Elusive Knowledge

[geniuine]

Let's say that there are two types of knowledge: regular knowledge and esoteric (hidden) knowledge. Regular knowledge is a type of knowledge which can be taught in school's (ex. mathematics). The process is a step-by-step process; starts from something simple and obvious and gradually becomes more and more complex by building onto itself. Esoteric knowledge, on the other hand, is something supposedly different and much more mysterious. It cannot be learned through the same process that one learns, say, mathematics. It's said to be something self-taught and learned under specific conditions which are wholly unknown or misunderstood. This can be confusing because then it begs the question: if such a knowledge cannot be taught, then how has it been successfully past on from one generation to the next. It almost seems as if it's born into people, into a select, special few.

This (esoteric) knowledge seems to be passed on from one generation to the next by passing on the appropriate conditions which act as a sort of catalyst and produce this knowledge into some people. When explained in this way, these two seemingly different types of knowledge don't seem too different from each other. Both require the same kinds of mental faculties and conditions.

Do you agree with what I've written?

To sum up, all knowledge can be logically understood. If it cannot, then I don't see how it's much different from an emotional reaction.

Intuition is something which isn't always understood, even thought, it may be accurate. I'd say that if something is intuitively known, then it must be something which can be logically proven.

I'd like to read your thoughts on the matter.

[Kelly Jones]

I think it's more that most people don't think about any knowledge. It remains superficial. They have "common facts" that one is supposed to know, and the knowledge appears to work, so they don't ask why. It's called rote learning.

True knowledge is simply anything you know, which you consciously know as true because you've actually reasoned why it is true. All knowledge is like this - including uncertain scientific facts (they're known as truly uncertain).

[geniuine]

What if something is learned subconsciously and the person has a hard time explaining it on a conscious level? Some might say that it would be a waste of time to relearn something. Arguing/debating seems to rest on this principal. Many people say that arguing and debating don't solve anything and these activities are a waste of time, because people that chose to believe in one thing (or pick a side) will usually stick by their beliefs even if evidence to the contrary becomes overwhelming.

Let's say you know something to be absolutely true, but you don't understand why, so you begin to reason why it's true. Now, how far does one go? What if there are always going to be reasons which one comes to which prove the contrary and cannot be dis-proven. What then? You see, here we have one which knows something to be true on an intuitive level, but struggles with arguments proving the contrary. Since everything isn't known, one risks being wrong by picking the side which seems to have the greatest amount of evidence to it. Essentially, it's a choice between one's gut feelings and something which seems true.

A lot of times people chose the wrong thing, because it seems to have the most evidence for it. More advertisement (whatever). How do we deal with this without relearning everything from scratch and making it all somehow fit into our new world-view? Is it even possible or/and a wise thing to do...?

What if someone convinces another of something, but is themselves unconvinced ...? I'd like to think that the truth will always preserver in the face of lies.

Question: can you come up with two seemingly contrary-to-each-other ideas which seem logical and both appear to be true at the same time?

[Kelly Jones]

Let's say you know something to be absolutely true, but you don't understand why, so you begin to reason why it's true. Now, how far does one go?

Til you're satisfied that there is no possible way to falsify the truth.

What if there are always going to be reasons which one comes to which prove the contrary and cannot be dis-proven.

If you find a reason to contradict a supposedly absolute truth, it is because you've found a genuine absolute truth.

For instance, you might suppose that all things are made of some specific property, like atoms. This 'truth' is about all things, so it's an absolute truth (supposedly). But when you investigate its meaning, you find that atoms have specific properties of their own, as do their properties. This leads to the conclusion that all properties have their own properties, such that none of them can be definitively identified as what all things are made of. So, you have found a genuine absolute truth: all things can only be truthfully described as things.

Since everything isn't known, one risks being wrong by picking the side which seems to have the greatest amount of evidence to it.

There are no absolute truths that can be proven with empirical evidence.

Absolute truths are by nature confined to logical proofs. One resolves the matter using thinking, not scientific experiments and observation.

A lot of times people chose the wrong thing, because it seems to have the most evidence for it. More advertisement (whatever). How do we deal with this without relearning everything from scratch and making it all somehow fit into our new world-view? Is it even possible or/and a wise thing to do...?

Unfortunately, or fortunately, everyone does have to start from scratch when it comes to philosophy.

What if someone convinces another of something, but is themselves unconvinced ...? I'd like to think that the truth will always preserver in the face of lies.

This is not so. People tend to be gullible, and take the easy road 99 times out of 100.

Question: can you come up with two seemingly contrary-to-each-other ideas which seem logical and both appear to be true at the same time?

It depends if it's a purely logical or a scientific matter.

A sun may appear to be rising in the east, but a man who thinks south is north sees it as rising in the west. Both are true, depending on which pole is north. This matter is a scientific one, and is resolved by the man orienting to the conventional north.

In a purely logical matter, there are no contrary true ideas, because contrariness opposes logic, and truth arises only with logic. For instance, a contrary idea might be, infinitude is bounded and stops short of something else. But the definition of infinitude is 'that without boundaries' so this idea is a contrary one. It contradicts the law of identity (which is what logic is), saying infinitude is not itself but something else. So it is not true.

[geniuine]

Til you're satisfied that there is no possible way to falsify the truth.

One might not be able to falsify it in oneself, but the trick is to convince someone else. If this cannot be done, then I'm afraid that I'll never be satisfied. There are many, many variables. What if one wastes most of their time and energy thinking about something which is irrelevant or something which they've already figured out intuitively. In the past I'd spend literally hours thinking about a problem, only to sort of take a step back and instantly figure it out (intuitively).

This leads to the conclusion that all properties have their own properties

Would that be considered a genuine absolute truth? this is a good example, because, you see, someone might spend a long time thinking of such an absolute truth, but in the end, it doesn't help and it's not like it was ever unknown. It's a good example of something which is known subconsciously and doesn't really seem to help in understanding the world on a conscious level.

There are no absolute truths that can be proven with empirical evidence.

Doesn't that signify that they lack in usefulness? In turn, wouldn't that mean that they're selfish or self-satisfying?

Absolute truths are by nature confined to logical proofs. One resolves the matter using thinking, not scientific experiments and observation.

In a way, isn't that the same thing? Maybe it isn't, but the farther science and math progresses, then the less important philosophy might become. It seems, science originated from philosophy and was (is) used to explain things which its origins could not. Maybe this pattern will keep progressing and eventually philosophy will serve no purpose whatsoever besides a mind trip or whatever...

Unfortunately, or fortunately, everyone does have to start from scratch when it comes to philosophy.

Isn't this dangerous and/or a waste of time. I mean, I guess I can figure out why it might be either one depending on how one looks at it. the issue I have is: how far does one go...

This is not so. People tend to be gullible, and take the easy road 99 times out of 100.

So, in a way, no one is meant to be trusted, because they may very well be wrong and not know it.

In a purely logical matter, there are no contrary true ideas, because contrariness opposes logic, and truth arises only with logic. For instance, a contrary idea might be, infinitude is bounded and stops short of something else. But the definition of infinitude is 'that without boundaries' so this idea is a contrary one. It contradicts the law of identity (which is what logic is), saying infinitude is not itself but something else. So it is not true.

What if someone went onto to say that there are different sorts of infinities (I heard this somewhere, it's been mathematically proven or whatever...), so they can coexist at the same time, but then that means that the infinities are different, so it's not going to be contradictory. In a way, it's limitless, because one can keep breaking things down - start from scratch and never end it... I guess it has its perks, but the more one delves in, then doesn't it become somewhat counterproductive; one wants to understand reality, but in the process of trying to understand it, one loses sight of it. Like, for instance, mathematics is supposed to be the ultimate reality check... Many mathematicians lose their mind and end up delusional. Quite ironic!

Btw, why is there so much confusion between great philosophers? If logic is flawless and cannot contradict itself, then why is there so much disagreement between them? (shouldn't it be like math, where, the rules are specific and the definitions identical?) ...That has always been a source of confusion for me.

[geniuine]

What does a complete definition for "philosophy" look like? I've never met a person that does not think. They may not understand what I'm talking about, but that's because they have their own thoughts to worry about and I have my own. For some reason, I don't go around thinking that I know more then the other. Instead, I usually suspect them of knowing more.

Now, let's face it. There are tons and tons of wannabe philosophers out there - what sets the good philosophers apart from the not-so-good? What are the rules? Simply thinking and thinking just won't cut it, there must be something else. For instance, like I've mentioned before, I've been trying to dissect reality, etc... The closest I come to knowing that I know something is when I've out-argued someone. ...But then I always think that the other person just got tired of my ignorance.

I don't get it, but I really want to. I can almost taste it!

I feel like people aren't answering my threads because they think that I'm a moron. If even strangers have given up on me, then my prospects look hopeless. I won't quit.

[maestro]

There are tons and tons of wannabe philosophers out there - what sets the good philosophers apart from the not-so-good? What are the rules? Simply thinking and thinking just won't cut it, there must be something else.

The most important thing is not thinking too much but rather to have all thoughts and assumptions logically consistent and out in the open and examine all facets of life boldly.

[Kelly Jones]

If even strangers have given up on me, then my prospects look hopeless. I won't quit.

Don't worry. What others think of your reasoning may not be accurate. Best to let what they say be a stimulation for your own thoughts, and discard what doesn't sound reasonable.

Let's say you know something to be absolutely true, but you don't understand why, so you begin to reason why it's true. Now, how far does one go?

KJ: Til you're satisfied that there is no possible way to falsify the truth.

G: One might not be able to falsify it in oneself, but the trick is to convince someone else. If this cannot be done, then I'm afraid that I'll never be satisfied.

This line of reasoning shouldn't satisfy you, for the reason that no matter how many people become convinced of the accuracy in a line of reasoning, there will always be other people who are not, or who have not heard of it. So, in this line of thinking, you would have to know how many consciousnesses will ever exist in all time, as well as how many consciousnesses are consciously telling the truth when they agree to a line of reasoning (also, existing in all time). Surely you see how impossible the idea is.

Anyway, it is completely irrelevant to the accuracy, or reasonableness, in a line of reasoning. Both of these, only an individual can judge, who is privy to either the evidence or the meanings of terms in the truth-by-definition used.

KJ: If you find a reason to contradict a supposedly absolute truth, it is because you've found a genuine absolute truth. For instance, you might suppose that all things are made of some specific property, like atoms. This 'truth' is about all things, so it's an absolute truth (supposedly). But when you investigate its meaning, you find that atoms have specific properties of their own, as do their properties. This leads to the conclusion that all properties have their own properties

G: Would that be considered a genuine absolute truth?

If one is satisfied it cannot be falsified, then yes.

KJ: There are no absolute truths that can be proven with empirical evidence.

G: Doesn't that signify that they lack in usefulness?

No.

wouldn't that mean that they're selfish or self-satisfying?

Ultimately, an absolute truth 'returns' to itself, but it relies on other information to be satisfied as true.

KJ: Absolute truths are by nature confined to logical proofs. One resolves the matter using thinking, not scientific experiments and observation.

G: In a way, isn't that the same thing? Maybe it isn't,

Right, it isn't. I don't think you have thought about the difference between relying on observation (sense-data) to prove a hypothesis, and relying on reasoning to disprove a false identity.

but the farther science and math progresses, then the less important philosophy might become. It seems, science originated from philosophy and was (is) used to explain things which its origins could not. Maybe this pattern will keep progressing and eventually philosophy will serve no purpose whatsoever besides a mind trip or whatever...

I'm going to have to correct a basic misunderstanding you have about science and philosophy. Don't be alarmed, it's a very common mistake, and says nothing about you personally.

The aim of philosophy is to understand how Nature works. It is about understanding the identity of Nature (also called the Universe, or the World, or Reality). This should tell you that all knowledge rests, or should rest, on philosophy.

The earliest "natural philosophers" were the forerunners of today's scientists. They made the mistake of identifying Nature in finite terms (an immediately obvious mistake, I would have thought!). They categorised what they observed, instead of reasoning about existence itself, and thus were created the seeds for millions and billions and quadrillions of categories. Hence the illusion of 'scientific progress'. Scientists of then and now have never realised the ultimate folly of seeing successful predictions as useful --- they have never realised that the usefulness is an ego-trip that fosters only recurrence of attachment.

True science is about making predictions about how Nature will unfold, knowing that the total spectrum of causes for anything will remain uncertain, and therefore specific measurements of probability also uncertain. Successful predictions should be known not as progress but as knowing what has happened and merely as a general indicator of what will happen.

KJ: Unfortunately, or fortunately, everyone does have to start from scratch when it comes to philosophy.

G: Isn't this dangerous and/or a waste of time. I mean, I guess I can figure out why it might be either one depending on how one looks at it.

As you said, 'no one is meant to be trusted, because they may very well be wrong and not know it.'

the issue I have is: how far does one go...

All the way.

KJ: In a purely logical matter, there are no contrary true ideas, because contrariness opposes logic, and truth arises only with logic. For instance, a contrary idea might be, infinitude is bounded and stops short of something else. But the definition of infinitude is 'that without boundaries' so this idea is a contrary one. It contradicts the law of identity (which is what logic is), saying infinitude is not itself but something else. So it is not true.

G: What if someone went onto to say that there are different sorts of infinities (I heard this somewhere, it's been mathematically proven or whatever...),

If the definition of infinitude is 'that without boundaries' then the true identity of infinitude is contradicted when it is defined as 'bounded'.

Note that this definition is not the same as the mathematical definition of infinity.

For an explanation as to their relationship, you might like to read this.

so they can coexist at the same time,

They are different concepts.

the more one delves in, then doesn't it become somewhat counterproductive; one wants to understand reality, but in the process of trying to understand it, one loses sight of it. Like, for instance, mathematics is supposed to be the ultimate reality check... Many mathematicians lose their mind and end up delusional. Quite ironic!

Mathematics is definitely not the method a thinking person would use to understand what is ultimately real.

Btw, why is there so much confusion between great philosophers?

They're not.

If logic is flawless and cannot contradict itself, then why is there so much disagreement between them? (shouldn't it be like math, where, the rules are specific and the definitions identical?) ...That has always been a source of confusion for me.

The person whose thinking is flawless doesn't make mistakes.

But even people who use flawless reasoning can disagree with others whose reasoning is also flawless. This won't be about pure reasoning and the nature of Reality, but about empirical matters. The nature of consciousness being what it is, not able to experience everything, has to shut out some stuff. So, one person's experiences will be different from anothers, and these leads people to see different patterns, and therefore different explanations. In such cases, we can only look towards a general indication of how Nature unfolds, and not get bogged-down in false certainties.

[geniuine]

What others think of your reasoning may not be accurate.

I can sense (at times) how my reasoning is inaccurate. The problem with this line of reasoning is... paralyzing to say the least! Once I let that possibility into my consciousness (that I'm wrong), then it automatically opens a door for other possibilities... and I don't like what happens next... Doubt.

Best to let what they say be a stimulation for your own thoughts, and discard what doesn't sound reasonable.

If my reasoning is inaccurate and I'm discarding the wrong information, then wouldn't that be a problem?

This line of reasoning shouldn't satisfy you, for the reason that no matter how many people become convinced of the accuracy in a line of reasoning, there will always be other people who are not, or who have not heard of it. So, in this line of thinking, you would have to know how many consciousnesses will ever exist in all time, as well as how many consciousnesses are consciously telling the truth when they agree to a line of reasoning (also, existing in all time).

The closer one's reasoning comes to perfection, then the less people there are to disprove it, and that in turn means, less of a chance that you'll get hurt. Delusions are like daggers in the face of truth, doubt is their camouflage.

Surely you see how impossible the idea is.

I guess I see what you're saying, but I meant that in this way: 1+1=2 --This is perfectly correct and because it's perfectly correct, I should be able to convince anyone of this. They must be able to see it, it's satisfying... Doubt no longer exists.

Anyway, it is completely irrelevant to the accuracy, or reasonableness, in a line of reasoning. Both of these, only an individual can judge, who is privy to either the evidence or the meanings of terms in the truth-by-definition used.

Oh, absolutely! I guess delusions can be accepted by people that aren't perfectly logical, but delusions didn't play a part in what I meant. Though, it's a very damned interesting observation, because if my reasoning isn't perfect and I unknowingly convince someone of a delusion... I guess that's just the cycle of delusional thinking. It not only re-enforces the delusion in myself, but I also pass it on to someone else, etc.

There's definitely a selfish aspect to my need for truth, but spreading something which is false is not part of it.

KJ: If you find a reason to contradict a supposedly absolute truth, it is because you've found a genuine absolute truth. For instance, you might suppose that all things are made of some specific property, like atoms. This 'truth' is about all things, so it's an absolute truth (supposedly). But when you investigate its meaning, you find that atoms have specific properties of their own, as do their properties. This leads to the conclusion that all properties have their own properties

G: Would that be considered a genuine absolute truth?

KJ:If one is satisfied it cannot be falsified, then yes.

One person maybe satisfied, while the other won't. I don't think that they can both be right, and there's no evidence to suggest that the one who's thinking for a long time will be the right one, this individual might just have the most amount of evidence supporting their claim.

Is this accurate: There are two types of truths - truths in a specific context and absolute truths that don't need to answer to any context, but stand alone, absolutely true.

KJ: There are no absolute truths that can be proven with empirical evidence.
G: Doesn't that signify that they lack in usefulness?
KJ:No.

I was once talking to this person and they told me that what I was doing was a waste of time. At that time, all I did, was specify two options for something they had said. In short, it made me feel bad and like I was just wasting my time. Now, I could have been wrong, but I thought that I was right. Let's say, I was right. Is logically looking into things and abstractly separating them, just so I can make something that's considered either wrong or right into something that's considered right or wrong? What if I didn't have any other purpose except to just pass the time (well, the purpose is to explore truth, but at that time, I had to talk with that person...).

Ultimately, an absolute truth 'returns' to itself, but it relies on other information to be satisfied as true.

I don't know what that means.

I don't think you have thought about the difference between relying on observation (sense-data) to prove a hypothesis, and relying on reasoning to disprove a false identity.

Vaguely. I don't see a clear separation between philosophy and empiricism. In my mind, they're connected. I mean, I've heard that philosophy is about proving something logically (abstractions, etc) and science (observation, etc), but what would they be without each other. Plus, they're more similar to each other in more ways then one. One of the more interesting (I find) is how similar the empirical world is to the abstract (Btw, this is part of "going all the way").

I'm going to have to correct a basic misunderstanding you have about science and philosophy.

This is why I'm here. Let me have it and don't be gentle!

Don't be alarmed, it's a very common mistake, and says nothing about you personally.

The issue here (not really, don't worry), is with not taking it personally. Philosophy is very personal. To me, philosophy is a way of life. O.K., that sounds very cliche, but it stands true.

Note: I'm probably more uneducated (academically) then people my age, so this maybe the reason as to why there doesn't seem to be any clear separations between philosophy, psychology, the sciences, even mathematics. Everything is sorta blended-in together. I read some, most of it is discarded (as you've said), but not intentionally. I make up my own mind, and forget some, etc...

The earliest "natural philosophers" were the forerunners of today's scientists. They made the mistake of identifying Nature in finite terms (an immediately obvious mistake, I would have thought!).

I don't understand that - finite terms? Infinite terms? (Ex. A world - finite? A Universe - infinite?)

They categorized what they observed, instead of reasoning about existence itself, and thus were created the seeds for millions and billions and quadrillions of categories. Hence the illusion of 'scientific progress'. Scientists of then and now have never realized the ultimate folly of seeing successful predictions as useful --- they have never realized that the usefulness is an ego-trip that fosters only recurrence of attachment.

I'm really not sure what you mean. Technology has both good and bad aspects to it...

True science is about making predictions about how Nature will unfold, knowing that the total spectrum of causes for anything will remain uncertain, and therefore specific measurements of probability also uncertain. Successful predictions should be known not as progress but as knowing what has happened and merely as a general indicator of what will happen.

...Which requires observation and reasoning as does philosophy.

As you said, 'no one is meant to be trusted, because they may very well be wrong and not know it.'

The original post:

This is not so. People tend to be gullible, and take the easy road 99 times out of 100.
So, in a way, no one is meant to be trusted, because they may very well be wrong and not know it.

Now, I get it! That was just a response to those statistics. Moreover, there's more truth to it then that. For 1)I don't want to take someone's writing as truth, but at the same time I'd like to understand as accurately - what the person means - as possible, and 2) trusting myself is also another problem I have, this is where the doubt, reconsidering, looking to other sources (which as you've said stimulate the mind), etc.

They are different concepts.

Can I say: those concepts exist in the the concept of The Infinite? (This meaning that there's actually one true infinite...)

Mathematics is definitely not the method a thinking person would use to understand what is ultimately real.

A lot of gifted mathematicians believe it to be so. I've heard it called: "the language of logic". Language when using words can be deceptive, because not everyone defines things in the same way, whereas in mathematics, it seems more clear-cut.

G:Btw, why is there so much confusion between great philosophers?
KJ:There isn't.

Oh, then I guess it's confusion between the specifics that cause a ruckus.

The person whose thinking is flawless doesn't make mistakes.

I wish I knew of such a person.

But even people who use flawless reasoning can disagree with others whose reasoning is also flawless. This won't be about pure reasoning and the nature of Reality, but about empirical matters. The nature of consciousness being what it is, not able to experience everything, has to shut out some stuff. So, one person's experiences will be different from another's, and these leads people to see different patterns, and therefore different explanations. In such cases, we can only look towards a general indication of how Nature unfolds, and not get bogged-down in false certainties.

I still don't understand the difference between empirical matters and logic. I hope this makes sense: shouldn't empirical matters reflect logic and be consistent logically?

Poems try to explain things like the melody of a song. Is that a good example of trying to explain one using the other (usually doesn't seem to work out, I suppose).

[Kelly Jones]

KJ: They are different concepts.

G: Can I say: those concepts exist in the the concept of The Infinite? (This meaning that there's actually one true infinite...)

They don't exist anywhere except in reality - since to exist is to be real. They exist in relation to the Universe, which is not-bounded by anything. That is, the not-finite: the Infinite.

KJ: Mathematics is definitely not the method a thinking person would use to understand what is ultimately real.

G: A lot of gifted mathematicians believe it to be so. I've heard it called: "the language of logic". Language when using words can be deceptive, because not everyone defines things in the same way, whereas in mathematics, it seems more clear-cut.

Maths is a language just like any other. A good mathematician's symbols are simpler than a good scientist's, but less simple than a good philosopher's.

Philosophy: A=A
Maths: 1+1=2
Science: A = ?

Mathematics without philosophy is immediately off-track. It sees A (the Universe, meaning, all things) as a part of something bigger: A+A. Or, if you like A = 1, 2, 3, 4 (ad infinitum, with an ever-distant enumerative totality). Instead, it should start off with the all-encompassing 1, that remains whole while divisible into countless parts. One should see the Universe as all there is.

shouldn't empirical matters reflect logic and be consistent logically?

Of course. But the conclusion about what empirical things are, and how they arise, can take two different forms, depending on whether we're looking for a physical or a metaphysical answer.

Metaphysics gives us certain identities, using deductive logic.
E.g. x = x. Is x = not-x? No, x = x.
(X can be an empirical thing, like a television).
Conclusion: x is identified with certainty, through its complete and final relation to the Infinite (X + not-X = Infinite). However, what television physically is, remains uncertain.

'Physics' gives us uncertain identities, using inductive logic.
E.g. x <> y, z, a, b, c ...... (ad infinitum).
(<> means not-equal-to).
Is x = not-y? No. Is x = not-z? No. (ad infinitum).
Conclusion: x is not identified with certainty, since it must run through all possibilities for the concretion of X. (x + y + .... = Infinite). So scientists rely on the idea of probability (yet even that is dubitable).


Have you read David Quinn's 'The Wisdom of the Infinite' ?

I think you'd progress much faster in your understanding of these matters, if you have.

[geniuine]

Same-same-same = ?-?-?

I've had enough. Learning experience? (Maybe...)