Originally posted by Seitsethe relation between belief and knowledge is problematic. for many years it was thought that knowledge is correctly characterised as justified true belief. but then Edmund L. Gettier published a paper in the Oxford journal 'Analysis' (http://analysis.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/23/6/121) purporting to show a counterexample, and sparking a debate that continues to this day.
Let's philosophize a little bit, gentlemen.
Is it valuable to "know" or is it enough to "believe"?
For knowing what "nothing" is surely is better guide to correct action than mere belief.
...there is nothing that is nothing....the idea of nothing depends on the true existence of three dimensions as a true state of all things and the third dimension is a local fiction of the universe....hence there is no true edge to reality as reality has more than three dimensions and "nothing" is not a feature of such a diverse dimensional reality...you are believing in an illusion...nothing and time are only local illusions...so is the invitation i sent you to my birthday party...it is not really in your mailbox so don't sit out there all night for daybreak to look inside...
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI lean towards Kant, I am sorry.
All human beings are provided three means of cognitive perception: empiricism (experience it), rationalism (figure it out) and faith
(Einstein's quantum leap). First two are meritorious, third isn't. Faith accrues benefit only when who or what is believed is accurate.
Originally posted by reinfeldphilosophy's not really your thing, is it?
...there is nothing that is nothing....the idea of nothing depends on the true existence of three dimensions as a true state of all things and the third dimension is a local fiction of the universe....hence there is no true edge to reality as reality has more than three dimensions and "nothing" is not a feature of such a diverse dimensional reality...you ar ...[text shortened]... is not really in your mailbox so don't sit out there all night for daybreak to look inside...
Originally posted by BlackampWhat are your thoughts on Plato's Meno.
the relation between belief and knowledge is problematic. for many years it was thought that knowledge is correctly characterised as justified true belief. but then Edmund L. Gettier published a paper in the Oxford journal 'Analysis' (http://analysis.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/23/6/121) purporting to show a counterexample, and sparking a debate that continues to this day.
I find it quite a good substitute for soft porn.
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseOkay to lean, my friend, into or away from the wind but please keep two things open... your bowels and your mind, like Doubting Thomas.
I lean towards Kant, I am sorry.
....................
"All human beings are provided three means of cognitive perception: empiricism (experience it), rationalism (figure it out) and faith
(Einstein's quantum leap). First two are meritorious, third isn't. Faith accrues benefit only when who or what is believed is accurate."
Originally posted by Grampy Bobbywhy are you always reposting stuff, you idiot? the first post is still there, we can still read it, it's only one page back. fing egomaniac.
Okay to lean, my friend, into or away from the wind but please keep two things open... your bowels and your mind, like Doubting Thomas.
....................
"All human beings are provided three means of cognitive perception: empiricism (experience it), rationalism (figure it out) and faith
(Einstein's quantum leap). First two are meritorious, third isn't. Faith accrues benefit only when who or what is believed is accurate."