Quote:
Originally Posted by september  Look at what you've said. You're equivocating on what it is to know. You don't talk about thinking in this post, you talk about believing. Believing is something we do as an article of faith. But the knowledge helpmestartauniversity is talking about surely uses a different definition of "know". Looks like you guys are talking past each other. hmsau (to abbreviate) seems to be saying that "knowing" constitutes reasoning to facts, while you are aiming at a definition of "knowing" consisting in some more mystical kind of state of assurance.
See, it doesn't take a subjective reality to understand the differences in what you're saying. Now, if you want to deny her/his definition of "knowing" entirely, you need to be talking in their terms.
Plato's Cave argues for an objectively prescriptive non-natural kind of moral fact. However, those moral facts do, according to Plato, exist in a mind-independent world. Don't take the force of this allegory to be the phenomenological experience of entering the light from the cave -- that's not what Plato's argument is structured around. |
Hmmmm, well there is a very big difference between 'knowing' and 'believing'. When a bear comes running at you, do you
know you are afraid, or do you
believe you are afraid?
When I speak of 'knowing' I speak of an experience, not a belief or a thought.
If you have never had the experience of this 'knowing', then you are going to try to conceptualize what I said through your thinking mind. However, the words
a giant bear is chasing me are very different from the experience of being chased by a giant bear. Obviously, you have never been chased by the particular bear I spoke of in my post. If you had, you would have a different perspective on what I was saying, a different view. If you have not had the experience, it means nothing to you except for the words which are totally inadequate.
So I just don't know what you are defending, as I really was not attacking philosophy, nor this other gentleman's stand on philosophy. I merely pointed out what I view as its limitations -- which to my mind are quite real. How do you know what Plato's Cave argues for? You only know through your filters, your view of the world, and your understanding of philosophy. How do you know that is all there is? You don't, really; because you can't know everything. No one can.
I never denied that gentleman's view of philosophy, and I never said there was anything wrong with philosophy, only that it has limitations -- limitations to me which are rather gaping. It also leads to very good thinking -- that is a good thing in my mind.
Like most people, I like my own point of view -- but I try not to make other's views wrong. Because they aren't wrong, and my view isn't right. They are just views that differ; a person's view has everything to do with perspective and is not a SR issue (ask any photographer.) So, what are you defending here? If you want to be right, go ahead. I freely give you the 'rightness' of your stance and your beliefs within your experience of life and your belief system.
And when that bear chases you, you just let me know how close the words were to the real experience.
Blessings from Belle,
