Philosophy Now Forum

No, it is good. I agree with the Grand Inquisitor. The masses need to be told what to do. If not directed by someone/something that at least ostensibly advocates for moral restraint (don't kill, don't steal, etc.), then they will find something else to follow, which usually leads to some form of gen...

She confessed.

The eyes of George Berkeley and John Locke were blind to the chief spectral component of sunlight. Mull that over. There aren't too many Lockean or Berkeley idealists out there. Didn't you get to second semester in your undergraduate philosophy class? Hume, Kant? Anti-foundationalist philosophers a...

If a state of mind or belief can not be supported by a logical argument, it 'can not' be true. Please use philosophical examples if attempting to debunk the above. Now we're getting somewhere. I agree that a true belief supported by a logical argument is as good a definition of knowledge as I've se...

"a thing is itself because it has attributes different from the attributes of any other thing" I'll accept that as true. However, I'll add that the enumeration of attributes can only be determined by a method. Until you elucidate a method, the proposition is too vague to be of use. I can t...

wleg. I like your general idea of wiping the slate clean and attempting to have a philosophical discussion without relying on the jargon of past philosophers. However, I agree with the others that your level of detail leaves something to be desired, which may be an inability to explain or may be som...

That was a reply to James Markam's very first post.

If we can accept that we know we exist, then I would argue its possible to know that we are certain of knowing personal things. One is that we are aware, and the other is that we are aware of something that effects that awareness, so simply put, I believe it's possible to know of our subjective bei...

Sorry James for basically repeating what you said in the first part of my post. BTW, wleg, there is no hostility here. My questioning your definitions is in the spirit of friendly discussion and I'm sure many/all/some of the problems I may see in it so far may be explained by not fully understanding...

Sorry, this post was written before I read James' last post you on the other hand seem to be saying that all interpretations of information are knowledge, but that some is correct where as others are not, is this right? Yes, our knowledge or state of mind can be realistic or unrealistic. To say that...

The fact that some will not have the mental astuteness to construct knowledge is a primary benefit of language. It really only takes one person to construct knowledge of a thing and pass that knowledge to others using language. This relates to my next question, which was going to be, can a person h...

I would call that criterion something like scientific verification, or 'duszeckian pragmatism.' Let's see if it passes wleg' s muster. It does account for false inductions by weeding them out through future testing and perhaps - peer review, or societal norms?

OK, then I submit a proposition that is merely a modification of your proposition. Knowledge involves not just recognizing the attributes that apply to the object in question, but correctly recognizing those attributes. But then by what criterion do you judge the recognition to be correct as opposed...

If knowledge is equating previously learned attributes with 'the existence of things', then where did the previously learned attribute come from? Socrates may have claimed that this remembrance came from past lives lived. Today, most would say it emanates from our inductive capacities. The (your) mo...