Knowledge and Opinions

[Veritas Aequitas]

"Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance." ~ Plato

It is amazing to me that some people can sense the scale of knowledge so easiliy and to them it is second nature. Yet there are others who may actually be a majority who insist on defending opinions with their last breath while remaining closed to this scale of knowledge.

I guess it is just the result of collective attributes of human nature. We are all different.

"Opinion is between the knowing of the true idea and the ignorance of the unreal"(Plato -Republic).

Plato's perspective is beyond the senses, thus the question of 'can sense' is not applicable. Re Plato's Forms, the best one can do is to speculate them as pseudo-rational concepts via pure reason (not via the empirical senses).

In order to make sense and turn what is speculated to knowledge, i.e. as matter of facts, empirical sensual proofs are needed. One good example of this knowledge is a proven scientific hypothesis.

The idea of a soul that survives physical death is one that is speculated and has no empirical basis. According to Kant, they are transcendental illusions based on fallacious thinking, but nevertheless useful in some sense (psychological).

Btw, not sure if you are referring to me defending opinions. In this discussion, you are the one who is making claim on the existence of mystical objects such a god and soul, the onus is on you to prove your assertions that they are matter of facts. My views are secondary and I am not defending any opinions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is a remark by Kant (re Caygill) on why the idea of a soul arise from dogmatism.

The 'sweet dogmatic dreams' (CPR A 758/B 786) of reason which incline it to despotism arise from the 'presumption that it is possible to make progress with pure knowledge, according to principles, from concepts alone' (CPR B xxv).

For Kant, dogmatists believe that on the basis of pure reason it is possible to attain knowledge of the existence of God, of freedom in a world governed by necessity, and of the existence and even immortality of the soul.

Dogmatic philosophers such as Plato (CPR A 5/B , Spinoza and Mendelssohn (WO p. 143, p. 246), but above all Wolff - 'the greatest of all the dogmatic philosophers' (CPR B xxxvi) - were in danger of 'philosophical zealotry' (WO p. 138, p. 242) or pretending to knowledge which they could not legitimately possess and defending their pretensions with whatever means available.

Kant claimed that the ' Critique clips the wings of dogmatism completely as far as knowledge of supra-sensory objects is concerned' (WO p. 143, p. 246).

In place of the dogmatists' enquiry 'into things', it proposes a 'critical enquiry concerning the limits of my possible knowledge' (CPR A 758/B 786), an enquiry which reveals that our knowledge is limited to appearances constituted by human understanding.

The point here is our crude pure reason has a free reign to speculate on anything, but eventually it must be grounded on the empirical and the rational.
As far as an immortal 'soul' that survives physical death, there is no proofs of such an entity from the death of billions of humans in the past.

[Mark Question]

If God is their root, then there is still room for, what is the root of the root?

but if god is their first root, root of the root-axiom?

No doubt science is a double-edged sword. The difference between science and religion, especially the Abrahamics, is the words of god as in the holy texts are not changeable, i.e. immutable for eternity, while Science is flexible and changes with new evidences.
Science is neutral and do not impose of its users, while religion imposes its immutable laws in exchange for immortality.

are you sure? does reliqions not change by the time? does sciences not change by the time? are sciences neutral about money, politics, ethics, human weaknesses,..do you have idealistic view about ideal science in an ideal world? is scientific method(objective, public, and self-correcting) changeable, or root of the modern science? can scientific method be subjective, private, not self-correcting?

Btw, this OP is about mysticism, i.e. a more refined form of religionism and generally is not as harmless, in contrast to the conventional Abrahamic religions.

i am asking if a more refined form of scientism should also be attached to mysticism, in contrast to the conventional modern sciences?

[Jonathan.s]

This is an interesting thread. I am interested in the topic and am drawn to both Platonism and mysticism.

This question was asked:

Are you willing to accept the possibility of priori knowledge or a quality of soul knowledge we are born with that is not a product of the developing physical body around it you assert as the root?

I often wonder if uncanny talent, like that possessed by musical or mathematical prodigies, is a type of 'soul knowledge'. I mean for example geniuses such as Mozart who was able to compose orchestral music while still a young child, or Bach who was able to write out entire choral scores from memory after hearing a single performance.

I have never believed that such talents can be explained in terms of what we know about genetics and the like. This is not to say that genetic inheritance is not a part of it. But there seems an enormous amount more.

In a more general sense, children are born with aptitudes and even personality-types. There are born mathematicians, born musicians, and the like. I do know that the empiricists generally reject all of these kinds of ideas, but I wonder if it is related to the notion that Plato talked about in terms of 'innate knowledge'.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.

Excellent quotation.

Idea:
A aggregate of neurons, a neural network, established via interactions with a phenomenon, attempting to mirror the phenomenon by simplifying/generalizing it in accordance to the sensual data received...

The interesting thing is, you could have written this statement in another language, or even in another medium altogether. It could then be recorded and sent various places by a variety of means - electronic, physical, even via semaphore (i.e. flags). In each case, the physical encoding of the message is completely different, but the meaning remains the same.

How, then, could the meaning be physical?

[[email protected]]

Knowledge comes from God. Our opinions come from our experiences. Paul