Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Agrippa's trilemma and the impossibility of knoweldge

Not this again...

Aldebaran said:
There is no knowledge, only the suggestion thereof.
The "of" is what people imagine to be knowledge, which in fact is only a self- suggestion, hence doesn't exist outside the mind of the individual.

Knowledge is not an illusion because somewhere it resides, out of reach for the human mind. That is the only problem.
Knowledge is an eternal absolute, a beginning and endmark, unchangeable.
That is why it is out of reach for the human mind and hence should be treated as non-existent.

There is no truth possible without knowledge, let alone an "obvious" truth. Would it be obvious everyone would know it.

Belief can't equate " to know" in no matter which sense. They are quite the opposite of eachother.
Belief is not knowledge and can't be knowledge or there would not be the requirement for belief to exist. And since knowledge doesn't exist, only the suggestion thereof, belief is all there is.
Would I have knowledge, I wouldn't need experience (which induces belief) nor belief.

That doesn't exclude that neverthless suggestions of knowledge or aspects thereof can be of use or can be and are used.
People don't need the word "knowledge" to imagine possessment of what it is supposed to mean to those who do use it . Even people who don't know the word "knowledge" will live under the delusion of having what is understood by using it. They believe to have knowledge.
There is no knowledge needed for being a thinking thing... You "are" as often as you think you are.
Click to expand...

(I'm going to finally save this on my HD; subject rises from the ashes every few weeks)

salaam.
 
nosos said:
Why is it 'plain wrong'? I think Max is talking shit on this thread but I think the trillema is a pretty good indication of how all argument is situated. Claims are always made by specific people in specific ways in specific contexts. Any claim to universality - to absolute and unquestionable foundations, as opposed to justification by way of other claims or rearticulation of the same claim - is suspect because it renders this social dimension opaque. There can never be foundational claims because we never start from scratch. Knowledge is a collaborative project that emerges through shared rational endevour. It's not a zero-sum property of isolated claims.
Click to expand...

Like what you say but I think the bit I put in bold is problematic. I'm not sure you're saying anything more than that you are uncomfortable with it, and I don't see why in principle that it would render the social dimension opaque.

I'm still not sure on this one. I think we need to question how we doubt things at the same time we question how we justify them. Really we should think of this as a conversation between two people with two different points - the believer and the doubter. And rather than there being a chain of justifications on both sides there is a web of diverse justifications with different characteristics on both sides.

That's just a strategy though, not an answer.
 
littlebabyjesus said:
What about the universality of the claim that there is something rather than nothing, a claim that is proved by the fact that the claim can be made.
Click to expand...

Its too trivial to have any leaverage, though. How would you justify something else from it?
 
The problem of whether knowledge is possible is more plainly just fooling with semantics.

As there are different degrees of certainty, it feels as if there is an ultimate degree of certainty as an inexcessable limit. Ignore this feeling - it has no justification at all.
 
every proposition requires justiification, if you follow the line of justifications for any proposition backwards, you end up with either nothing at all, or an unjustified justification like God or the Big Bang
 
Knotted said:
The problem of whether knowledge is possible is more plainly just fooling with semantics.

As there are different degrees of certainty, it feels as if there is an ultimate degree of certainty as an inexcessable limit. Ignore this feeling - it has no justification at all.
Click to expand...

i dont think there are degrees of certainty, any proposition is either certain, or not certain


'slightly certain' is oxymoronic
 
max_freakout said:
i totally agree with this, but i think you can simplify that whole post by just saying, knowledge is impossible, belief isn't
Click to expand...

I don't claim that knowledge is impossible.

me said:
Knowledge is not an illusion because somewhere it resides, out of reach for the human mind. That is the only problem.
Knowledge is an eternal absolute, a beginning and endmark, unchangeable.
That is why it is out of reach for the human mind and hence should be treated as non-existent.
Click to expand...


salaam.
 
similarly this part


Belief is not knowledge and can't be knowledge or there would not be the requirement for belief to exist. And since knowledge doesn't exist, only the suggestion thereof, belief is all there is
Click to expand...


would seem to agree with my idea that belief = knowledge


because what i really mean by that is, what people call 'knowledge', is in fact merely belief


i know that p

no i dont, i only believe that p

therefore belief = knowledge
 
max_freakout said:
you say both "there is no knowledge" and "knowledge is out of reach for the human mind"

out of reach = impossible to reach = impossible
Click to expand...

"There is no knowledge, only the suggestion thereof" does not equal "knowledge does not exist" for the simple reason that somewhere it resides, eternal, absolute.

"Out of reach for the human" therefore does not equal "impossible".

salaam.
 
max_freakout said:
would seem to agree with my idea that belief = knowledge.
because what i really mean by that is, what people call 'knowledge', is in fact merely belief

i know that p

no i dont, i only believe that p

therefore belief = knowledge
Click to expand...


me said:
Belief can't equate " to know" in no matter which sense. They are quite the opposite of eachother.
Belief is not knowledge and can't be knowledge or there would not be the requirement for belief to exist. And since knowledge doesn't exist, only the suggestion thereof, belief is all there is.
Would I have knowledge, I wouldn't need experience (which induces belief) nor belief.
Click to expand...

Belief rests on and stems from suggestion of knowledge.

salaam.
 
max_freakout said:
every proposition requires justiification, if you follow the line of justifications for any proposition backwards, you end up with either nothing at all, or an unjustified justification like God or the Big Bang
Click to expand...

The Big bang is not a justification. Stop it.
 
Knotted said:
I'm fairly certain that's wrong.
Click to expand...

in other words you are uncertain whether it is right or wrong

certain = destined; sure to happen, inevitable, established as true or sure; unquestionable; indisputable


there are no degrees of certainty, if something is less than 100% certain, it is uncertain
 
i-am-your-idea said:
is a suggestion of knowledge really knowledge at all?

if its an interpretation, then the human involvement means its wide open to error. all humans can do is interpret- as we do not have a direct line.
Click to expand...

Humans might have a direct line that we're unaware of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PTK
The Concept of “Forgiveness” Employed by Nominal Christians in Contemporary European and North American Culture
2
Replies
59
Views
1K
Flavour
Flavour
platinumsage
After Tiananmen, the UK created a contingency plan to evacuate the entire population of Hong Kong in 1997
Replies
0
Views
203
platinumsage
platinumsage
K
IHRA working definition of anti-semitism and the Jerusalem Declaration
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
mojo pixy
mojo pixy
Kate Sharpley
Decades in the Struggle: Interviewing older anarchists
Replies
7
Views
396
Dom Traynor
Dom Traynor
dshl
Gödel's Theorem and Roger Penrose
Replies
21
Views
302
littlebabyjesus
littlebabyjesus
Back
Top Bottom