to grok Knowledge

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

to grok Knowledge

Post by Advocate »

Knowledge is justified belief, the opposite of faith.

"Justified true belief" refers to a hypothetical ultimate validation of Truth and is therefore pragmatically useless.

The justification for belief is always and only sufficiency for a specific use, because there is no reason to proceed beyond that level of certainty.

The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty.
Atla
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: to grok Knowledge

Post by Atla »

Advocate wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:16 pm The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty.
The purpose of 'most' knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty.
User avatar
attofishpi
Posts: 9956
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 8:10 am
Location: Orion Spur
Contact:

Re: to grok Knowledge

Post by attofishpi »

Advocate wrote: Sat Jul 30, 2022 7:16 pm The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty.
Knowledge is memory. Wisdom is analysing the memory and coming to the best rational conclusion such that one understands and adjusts ones knowledge. Nothing is certain.
Atla
Posts: 6675
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: to grok Knowledge

Post by Atla »

The point is that Advocate's entire work seems to be based on the principle that we only ever develop our knowledge, wisdom, and understanding in order to then be able to take actions with sufficient certainty (sufficient certainty in coming up with actions that will be correct ones).

While that may be the core part of philosophy, but it's obviously not all of philosophy. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, and in one's spare time, one can go beyond actionable certainty. And look at things that can be known with fairly good certainty but have no good practical applications for that person, and then one can also go beyond that and look at things where we can't have sufficient certainty at all and have to try to make educated guesses.

So the claim that he's the Greatest Philosopher of All Time is already slightly dubious here, because he has redefined philosophy. Maybe he should try to claim that he's the Greatest Actionable Certainty Philosopher of All Time, which is the instrumentalist core of philosophy.
Post Reply