What can I know?

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » August 24th, 2008, 8:46 am

pjkeeley, 'evidence' was not the best choice of words in the context of ontology where evidence dowes not belong. You are right.

I would have been better to say that there is no proof that physicalism is more true than is immaterialism(idealism as it is usually called in the UK.)

Edward J. Bartek · Post by **Edward J. Bartek** » August 25th, 2008, 9:53 pm

Belinda wrote:Edward J B would you not perhaps say 'I know that spiritual knowledge is part of man's experience, (medieval lives demonstrate this),and spiritual knowledge is also part of my experience'?If you were to put it this way, it would imply that some people but not all people have an experience that they call 'spiritual knowledge'.

EJB: Spiritual knowledge is known intuitively, not by reason or the senses. The spiritual is known only by what is not rational or sensual. It is "known" by symbols, allegories, personifications, metaphors, poety, myths, fables, etc. Examples are feelings like love, patriotism honor, compassion, dignity, etc. What person has not experienced souch spiritual feelings in their life? They'd have to be zombies if they didn't. Of course, it also applies to religion in terms of God and anything related to Him. You may not have experienced religious spiritiuality, but show me one person who has not experienced some of the indescribable spiritual terms I mentioned.

pjkeeley · Post by **pjkeeley** » August 25th, 2008, 11:59 pm

EJB wrote:Examples are feelings like love, patriotism honor, compassion, dignity, etc. What person has not experienced souch spiritual feelings in their life?

I have experienced them, I just don't consider those feelings to be spiritual.

Belinda · Post by **Belinda** » August 26th, 2008, 5:01 am

EJB: Spiritual knowledge is known intuitively, not by reason or the senses. The spiritual is known only by what is not rational or sensual. It is "known" by symbols, allegories, personifications, metaphors, poety, myths, fables, etc. Examples are feelings like love, patriotism honor, compassion, dignity, etc.

(EJB wrote)

I now understand what you mean by 'spiritual'.

According to Occam's Razor, the useful philosophical rule of thumb for getting concepts clear and elegant,is that you should not introduce an idea when it is not necessary.

These literary tropes, and these human feelings, that you have listed above, EJB, are easily accommodated under 'mind' or 'body/mind'. It isn't necessary to invent another way of existing which you call 'spirit'.

I know that the word'spirit' is common in everyday or religious language.In everyday speech my impression is that people seem to use the word mostly in relation to mood e.g. 'in good spirits'.

In religious terms there is 'The Holy Spirit'the third person of the Trinity.

Philosophical discussions are much more rigorous as to precision than everyday or religious conversations.

millie · Post by **millie** » August 26th, 2008, 9:15 am

"The physcial world can produce evidence" Letter formation producing words - letters are a physcial product. What can I know? Books can tell us much then. Tears relating to the inner person thats physcial.

Question when someone says "spiritual knowledge" - are you saying knowledge given by God or knowledge you have gained?

Edward J. Bartek · Post by **Edward J. Bartek** » August 26th, 2008, 8:39 pm

[

quote="pjkeeley"]
Edward J. Bartek wrote:You have still not shown me how you can "know" that a spirit exists. All you have shown me is that you believe it does. Are you willing to admit that you might be wrong?

EJB: pjkeeley: I'm sure you have had non-religious insights and intuitions? Were some of these truths? If so, how would you know? If not, were they hallucinations? If you had a dream? How can you prove this to another person? If they don't believe you, did you really dream it? Wasn't it real in your mind? No one knows what energy is, but they prove it by its material effects. No one knows who God is, but provew Him by His human effects. In principle, what's the difference? The facts of spiritual, rational, and sensualtruth may differ, but aren't their principles the same?

pjkeeley · Post by **pjkeeley** » August 27th, 2008, 4:07 am

EJB wrote:I'm sure you have had non-religious insights and intuitions? Were some of these truths? If so, how would you know? If not, were they hallucinations? If you had a dream? How can you prove this to another person? If they don't believe you, did you really dream it? Wasn't it real in your mind?

Sometimes I feel like I have intuitons about the workings of the universe, and sometimes I postulate theories based on these feelings, but only for interest's sake, perhaps in the company of friends. I don't believe such feelings are a valid way of knowing anything. All theories must be tested. If there is no way of showing something to be true then it is essentially useless as a hypothesis (see: God).

Of course, I base my worldview on skepticism and therefore I accept that it might never be possible to prove anything for sure. However, truths about physical phenomena can at least be illustrated by way of experiments, and mathematically, using valid equations based on known laws and properties. Spiritual "truths" cannot be shown by any method. They can only be felt.

[quote"EJB"]No one knows what energy is, but they prove it by its material effects. No one knows who God is, but provew Him by His human effects.[/quote]
Yes, but I hold that every effect is of the same kind, ie. physical. Thus, the difference between us is that you believe certain intense feelings are spritual and caused by God, whereas I hold that those feelings are caused by the brain. The evidence for the physicality of emotions is abundant in modern neuroscience. The more we learn about the brain, the more it is implicated in the experiences we understand as comprising consciousness.

So, instead of your rational-sensual-spiritual trinity, I believe there is only one type of knowledge. That is knowledge about the physical universe and everything in it, including people.[/quote]