Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke If a koan had a rational solution it wouldn't be a koan. (It's intended to exhaust the rational mind and open the door to enlightenment).
Considering someone like Robbie has only a paper thin grasp on rational thought, he is probably closer to enlightenment than the rest of us.
Yes,yes..
Apparently some monks got enlightened by sheer luck and others through sheer stupidity.
One monk misheard his koan and thought the master was saying "The buddha is grass shoes" instead of what he really said. Point is this dumb , fat monk became enlightened... or so the story goes.
Originally posted by twhitehead You cannot know that you know nothing. You can think you know nothing, but that is not knowledge, that is belief. (false belief. Knowledge is true belief).
Your analysis involves an infinite regress. Here is an interesting look at the problem:
I would say that 'truth' is like an asymptote, and 'knowledge' is justified belief. This avoids the regress and allows that knowledge is essentially a physiological brain state. 🙂
Originally posted by apathist Your analysis involves an infinite regress.
No, it doesn't. Your (incorrect) analysis of my analysis is what involves an infinite regress.
An infinite regress arises when we ask what are the justifications for the reasons themselves.
If the reasons count as knowledge, they must themselves be justified with reasons for the reasons, and so on, ad infinitum.
I don't count the reasons as knowledge. Problem solved.
I would say that 'truth' is like an asymptote, and 'knowledge' is justified belief. This avoids the regress and allows that knowledge is essentially a physiological brain state. 🙂
Why not? Why not? Because there is no need to change the definition and it can only lead to confusion.
Although ultimately we must ask the poster of the OP what he meant as it would be wrong to force an interpretation on him that he did not intend.
Originally posted by twhitehead I don't count the reasons as knowledge. Problem solved.
You said that "Knowledge is true belief". But how can we know if the belief is 'true'?
From wiki:
Assuming that knowledge is justified true belief, then:
Suppose that P is some piece of knowledge.
1. Then P is a justified true belief.
2. The only thing that can justify P is another statement – let's call it P1; so P1 justifies P.
3. But if P1 is to be a satisfactory justification for P, then we must know that P1.
4. But for P1 to be known, it must also be a justified true belief.
5. That justification will be another statement - let's call it P2; so P2 justifies P1.
6. But if P2 is to be a satisfactory justification for P1, then we must know that P2 is true
7. But for P2 to count as knowledge, it must itself be a justified true belief.
8. That justification will in turn be another statement - let's call it P3; so P3 justifies P2.
9. and so on, ad infinitum.
Infinite regress. Your solution is that step 3. is wrong because P1 (which justifies P) does not need to be justified, that is, we do not need to know that P1 is true?
Originally posted by apathist You said that "Knowledge is true belief". But how can we know if the belief is 'true'?
We can't.
2. The only thing that can justify P is another statement – let's call it P1; so P1 justifies P.
3. But if P1 is to be a satisfactory justification for P, then we must know that P1. And I am saying that we do not need to know that P1 for it to be satisfactory justification for P.
Infinite regress. Of your own making.
Your solution is that step 3. is wrong because P1 (which justifies P) does not need to be justified, that is, we do not need to know that P1 is true? No, I am not saying it does not need to be justified, I am saying that justification does not mean 'being absolutely sure'. Maybe you would understand it better if I said 'reasonable justification'.
If the word 'justification' implied no possible doubt, then we would rather use the word 'proof'.
Originally posted by twhitehead...
No, I am not saying it does not need to be justified, I am saying that justification does not mean 'being absolutely sure'. Maybe you would understand it better if I said 'reasonable justification'.
So knowledge is justified belief, as I suggested. No truth involved, except perhaps as a sort of asymptote.
Truth, like beauty or satisfaction, is in the eye.
Originally posted by apathist So knowledge is justified belief, as I suggested. No truth involved, except perhaps as a sort of asymptote.
Truth, like beauty or [b]satisfaction, is in the eye.[/b]
yeah like if you drop a brick off a building - 99.9999999999* % of the time it will drop toward the Earth. . There are alaways variables and without them , according to my knowledge , without these seemingly accountable yet undisputible 'variables' there would be no "us".
ps" these quantumn variables are said to have been the cornerstone of a lt of our digital advances, without which we would not have smart phone,etc.
Originally posted by karoly aczel yeah like if you drop a brick off a building - 99.9999999999* % of the time it will drop toward the Earth. . There are alaways variables and without them , according to my knowledge , without these seemingly accountable yet undisputible 'variables' there would be no "us".
ps" these quantumn variables are said to have been the cornerstone of a lt of our digital advances, without which we would not have smart phone,etc.
From your stats, am trying to figure out how many bricks have floated up into the sky.
Originally posted by apathist So knowledge is justified belief, as I suggested.
No, it isn't. It is justified belief that is also true, as I stated multiple times (at least I thought I did).
Its odd that you think I said something else.
We know nothing
25 Feb '17 20:02
Back to Top