Philosophy Now Forum

ken wrote:
What do you propose are the limits to our own understanding. I, for One, certainly do not have any limits.

If you mean 'correct understanding', then I would have thought understanding must be limited to that which is correct.

But I admit we can have unlimited incorrect understandings.

Londoner wrote:

ken wrote:
What do you propose are the limits to our own understanding. I, for One, certainly do not have any limits.

If you mean 'correct understanding', then I would have thought understanding must be limited to that which is correct.

But I admit we can have unlimited incorrect understandings.

No I did not mean that. I did not actually mean anything. I was not actually asking you that question. Sam . elle wrote, "there are limits to our own understanding", so I was just asking sam the open, clarifying question, what do you [sam] propose are the limits to our own understanding?

I am just waiting for sam's reply.

ken wrote:
What do you propose are the limits to our own understanding. I, for One, certainly do not have any limits.

Our built-in conditions of how we perceive the world, how we think and react to certain things, fear, etc.

2

Language is a tricky thing to use when describing reality. New worlds create new realities; seemingly conflicting realities, which cause tension and misunderstanding. There are so many words with different meanings that can perplex those looking into the depth of language. Perhaps the different realities, though, may actually complementary, and both true in describing this thing itself.

Sam I. Elle wrote:

ken wrote:
What do you propose are the limits to our own understanding. I, for One, certainly do not have any limits.

Our built-in conditions of how we perceive the world, how we think and react to certain things, fear, etc.

What exactly are our so called built-in conditions that you propose limits our own understanding?

I ask this so that you will keep delving deeper down, which if and when you go deep enough, then you will discover that there actually is a way to look and see all things from a completely objective viewpoint that does show reality for what it actually is.

Our conditioning a are caused by places of established authority: religion, educational system, government propaganda, our high-tech media. They impose on us limiting world views, such as consumerism, patriotism, obedience.

By the way, I can't always get back to you so whatever you want or need, just PM me.

Sam I. Elle wrote:Language is a tool made by reason to understand things in reality. As new words are invented, things in reality can be articulated more clearly and profound. How language is separated from mere babble is the use of Reason that unlocks deeper meanings to that word, which can carry different yet interconnected meanings. That's language in a nutshell.

Langauge structures reality. Without the category the concept cannot be articulated.

Sam I. Elle wrote:Our conditioning a are caused by places of established authority: religion, educational system, government propaganda, our high-tech media.

Okay. When you wrote "built-in" I thought you meant what we are born with. But i see what you mean now.

Sam I. Elle wrote:They impose on us limiting world views, such as consumerism, patriotism, obedience.

I certainly agree that children are very succeptible to this but as an adult others can only impose limiting views if you allow them to. They certainly do NOT impose limiting views on Me.

They certainly do NOT impose limiting views on Me.

Careful, Ken! The devil wears cunning disguises.

Belinda wrote:

They certainly do NOT impose limiting views on Me.

Careful, Ken! The devil wears cunning disguises.

Thanks for your concern belinda.

But I do fully understand what the disguises are. The devil can not hide or be disguised once it is fully known for what it really is. I just wish I knew exactly how to explain all of this in easily understood succinct language. But if any One is really interested I would be more than happy to share.

ken wrote: What exactly are our so called built-in conditions that you propose limits our own understanding?

I ask this so that you will keep delving deeper down, which if and when you go deep enough, then you will discover that there actually is a way to look and see all things from a completely objective viewpoint that does show reality for what it actually is.

Can you give an example?

Some thing that you understand completely objectively, that you know as 'what it actually is'?

Londoner wrote:

ken wrote: What exactly are our so called built-in conditions that you propose limits our own understanding?

I ask this so that you will keep delving deeper down, which if and when you go deep enough, then you will discover that there actually is a way to look and see all things from a completely objective viewpoint that does show reality for what it actually is.

Can you give an example?

Some thing that you understand completely objectively, that you know as 'what it actually is'?

I will try to show some thing I understand completely objectively through three sub-examples, and then in a fourth example;

1. If human beings are open, then they can learn more. If human beings are believing, then they are closed (or not open). If human beings are closed, then they can not learn more. If human beings are not believing (nor assuming) anything, then they are remaining open. If human beings remain open, then they can continue to learn even more.

2. If every thing is agreeing upon on some thing as being 'what it actually is', then there is no thing to say that it is not actually that. If no thing is disagreeing, then, for all accounts, that appears to be 'what it actually is'.

3. If every thing is agreeing that the earth is flat, and thus agreeing that is 'what it actually is', and no one is disagreeing, then as far as it appears to every thing that is 'what it actually is'. That is fine, however, if human beings then start to believe that that the earth is flat, then that is a very foolhardy thing to do, as they have now become closed. It is foolhardy because If they are closed, then they can not learn any more nor anything new. The Truth may actually be the earth is not flat, but if all human beings believe it is flat, then they are not open to discovering and learning the Truth.

What I know as 'what it actually is' and understand completely objectively is that if all human beings are believing (in) some thing, then they are not open to any new or any more knowledge regarding that thing.

For example, if absolutely every human being believes the earth is the center of the Universe, then there is no one human being open to this "truth" being anything else - the real Truth or 'what it actually is'. However, if there is just one human being who does not believe this agreed upon and so called "truth or fact" wholeheartedly, and thus they are remaining open, then they are able to learn more and newer knowledge.

ken wrote: For example, if absolutely every human being believes the earth is the center of the Universe, then there is no one human being open to this "truth" being anything else - the real Truth or 'what it actually is'. However, if there is just one human being who does not believe this agreed upon and so called "truth or fact" wholeheartedly, and thus they are remaining open, then they are able to learn more and newer knowledge.

Many would say the problem is that 'the earth being the centre of the universe' is neither true nor false, since 'the centre' has no meaning in itself, it is a relative term. If it is false, it isn't because some other location is the true centre, but because from an objective viewpoint nowhere is the centre. This is seen as a general problem with all claims to objective knowledge - all the words we use will necessarily reflect our position as subjective observers.

I asked you if you could give an example of 'some thing that you understand completely objectively, that you know as 'what it actually is'. You did not give an example, but instead you wrote about situations where humans are - or are not- open to new knowledge. Surely that contradicts the claim we can have such knowledge? Suppose you did give an example of 'what actually is'. How would you know that it was really objective knowledge, and not that you had simply closed your mind to any new knowledge? We cannot stand outside our own heads to determine this.

Ken wrote regarding my claim that the devil wears disguises:

But I do fully understand what the disguises are. The devil can not hide or be disguised once it is fully known for what it really is. I just wish I knew exactly how to explain all of this in easily understood succinct language. But if any One is really interested I would be more than happy to share.

That's one of my favourite tunes. Education armours people against disinformation, false claims, and partiality in commerce and politics. All of those devilish practices are mediated mainly through language.

Please share your thoughts.