Community > Science & Philosophy

Previous 1 2 … 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 … 49 50 Next

Topic: Is Truth Subjective?
Abracadabra Joined Thu 04/12/07 Posts: 17851	Mon 07/25/11 01:10 PM
More semantic circles... I have knowledge of your existence. If you have knowledge of my existence, then you know that I exist. If you do not know that I exist, then you do not have knowledge of my existence. It is not my experience that you exist. I only have second hand knowledge. You have first hand knowledge. Knowledge, none-the-less. Experience is not necessarily knowledge either. People experience hallucinations all the time. Hallucinations are not true. Knowledge must be. If the hallucinating subject gains knowledge that the experience was a hallucination, then they have knowledge of the hallucination. If they do not then the experience was not knowledge, it was a hallucination. But even the experience of a hallucination would be knowledge. So you're falling into a philosophical black hole now. By the way, if you claim that hallucination are not true, then why did you even mention them? A hallucination would be nothing more than a philosophical unicorn if they aren't true. A hallucination can only be said to exist if it actually happened, and if it happened then it's truth, and therefore whoever had it had the knowledge of experiencing it. So knowing that you've had a hallucination makes it knowledge for you, and you just said that knowledge is true. And you're worried about semantic circles? You just chased your own tail on that one!

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Mon 07/25/11 01:17 PM
They are related terms. Knowledge is a noun. It strikes me as a body of useful information. This is wrong. A body of lies can be put to use. Knowing is an act that engages the whole experience of doing, being and knowing. Fluff. Pretty language that says nothing. If you memorize a book that tells you exactly what the process of painting a picture is, and you have a photographic memory.. do you know how to paint a picture if you never did it? That might be an interesting experiment to do. Most certainly. One can know how to do something and not be good at it, and never have done it. While knowing might be considered knowledge, knowledge is not always the same as knowing or to know. Knowing is having knowledge. Having knowledge is knowing. Here is a cool example. In the series "Breaking bad" Jessie Pinkman knew that a certain chemical would melt a body because his partner told him it would. He put the body in the bathtub and poured the chemical over it. What he learned from doing was that it not only melted the body, it melted the bathtub and floor and fell through to the bottom floor. They had quite a disgusting mess to clean up. The next time he and his partner were getting rid of a body, they put the body into a container that would not melt. A skeptical private eye, Mike, watching asked if this would really work. Jessie looked at him and said: "Trust us." THAT WAS KNOWING as apposed to knowledge Semantic word games. In the first example they had some knowledge and in the second they had more.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 07/25/11 01:22 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Mon 07/25/11 01:23 PM
Semantic word games. In the first example they had some knowledge and in the second they had more. Nope. Jessie did not have more knowledge. He had personal experience. Personal experience is the difference. If you want to go on believing that knowing and knowledge are the same thing, that is your choice. I do not share that opinion. It is not a semantic word game. There is a very clear and definite difference between the two.

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Mon 07/25/11 01:37 PM
If you want to go on believing that knowing and knowledge are the same thing, that is your choice. I do not share that opinion. It is not a semantic word game. There is a very clear and definite difference between the two. It is a semantic word game, one in which you're choosing to argue about things that I've never claimed in order to support your own position. I said... Having knowledge is knowing and knowing is having knowledge. Do you agree?

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Mon 07/25/11 01:41 PM
You're the one who is playing the semantics word games, Michael. Jeannie expressed her views quite eloquently getting at the underlying concepts quite well. You flatly refuse to acknowledge that, and instead you keep reverting back to shallow arguments of semantics. Arguments that are completely devoid of any meaning. Posturing makes for a rather pathetic argument. Here is the argument being presented which neither of you have engaged in. -- Knowing is having knowledge and having knowledge is knowing. Are either one of you going to address the simplicity involved here?

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Mon 07/25/11 01:57 PM
A hallucination can only be said to exist if it actually happened, and if it happened then it's truth, and therefore whoever had it had the knowledge of experiencing it. Another logical consequence of holding that truth is subjective. Now hallucinations are not only true but they constitute knowledge. The mistake here is "if it happened then it's truth". That is wrong. If it happened then it is a state of affairs(fact). To claim that it happened would be a true claim, because it happened and true claims correspond to fact/reality. It does not make the hallucination itself "truth". I mean, look at this... People tell known falsehoods. They lie. The fact that it happened does not make it "truth". Utter unintelligible nonsense.

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Mon 07/25/11 01:59 PM
Knowing is having knowledge. Having knowledge is knowing. It is that simple.

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Mon 07/25/11 02:20 PM
Knowing is having knowledge. Having knowledge is knowing.

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Mon 07/25/11 02:25 PM
So we have witnessed three logical consequences of holding that truth is subjective. One led to admitting to not knowing what makes their claims true. Another admitted to not believing that their own thoughts were true. Now we have a claim that hallucination is truth if it happens. What better reason can we find to know that holding that truth is subjective leads to unintelligible nonsense?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 07/25/11 02:26 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Mon 07/25/11 02:27 PM
Knowing is having knowledge. Having knowledge is knowing. It is that simple. Knowing is having knowledge and also having personal experience with that knowledge. Simply having knowledge is having information and accepting it as true and believing it. I have knowledge that you exist. I believe it. I accept it as true. I know I exist. I do not know that you exist. I have no reason to doubt you exist, I accept it as true, but I do not KNOW it. There is a difference. It is that simple.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 07/25/11 02:32 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Mon 07/25/11 02:34 PM
Does Creativesoul exist? He says he does, and I believe him. I have no reason to doubt that he exists. I don't know where he lives, although he states that he lives in Hawaii and is a 39 year old man. I believe that is probably true. Do I know it? ....NO. I don't know his name, or what he looks like or his address or what he does for a living. I know very little about him. I believe he exists because he says so and he (if he is a he) talks to me on an Internet Dating Forum. I have very little knowledge about Creativesoul. I have never seen him. But I have faith that he exists. On the other hand.. I know I exist. I am 100% certain that I exist because.... here I am. This is me.

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Mon 07/25/11 02:40 PM
Knowing is having knowledge and also having personal experience with that knowledge. Two different animals JB. All we're doing here is playing around with the different ways to talk about knowledge. If you remove knowledge there can be no knowing. All knowledge is knowing how - know how. Know how does not require being skillful, as in your painting example. One can know how to paint from reading a book without being good at it. One can know how to paint from doing it and not be good at it. Knowing is having knowledge. Having personal experience with that knowledge is putting that knowledge to use. One can have knowledge without putting it to practical use. One can also know how to do something and not be very good at it. Knowing how does not require doing it.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 07/25/11 02:40 PM
So we have witnessed a 39 year old man who has knowledge that he exits and has succeeded in convincing others that he exists. He probably had to check his drivers licence and look in the mirror to verify it, but he does seem to be certain about it. But he does not know the difference between knowledge and knowing or the difference between objective facts and subjective truth. Existence is truth.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 07/25/11 02:41 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Mon 07/25/11 02:42 PM
Knowing is having knowledge and also having personal experience with that knowledge. Two different animals JB. All we're doing here is playing around with the different ways to talk about knowledge. If you remove knowledge there can be no knowing. All knowledge is knowing how - know how. Know how does not require being skillful, as in your painting example. One can know how to paint from reading a book without being good at it. One can know how to paint from doing it and not be good at it. Knowing is having knowledge. Having personal experience with that knowledge is putting that knowledge to use. One can have knowledge without putting it to practical use. One can also know how to do something and not be very good at it. Knowing how does not require doing it. Knowing requires being it. (That is 'owning it.')

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Mon 07/25/11 02:43 PM
Simply having knowledge is having information and accepting it as true and believing it. No it's not. That is belief. The information could be false.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 07/25/11 02:44 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Mon 07/25/11 02:45 PM
Simply having knowledge is having information and accepting it as true and believing it. No it's not. That is belief. The information could be false. If it is not true then it is not knowledge then is it? reword: Simply having knowledge is having (true or factual)information and accepting it as true and believing it.

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Mon 07/25/11 02:46 PM
Are you not 100% certain that you are conversing with someone else?

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Mon 07/25/11 02:48 PM
There is a difference. It is that simple. There is a difference between what? Knowing and having knowledge?

creativesoul Joined Mon 04/16/07 Posts: 9166	Mon 07/25/11 02:50 PM
Knowing requires being it. Knowing requires being the knowledge?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Mon 07/25/11 02:52 PM
Are you not 100% certain that you are conversing with someone else? Can of worms. As I have said before, I reserve 100% only for the statement "I exist." I believe that I am conversing with someone else, yes. However you cannot insist on 100% certainty because of the above.