Absolute knowledge is separate from existence

[chip]

Today is november 25th 12:14 local time in south korea. Science decrees the solar system is helocentric and not geocentric. Imagine today is late Maimakterion (november/december thanks wikipedia) nightime local time in ancient athens. Science decrees the solar system is geocentric (and though I can not cite sources I do believe there is an ancient astronomer who states the solar system is helocentric).

Here is a demonstration of two positions that can not both be true but of course the solar system is helocentric and thereby ancient astronomy is false in asserting a geocentric solar system. The point is absolute knowledge is separate from existence. That means literally thousands of astronomers have existed who asserted a basic false proposition regarding the solar system. Thus proving two truths. Absolute truth is separate from existence and the number of astronomers who assert a truth does not make that absoluate truth. I thought I would share my insight with you!

[EyeSeeCold]

Captain Obvious saves the day.

Don't know what we'd do without you.

Yes, you are right, this is called objectivity vs subjectivity. Everything is relative.

[Trevor]

Your terminology is a little bit confusing. But yeah, I think I know what you were getting at. Congratulations. Another milestone. Those feel good.

[Capitalist Pig]

Absolute knowledge is separate from existence because it's an impossible standard of knowledge. It is impossible to have absolute certainty about anything concerning the physical universe, or even that the physical universe exists at all. So to say we cannot know anything without absolute certainty, is to say we cannot know anything at all.

[Jarno]

If you are aware of doubting everything, at least it means you know for sure you exist.

I think therefor I am. Descartes.


But seriously, they threw absolute certainty out of the window a long time ago. It's kind of oldfashioned philosophy.

Pragmatism is todays standard, if I recall correctly.

[Jarno]

Only a true scientologist will ever know absolute truth

[Brilliand]

Today is november 25th 12:14 local time in south korea. Science decrees the solar system is helocentric and not geocentric. Imagine today is late Maimakterion (november/december thanks wikipedia) nightime local time in ancient athens. Science decrees the solar system is geocentric (and though I can not cite sources I do believe there is an ancient astronomer who states the solar system is helocentric).

Here is a demonstration of two positions that can not both be true but of course the solar system is helocentric and thereby ancient astronomy is false in asserting a geocentric solar system. The point is absolute knowledge is separate from existence. That means literally thousands of astronomers have existed who asserted a basic false proposition regarding the solar system. Thus proving two truths. Absolute truth is separate from existence and the number of astronomers who assert a truth does not make that absoluate truth. I thought I would share my insight with you!

Helocentric/geocentric is an oversimplification (though, pragmatically, helocentric is usually good enough nowadays, and geocentric used to be good enough). Consider how gravity actually works - even the sun moves slightly.

The "absolute truth" you describe here is not a perfect truth - it's an approximation to within a margin of error, and this will be true no matter how small you manage to get the margin of error. However, since this margin of error is dependent on the observer, we can never state a truth that is independent of existence, because we will necessarily include an error that is purely our own.

[Azeroffs]

Absolute truth is separate from existence and the number of astronomers who assert a truth does not make that absoluate truth. I thought I would share my insight with you!

Are you absolutely sure?

[EyeSeeCold]

Are you absolutely sure?

Do you really want to go there, Descartes?

[silverchris9]

Absolute justification via "reason" is impossible (I put reason in quotes because I believe that reason, especially in the Platonic or even Augustinian sense, consists of a lot more than propositional/Aristotelian logic). The rationalist/Cartesian project figured that out an awfully long time ago. You think people would notice that only God got Descartes out of his box, and so stop believing in proof when they stopped believing in God, but whatevs.

So anyway, absolute justification or "certainty" or "indubitability" is impossible. But absolute knowledge is nonetheless an achievable goal. Complete knowledge is not possible, and since "all truth hangs together" you can't truly say you know x until you know everything. But you can say that you have partial object knowledge, and that that partial object knowledge is not subject to temporal change. We can reach a knowledge that is not subject to temporal change.

[EyeSeeCold]

Complete knowledge? I'm not sure. However, perfect wisdom is readily impossible. Wisdom is calculated by reflection. To have perfect wisdom means to have experienced everything and be still experiencing everything, but you could never attain the last bit of experience as there are an infinite amount of possible experiences in time and space. With this reasoning I think it's safe to say perfect knowledge is also impossible.

[chip]

sorry its not profound enough for you to make u want to change ur diper but I consider this useful as a philosophical and historical interpretation. As for myself I have always been bothered by the fact that I can research so much into the works of ancient philosophers and discover how many basic propositions they were mistaken on - astronomy is one of many examples - religion, mythology, anatomy, geography, math, etc. However, much of their architecture, engineering, poetry and drama remains uncorrected.

In other words I often wondered are we bound to make the same mistakes as our philosophical predecessors. I guess it goes like we learn the wisdom say of the ancient philosophers but unintentionally we learn their mistakes as well.

No this is not a matter of objectivity v subjectivity or I'm not content with that explanation much like people passively say nature v nurture. This is objectivity in terms of disovering an absolute truth. What I have been wrestling with is the fact that ancient philosophy took many basic astronomy as truth but they did not conceive nor imagine that they could be mistaken and why would they? its common knowledge.

If I could express my thoughts sufficently I suppose what I'm driving at is the difference between knowledge that is absolute but not necessarily infinite. For a finite time ancient astronomers believed the earth is the center of the galaxy but it has been proven the sun is the center of the galaxy. The shift is due to an scientific investigation though I am not an astronomer and can only comprehend the results but not the process.

and I suppose another preconception of absolution is unchanging knowledge which I consider to be a mistake but I suppose that brings up the question of flux. food for thought continue the discussion if we can.

[EyeSeeCold]

Well, chip, that's how we find out about things in the world, induction. The problem though is that the past does not always guarantee the future, even if it has been consistent so far. So occasionally a "truth" found through inductive reasoning is disproved and we are once again tossed into the foray to find the next "truth" that will suffice. All the while knowing we can never achieve absolute certainty.

Congratulations on your revelation, now, how will you apply this wisdom?

[Jarno]

In other words I often wondered are we bound to make the same mistakes as our philosophical predecessors. I guess it goes like we learn the wisdom say of the ancient philosophers but unintentionally we learn their mistakes as well.

it has something to do with shifting paradigms.

[chip]

thanks eyeseecold and yes it is a kind of revelation but sadly no revolution...maybe next time. Besides entertaining a few internet geeks (no offense) on a socionic forum, I suppose rightly my insight is a theory if I'm not mistaken. Application of the theory requires supporting facts, proofs, etc. In other words either more internet discussion and testing of the theory and more philosophical research.

I'm at a loss for words as to which context it mostly applies like for instance epistemology? phenomenology? ontology? existentialism? noumenoulism? positivism? platonism? cartesianism? etc.

If I had any philosophical ambition to speak of it would be to establish one mind. I suppose in the sense of figuring out if there is a truth that is common amongst all opposing philosophies in the sense of there being a bigger bigger picture but who hasn't. My intuition can go beyond my own natural intelligence which makes philosophy hard but endlessly enjoyable.

ur right that the past does not guarantee repetition of the future but u have to remain diligent as not to be ignorant of the past as that likely leads to following the same paths already taken.

[chip]

here is a matter of interpretation: absolute knowledge has sorely been associated with supernatural forces like god and inversely humanity has been superceded hence a self-refuting ideology that perfect knowledge is unattainable because humanity is imperfect. The same line of argument applies to knowledge of the infinite is impossible because humanity is finite (presumably! - keep an open mind). Perhaps there are a few of us here who carry unexpressed views and unspoken opinions when absolute knowledge impresses upon their minds and so they quickly and perhaps prejudicelly associate absolute knowledge with divine knowledge even though that defies the very intention.

I am not arguing absolute knowledge is the same as omniscience but consider if there is definitely something you do not know implies there is definitely something you do know. A simple truth and false statement makes that so. I recall Descartes arguing 2+2=5 remains true regardless of his state of mind or temperal flux or if he exists. A side note Descartes argued the existence of a rational God which differs from a religious God. A subtle but pertinent point in grasping Cartesianism.

I find I'm at a loss to express my own thoughts. My mind re-creates ancient athens as if it were alive and existing equal to the modern world without my real intent. I suppose apart of my original interpretation rests upon another which is the philosophy can not be separated from the philosopher which is why I explain absolute knowledge is separate from existence.

If I were to extrapolate my interpreation of absolute knowledge it is inclusive of basic knowledge or what you may call esoteric like humans can fly on airplanes and even travel to the moon in space crafts. That may not be deep but it is nonetheless true. I suppose apart of absolute knowledge is experience which leads to wisdom. please continue to debate and discuss.

Another flash is existence is experience.

[chip]

it has something to do with shifting paradigms.

What do you have in mind?

[Jarno]

What do you have in mind?

To summarize of what I read about the subject:

When old knowledge has been proven to be wrong, it will be replaced by new knowledge. Though this new knowledge is also wrong. Yet it's a new paradigma which will work for the time being, until it again is replaced by new knowledge which is also wrong.

The question however is not so much about if knowledge is absolute certainty or not, cause it will never be certain, but does it provide us with a new framework from which new (wrong) knowledge can be build upon.

This knowledge will eventually come closer to the truth (however not necessarely), but more important, this knowledge will be more useful for us in the current period of time.

This is part of pragmatism, which is the latest idea of how to deal with epistomology. (I hope I remembered everything correctly.)

I'm not sure how serious you want to investigate this problem, but I've read a good book about it, I can try to look it up if you want.

[chip]

@ Jarno ya sure please do look it up. I have heard of pragmatism but have not studied it thoroughly - it is an american philosophy? that is an interesting idea to say the least. the idea is basically knowledge is reformed in order to remain relevant?

A platonist interpretation states there is unchanging forms causing what is visible. The beauty of a flower is caused by the form of beauty in such a way that if the plant loses its beautify then the sense of beauty has been lost but the form of beauty remains. I think platonist would consider pragmatism to be a sophistry more than a philosophy:wink:.

Regardless I'd like to include pragmatism into my investigation. Its more than my feeble mind can take but oh well. can u remember an example of pragmatism meant to express the essential idea?

[Jarno]

It's a book being thaught at our university for sociology.

bol.com | Exploring Humans, H. Dooremalen | Engelse boeken

It gives the complete history of the philosphy of science. And goes into 'the scientific method', is science the best view on reality and knowledge etc. Starting from Plato's images and ending at todays ideas.

I'm not sure if you can buy it online from where you live, I cannot find it at amazon etc, but I did however see some illegal downloads online :-)