Philosophy Now Forum

SpheresOfBalance wrote:]
You're an idiot, seemingly, as you judge me before you know, what I mean. Just because I talk above or around you, and you know not what I mean, lends no credibility to your assumed judgement, you are clearly a "buddy sucker," In my 55 years I've seen your kind all over the place, always seeking approval, of the one that makes allowances for you. So your comment was more of a social nature, about you, and not of the subject that was at hand. I would really rather not waste time with such people of such means. If you want to "actually" talk of the "topic" in question, not merely saying yes, what he said, or arguing what each other is or is not, then you have my ear, otherwise I shall meet your eye with an eye, or your tooth with a tooth. It's your call!

wow
"I talk above or around you"

I SCURRY BACK TO MY CAVE IN ABJECT FEAR OF Spheres of balance.
lol.
in MY 55 years. i see a tool. called SOB.
why would i want your ear?
you are just text on my screen.
Instead of wasted insult. try supporting say
"What I have said above, comes from Klaus Scherer, where does yours come from"

is he your boyfriend

Hjarloprillar wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:]
You're an idiot, seemingly, as you judge me before you know, what I mean. Just because I talk above or around you, and you know not what I mean, lends no credibility to your assumed judgement, you are clearly a "buddy sucker," In my 55 years I've seen your kind all over the place, always seeking approval, of the one that makes allowances for you. So your comment was more of a social nature, about you, and not of the subject that was at hand. I would really rather not waste time with such people of such means. If you want to "actually" talk of the "topic" in question, not merely saying yes, what he said, or arguing what each other is or is not, then you have my ear, otherwise I shall meet your eye with an eye, or your tooth with a tooth. It's your call!

wow
"I talk above or around you"

I SCURRY BACK TO MY CAVE IN ABJECT FEAR OF Spheres of balance.
lol.
You are a fool, as the quote that you referenced above, speaks of ignorance, of which, no one is responsible, as it just speaks of exposure, or rather, the lack thereof. You are seemingly a frog that jumps ignorantly.

in MY 55 years. i see a tool. called SOB.
why would i want your ear?
you are just text on my screen.
Instead of wasted insult. try supporting say
"What I have said above, comes from Klaus Scherer, where does yours come from"

is he your boyfriend

No he is an expert, while you are obviously a moron!

Not a moron. a smart peep.
Willing to speak outside boundaries.
There are no 'experts'
a term for ' those less stupid'

I respect that.

because 90% + of humanity is so stupid it does not know it is stupid.


prill

Hjarloprillar wrote:Not a moron. a smart peep.
Willing to speak outside boundaries.
There are no 'experts'
a term for ' those less stupid'

I respect that.

because 90% + of humanity is so stupid it does not know it is stupid.


prill

All the above is your rationalization so as to lift yourself up, your ego that is. I have heard this from you from the start, and it's constant, do you actually have low self esteem? Such that you have to continually tell everyone, thus yourself, that you are smarter than everyone else. Psychology 101, you must therefore have low self esteem. It would seem you are the largest part of that 90%. What? Did you conduct a scientific study to come to that percentage, sheesh, some peeps kids... Go figure!

SOB

You are least qualified to psychoanalyze me.
So dont even try that line interspersed with insult.

i have left off and war no more.
surely you are not so stupid as to have not seen this?

im old tired and dying of liver death. I will not see 60. or even 58 ..
enemies are are easy. friends are not..

Even friends with oblique perspectives.
still friends.

Hjarloprillar wrote:SOB

You are least qualified to psychoanalyze me.
So dont even try that line interspersed with insult.

i have left off and war no more.
surely you are not so stupid as to have not seen this?

im old tired and dying of liver death. I will not see 60. or even 58 ..
enemies are are easy. friends are not..

Even friends with oblique perspectives.
still friends.

Now that I know you face such ends, regardless of the causal, I quit, and shall never speak to you again. If only to the extent, if ever, to say, "I'm sorry." And I truly am, and see much wisdom in 'unknowingly burning out, instead of knowingly fading away.'

May you find happiness in these last days, see the world through the eyes of a child, OH the magnificence of it all, this earth, this symbiosis. Mark my words, as I truly love everyone, save those that hate, and cannot be made to not.

Surround yourself with the beauty of nature and consume 'only' that of fresh organic raw plants, the other side of the animal EQUATION, and you shall be cured. Make no mistake, if you do not already know of this, it is true!

Then, and only then, shall we argue of the hypothetical, you have far more important things to consider.

rantal wrote:Philosophers have traditionally drawn a distinction between 'knowing how' and 'knowing that' and concentrated investigations epistemological on 'knowing that' Russel further classifying this as knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. But I contend that there is only 'knowing how'

No, there are theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge.

Many blind typers who can fluidly type on keyboard may not conciously know where the keys are, but their hands has musslememory.

Many eggheads has a theoretical theory about how the real world works, but when they step out of their lab to the real world they often gets depressed because they can't handle the real world and it's ensuing chaos.

Philosophers have traditionally drawn a distinction between 'knowing how' and 'knowing that' and concentrated investigations epistemological on 'knowing that' Russel further classifying this as knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. But I contend that there is only 'knowing how'

Do you know that?

At age 11 i undeerstood epistemology.
As a life long facet of consciousness and perception. mind.

The theory of knowing.

Is such a huge field it needs a full forum just to probe its edges.
I do not post here because my thinking would result in 10 page essays.

It s good to see topic...."Re: There is no such thing as knowing"

Rantal.. good work

Hjarloprillar wrote:It s good to see topic...."Re: There is no such thing as knowing"

Rantal.. good work

Surely you jest, what he says doesn't make logically sense, sure there are uncertainties about knowing something, but that doesn't mean that we know absolute nothing about anything.

HexHammer wrote:

Hjarloprillar wrote:It s good to see topic...."Re: There is no such thing as knowing"

Rantal.. good work

Surely you jest, what he says doesn't make logically sense, sure there are uncertainties about knowing something, but that doesn't mean that we know absolute nothing about anything.

Man can only ever know that, within the framework, that he's established. So he can know himself, eventually!

sixhammer

Surely i jest
logic
An incredibly powerful tool.

logic is naught to do with pain and pleasure.
Beauty and desire
love, compassion fear horror angst indifference
boredom lust hate guilt remorse.

those things by which we live.

yet my post including rancal as sidebar was logical.
and you f***ed it.

btw

all we know is cogito ergo sum. all else is a variable.

pass the port pls

rantal wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:26 am Philosophers have traditionally drawn a distinction between 'knowing how' and 'knowing that' and concentrated investigations epistemological on 'knowing that' Russel further classifying this as knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. But I contend that there is only 'knowing how'

all the best, rantal

knowledge is of immediate experience and in immediacy this perceptional experience is truth until a reason arises to question one's immediate experience/perception. Truth to the individual is experience to the group it is consensus agreement. Knowledge is of an object and/or the relations between two or more objects.

rantal wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:26 am Philosophers have traditionally drawn a distinction between 'knowing how' and 'knowing that' and concentrated investigations epistemological on 'knowing that' Russel further classifying this as knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. But I contend that there is only 'knowing how'

all the best, rantal

There are two types of knowledge, knowledge by experience and knowledge by processing the experience. You have knowledge by experience when you taste something for example. It is plain and simple, you taste it and you know it. You have knowledge by processing the experience when you read and understand what I said for example. You however need to experience the outcome of the process in order to understand. Understanding however is not possible without processing. Knowledge how cannot be transmitted to another person. The taste of something could be different between me and you, the taste of sugar for example. You cannot describe it to me so that is "knowing how". I, however, can explain what I have in my mind, my knowledge for example and you can understand it and that is "knowing that".

rantal wrote: ↑Sun Mar 03, 2013 10:26 am Philosophers have traditionally drawn a distinction between 'knowing how' and 'knowing that' and concentrated investigations epistemological on 'knowing that' Russel further classifying this as knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. But I contend that there is only 'knowing how'

all the best, rantal

Knowing is remembering an experience, indeed experience and knowledge are one and the same thing. A forgotten experience is a forgotten knowing.