Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
More Epistemology (for the hardcore)
    #1536933 -

In academic philosophy circles, knowledge is defined to be "justified, true belief".
I don't like it and I'll tell you why.

If you've known me long enough on this board, you'll have heard me say that I don't have beliefs... all I have are quasi-, working beliefs.  These practical shortcuts are everchanging (read:  not static).

According to the definition of knowledge above, would I be inherently less knowledgeable?

{MODS: please keep the riff raff to a minimum... I want to have a good discussion. :wink:} 


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1536988 -

What are you doing here if you have no beliefs?


--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1537019 -

I'm not really sure if there are Truths which are "ultimate". I guess all we have are things which are True Enough.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1537024 -

I'm not sure if I understand the question. If your quasi-beliefs are not included in the concept of "beliefs in general", and if non-quasi beliefs are prerequisites for "knowledge" according to the definition that you quoted, then the answer is obvious if you apply some trivial logic. But if the term "justified, true belief" includes your working quasi-beliefs as a special case, then the answer is equally obvious but opposite. You have non-static knowledge in that case.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1537047 -

Rhizoid: You have non-static knowledge in that case.

You are correct, contestant number three... would you like to cash out now or go for more?
You'll go for more? Great! *audience cheers*

Alright... the next issue is justification...
How does one justify their beliefs (non-static or otherwise)?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1537056 -

How does one justify their beliefs (non-static or otherwise)?

By finding facts that conclude to truth.

The facts are subjective thow.  :blush:


--------------------
What if everything around you
Isn't quite as it seems?
What if all the world you think you know,
Is an elaborate dream?
And if you look at your reflection,
Is it all you want it to be?


Edited by Murex (05/10/03 03:27 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1537072 -

I am relaxing the Be Nice policy just a tad at your request. I don't want members to feel too constricted. I can't do both. This doesn't mean out and out flames might not be issued a warning but that is at my sole discretion.

As to your question or rather comment, I think the trouble starts with our understanding of the word 'belief'. In the context of philosophical argmentation it is improper to speak in terms of 'belief'. One should really frame their premises etc in terms of I think.

Try substituting that word into any phrase you have difficulty with and see how it works.

Cheers,

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1537109 -

Quote:
How does one justify their beliefs (non-static or otherwise)?


OK, that's the tough question. The big one.

My answer is that the justification is 99% trust in what others say, and maybe 1% personal experience. OK, I just invented those numbers in order to make a point, I don't actually have a measure for "percentage of justification". But my point is that most of our beliefs come from hearsay or authority. We can check some of it to verify its truth through personal experience, but it's impossible to check it all. So we begin to differentiate between various potential sources of knowledge depending on which methodology they claim to be using to find their truths. It's still prone to failure sometimes, but at least it's better than putting all your faith in a single authority.

In the end there is no way to dodge the fact that every human being is conditioned by their surroundings and their origins to accept certain beliefs. You can question these beliefs and modify some of them, but being human means that you always have a certain perspective on reality that won't go away until you stop being a human being.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1537246 -

there is a difference between belief and ideology, beliefs can be seen as the thought molecules that construct an ideology, but once a person adopts an ideology, his/her viewpoint becomes distorted, and the ideology can act as a thought filter-which arranges sensory input so that it is integrated into the ideology.

a number of cohesive beliefs produce an ideology.

but, beliefs can also be adopted, integrated information. i dont find that academic definition problematic because, it depends on what kind of issues we are talking about.

if someone has knowledge of genetics, then they must believe that their knowledge is true, which means they must believe in the information they have regarding genetics.

having no beliefs does not make you less knowledgeable, but you would have a hard time being a geneticist if you didnt believe in genetics. correct?

but, if you were a geneticist whose mind was engrained in one static ideology, it would be very difficult for you to discover anything new or interesting.

in order to advance ones thought, you must have beliefs, but you dont need an ideology. beliefs can interchange and give way to new beliefs over time, but you need belief to function.



--------------------
enjoy the entertaining indentity i have constructed for you while you can.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: atomikfunksoldier]
    #1537627 -

i believe what i feel like believing...i can't "justify" it in any way...and i like it like that.


--------------------
What fun is it in Nirvana while other beings are suffering?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1537764 -

I actually think I might have a similar 'belief' system to what Sclorch mentioned. I don't really believe in any absolute truths because everything I experience is filtered through my perception. I don't have 100% faith in my perception, so I'm not even sure if I am here typing this right now. I could be totally insane, in a corner somewhere drooling on myself in a straight jacket imagining my whole life and there would be no way for me to know. It's good not to buy into anything to wholeheartedly. If you distance yourself from your beliefs, I think you maintain a healthy level of thought while keeping you on your toes. This is also one of the reasons I don't believe in God.


--------------------
Persons denying the existence of robots may be robots themselves.

Edited by bert (05/10/03 09:57 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1537822 -

you say to yourself you have no beliefs but im sure you have

i think maybe you don't quite understand their definition of knoledge, believe me


--------------------
get it all together get like birds of a feather

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sole_Worthy]
    #1540610 -

I guess there just aren't enough hardcore mofos in here.
I was going to go off on coherence theory and it's ultimate derivative... but I think it would go over too many heads and I'd be seen as even more pretentious than some currently think of me. If anyone has a good background in this subject matter, I'd be more than happy to continue. Any takers?


Whatever happened to pinkysharkmark?


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1540695 -

well, you can find justification empirically or rationally. and what makes you "hardcore"? so far you've asked rather straightforward questions.... your dynamic pseudo beliefs don't conflict with the commonly held requirements of a belief, and justification can easily be found for belief as long as you're willing to actually look at and ameliorate the inconsistencies in your thought.

now, all that you're really saying is that you'd like to apply a disclaimer to your thought. all beliefs really ought to (or can) do is satisfy your reason or your senses, whichever you want to trust. you're saying you don't want to trust either, which seems like a cop out to me. The pofundity of a trip or love or a puppy is enough to get me to have a simple belief. no prefix. things get more complicated, but I think that it's not unreasonable to hold onto moral absolutes.

"I'm not really sure if there are Truths which are "ultimate". I guess all we have are things which are True Enough."

that seems to be how alot of people feel, but I don't except this kind of moral relevatism. why should I? cause it's convenient.


--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Malachi]
    #1540709 -

Relativism is made less relative with consistent application and systemic coherence checks.

Heteroabsolute.
That's my point.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1540767 -

oh, your point is to intentionally try to make your argument ambiguous instead of trying to communicate? real "hardcore", it's hard to believe that people find you pretentious.

anyway, relevatism certainly doesn't lend itself to a consistent application, at least not in this world or country. if it did, I don't really see why relevatism would be necessary.

perhaps you could explain how you go about conducting systemic coherence checks on beliefs that are dynamic? cause that's what I was suggesting would lead to one being satisfied with reason/evidence.

Or maybe you could explain "heteroabsolute".


--------------------
The ultimate meaning of our being can only be fulfilled in the paradoxical leap beyond the tragic-demonic frustration. It is a leap from our side, but it is the self-surrendering presence of the Ground of Being from the other side.
- Paul Tillich

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1540989 -

Being a softcore squishy type of person I had to look up "coherence theory". It seems to be about trying to define truths without having to base them on a special set of truths called "objective facts". In formal logic this would be expressed as a situation where the only truths are tautologies, no axiomatic truths are allowed. So instead of saying:

X is an objective fact.
Y is true because it can be derived from X.

We express this as a tautology:

if X is true then Y is true because it can be derived from X.

(For the softcores a tautology is any logical statement that is true regardless of the values of the X's and Y's, the constituent propositions)

All human knowledge could be expressed like this if we replace X with all the conditions for our current existance. To me this sounds analogous to the buddhist idea of the dependent origination of the world of phenomena. Anyone agree?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Sclorch]
    #1541094 -

Sclorch, don't ever let someone's opinion of you dissuade you from explaining a concept or speaking your mind, pretentiousness included. I think it would be great for the readers if you would explain the 'coherence theory' and the flaws thereof.


[goes to make popcorn]

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Malachi]
    #1541621 -

me: Relativism is made less relative with consistent application and systemic coherence checks. Heteroabsolute.
Malachi: oh, your point is to intentionally try to make your argument ambiguous instead of trying to communicate?

I don't think that was ambiguous at all.
<-Relativism---------------Heteroabsolutism-------------------Absolutism->
No coherence=....................w/ Coherence=......................an impossible goal,
...ideas.................................ideas.................................there is no
not applicable to many...........applicable to many.................ultimate moral map.

Malachi: perhaps you could explain how you go about conducting systemic coherence checks on beliefs that are dynamic? cause that's what I was suggesting would lead to one being satisfied with reason/evidence.

Coherence checks are not just reason or evidence. They're more like scheduled maintenance for your personal philosophy. It can start out with a complete self-examination every so often (think Descartes' Meditations). As the system is fine-tuned and reliable patterns are recognized (though not carved from an eternal stone), the method of doubt can be applied in a more focused manner, like say, that new book that you've been reading and really like (a little doubt keeps the mind from blindly accepting any idea). Non-static beliefs are not necessarily dynamic... it just means that they can CHANGE in light of new evidence OR their failure. Maybe I should have said non-rigid.


--------------------
Note: In desperate need of a cure...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: More Epistemology (for the hardcore) [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1541878 -


I'm the squishy type as well, I'm wondering if the following is the model you're driving at;

To understand the principle of Dependent Origination is said to be Right View (sammaditthi). This Right View is a very balanced kind of view, one which does not tend to extremes. Thus the principle of Dependent Origination is a law which teaches the truth in a median and unbiased way, known as the Middle Teaching. The 'median-ness' of this truth is more clearly understood when it is compared with other teachings. In order to show how the principle of Dependent Origination differs from these extreme views, I will now present some of them, arranged in pairs, using the Buddha's words as explanation and keeping further commentary to a minimum. ?

First Pair:?

??? 1. Atthikavada: The school which upholds that all things really exist (extreme realism).

??? 2. Natthikavada: The school which upholds that all things do not exist (nihilism).

"Venerable Sir, it is said 'Right View, Right View.' To what extent is view said to be right?"

"Herein, Venerable Kaccana, this world generally tends towards two extreme views -- atthita (being) and natthita (not being). Seeing the cause of the world as it is, with right understanding, there is no 'not being' therein. Seeing the cessation of this world as it is with right understanding, there is no 'being' therein. The world clings to systems and is bound by dogmas, but the noble disciple does not search for, delight in or attach to systems, dogmas or the conceit 'I am.' He doubts not that it is only suffering that arises, and only suffering that ceases. When that noble disciple clearly perceives this independently of others, this is called Right View.

"Kaccana! To say 'all things exist' is one extreme. To say 'all things do not exist' is another. The Tathagata proclaims a teaching that is balanced, avoiding these extremes, thus, 'With ignorance as condition there are volitional impulses; with volitional impulses as condition, consciousness ... with the complete abandoning of ignorance, volitional impulses cease; with the cessation of volitional impulses, consciousness ceases ...'" [S.II.16-17, 76; S.III.134]

One of these sequences finishes up with 'liberation and destruction of the outflows,' while the other finishes up with 'knowledge of liberation.' They are both the same, except that the latter sequence includes liberation and the destruction of the outflows under the one heading of 'knowledge of liberation.'

??? Another illustration of the process of liberation proceeds like this:

??? Intelligent reflection (yoniso-manasikara) => gladness => rapture => calmness => happiness => concentration => knowledge and insight into things as they are => disenchantment => dispassion => liberation.[D.III.288]

??? This sequence differs only in that it begins with intelligent reflection, or knowing how to think and reason for oneself, instead of faith, which relies on outside influences for instruction. When one thinks properly and in accordance with reality, one sees the way things really are, and the result is gladness. From there, the factors of the progression are the same as in the previous sequences.
-P. A. Payutto
Translated from the Thai by Bruce Evans

My current epistemological view is decidedly objectivist, as follows;

Epistemology
?Man?s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man?s senses. Reason is man?s only means of acquiring knowledge.? Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).
?
Human Nature
Man is a rational being. Reason, as man?s only means of knowledge, is his basic means of survival. But the exercise of reason depends on each individual?s choice. ?Man is a being of volitional consciousness.? ?That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call ?free will? is your mind?s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom. This is the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and character.?Thus Objectivism rejects any form of determinism, the belief that man is a victim of forces beyond his control (such as God, fate, upbringing, genes, or economic conditions).
- Ayn Rand

I'm open to other views, I haven't viewed all existent models and I'm still forming so to speak, if this comes off as lightweight or pretentious or whatever let me shield myself now, I'm still searching. Coherence theory is new to me and I look forward to it being explained, this has been an interesting thread.


--------------------

"I hate having to pick between the lesser of two evils. But I'm glad Obama was elected. McCain was another war monger. I'd rather deal with our country going into debt than trying to take on afghanistan...oh wait FUCK!" - Fungus_tao

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Verifying epistemology Silversoul 3,170 19 11/04/10 02:37 PM
by johnm214
* Epistemology and the Primacy of Existence
( 1 2 3 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 3,519 48 01/30/06 09:55 PM
by blaze2
* Trying "quantify" Epistemology TaoinShrrom 2,290 14 09/16/03 04:17 PM
by Rhizoid
* Epistemology: How do you validate your beliefs? buttonion 1,618 9 07/27/02 10:44 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Coherence Theory.... Sclorch 1,196 4 02/02/06 09:22 AM
by Sclorch
* How to Hide Anger, Hate and Resentment in Ideology *DELETED*
( 1 2 3 all )		 Lakefingers 4,352 54 12/28/09 04:02 PM
by xFrockx
* Is there a coherent interpretation of the Bible- even through 'non-litteral interpretations'?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )		 johnm214 6,508 113 10/28/12 07:54 PM
by johnm214
* epistemology and logic Axiom420 3,342 17 01/16/03 01:23 PM
by Axiom420

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
4,651 topic views. 1 members, 67 guests and 18 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.006 seconds on 16 queries.