, 12:03 pm to add the following --

Steve3007 wrote:The laws of physics have constantly changed in the past and will almost certainly keep changing in the future, so long as there are physicists around to change them.

If we don't believe that, then we believe that "the laws of physics" are not human constructs but are an unknowable ideal towards which our human-created approximations are always striving but will never reach. In that case, since by definition we can never know what these ideal objectively existing laws of physics actually are, we can't know whether they're changing or not.

This is why the Truth of the matter is unchanging and unknowable. The Truth is not something to know, instead, it is something to exist in.