Are you confused then? (I'm not.)

How about this analogy.

Truth is about knowing and being.

Belief is about thinking.

So much unnecessary literary baggage.

What makes you think that there is a difference between being true from your point of experience and being true from another?

Thinking necessarily presupposes truth. Knowing demands it. Being is a matter of existence which also presupposes truth/reality correspondence. Belief necessarily presupposes truth.

So no. Truth is not about knowing. Epistemology is.

I don't know that there is a difference, but I don't make assumptions.

Well, sure you do. We all do.

If it is true that my cup is on the table, would your thoughts make any difference?

That is an opinion I don't share.

What does that have to do with assumptions?

I will correct one thing.

I do make assumptions about many things, but never when it involves being 100% certain of something.

Nothing. It has to do with being true from your perspective and/or another's. Which was the point being discussed, not your self-denial of assumption making.



Well setting aside the FACT that that IS the proper name for philosophy of knowledge(knowing), I gave my reasons for making the claim. You did not address them accordingly. Those reasons support the claim that you remarked on. Do you have some valid argument/reasoning for denying those? Or are you just here, in a philosophy forum, to give your opinions without taking on the burden of justifying your own claims?

I have a different feeling about something you call "the philosophy of knowledge" and the experience of "knowing" when it comes to the realization that "I exist."

Analyzing these concepts in a philosophical manner feels like it is done by stepping outside of personal experience, as if a group of philosophers are sitting around trying to decide what is and what is not the proper name for their philosophy of knowledge.

I am not intellectual or 'knowledgeable' about these terms you use. The term Epistemology is basically meaningless to me. Sorry.

Wiki simply says that it addresses the questions:

What is knowledge?
How is knowledge acquired?
How do we know what we know?

Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims.

So truth is not about Epistemology and Epistemology is not about "knowing."

Sure, if you completely ignore what you just posted and instead hold that "knowing" is somehow not completely exhausted by the first question.

Is that what you're saying?

Are you saying that "knowing" is not knowledge?

If it is true that my cup is on the table, would your thoughts(from your point of experience) make any difference?

No. and...

I would not even 'think' about your cup on the table except that you mentioned it.

Yes.

But you have, and those thoughts/beliefs have no bearing whatsoever upon whether or not my cup is on the table. That is because truth is not subject to thought/belief. Therefore, "true for me" and "true for you" is nothing other than a self-defeating way to state things. It will eventually cause one to confuse belief with truth and call their own belief "my truth".

If knowing is not knowledge, then what are you calling "knowing"?

Creative, I'm not confused.

I answered your question with No.

My thoughts have no bearing on your cup. Truth has no bearing on thought / belief. Or is it the other way around...?

Happy?

Are you claiming that they are the same thing?

How are knowledge and knowing the same thing, and how are they different?

What do you think?

The difference is linguistic use only. That which makes up either is identical, I would think.