- Joined
- 29 Nov 06
- Moves
- 16790
Originally posted by reinfeldTo the extent that perceptions of reality are not compatible, that is, to that which there is disagreement as to what is true, reality, as finite as it may be theoretically, becomes unobservable, as each person sees it ideosyncratically. Thus, the notion of reality is moved onto the plane of other unobsrevable things, such as God and the supernatural, and becomes an intellectual dead end.
...reality may be a contradiction....it may be finite and infinite...we do not
know...for how small does something become when it is finite and infinite
has no size...no, we can know truth...which is the correct apprehension of
what we do know but this is not to know what we do not know and there
may be things that are not knowable...ergo...reality...truth cannot blanket
reality unless the truthknower is co-exisitent with reality...
..reality exists per se with or without perception or varying competitive
perceptions...truth also exists in the same framework...knowledge is
the weak link that does depend on perception and absorption...the possibility that reality is contradictory has nothing to do with a contraditory
perception...contradictory knowledge has something to do with contradictory perception...go to the back of the class...recess is cancelled for you...
- Joined
- 29 Nov 06
- Moves
- 16790
Originally posted by reinfeldYes, but how does one know if reality exists? How does one know if it exists independent of perceptions? One must observe it - rather, percieve it - first, then draw conclusions. Given that perceptions are individualistic, one can only conclude that even the notion of reality existing independent of perception is itself a perception, and thus as inherently flawed as any other perception.
..reality exists per se with or without perception or varying competitive
perceptions...truth also exists in the same framework...knowledge is
the weak link that does depend on perception and absorption...the possibility that reality is contradictory has nothing to do with a contraditory
perception...contradictory knowledge has something to do with contradictory perception...go to the back of the class...recess is cancelled for you...
- Joined
- 29 Nov 06
- Moves
- 16790
That's exactally my point. The whole thing suffers from an inescapable circularity. Reality is, by definition, always tied to perception. If something is "real" then it is only so because it is judged so by a subject. Yet, if there is a subject who is able to percieve then we must at least know that an objective reality must include at least the subject, correct? But who's observing the subject? Discussions about reality are most fruitful when rooted in emperical traditions such as psycology and sociology.
- Joined
- 29 Nov 06
- Moves
- 16790
I have my own theory of knowledge. Knowledge is all probability. You can't know is true something unless you observe it for yourself, otherwise you must base your beliefs on trust alone. Therefore, I can't know for certain what will happen when I sit on a chair because it hasn't happened yet; it's entirely speculation. But, I can predict what will happen based on the other countless times I've attempted to sit in a chair and found myself sitting down comfortably shortly thereafter. Moreover, even observing something is not enough to know if it is real because senses are notoriously inept. Again, judgement about what is real comes from one's belief about the probability of one's senses being accurate.
- Joined
- 29 Nov 06
- Moves
- 16790
Ahh, but philosophy is the weakest of them all. Psycology and sociology are sciences, at least in the sense that theories they espouse are tied to emperical observations (or at least should be). Common sense seems useful only because it is comfortable. History has shown that common sense is often confroted by nature ("Of course the sun goes around the earth, I watch it do just that every day."😉.
I think knowledge would have to be defined as knowing a correct bit of information, but also believing that the information is correct. If a scientist formulates a hypothesis he or she doesn't know whether or not it is correct. Even assuming that it does turn out to be right many years later, the scientist doesn't have the knowledge of whatever the hypothesis explains because they realize they could be wrong at the time.
In your example, you would have to say that the person in bed has the knowledge of the time; even though they aren't correct for the reasons they think they are, they are correct and believe they are correct.
Of course, this definition brings up many more questions. What is correct? We can never be sure of anything. So for simplicity's sake, it's left up to each person what constitutes being sure of one's self. Although, this creates a paradox: the people who are rashly sure of themselves and cannot accept another's point of view, who we would normally consider ignorant, are in fact considered knowledgable with this definition.