FA+
Shop
On the Nature of Knowledge (pt. 1)
12 years ago
General
(I have not edited any bit of this entire post. Don't be surprised if you see a typo. They are common with me.)
Recently, I posted on Facebook, complaining about the intellectual state in modern times, and basically it's just a complaint.
Here's the post:
Salem Pertaeus on Facebook wrote:(This is a post of some intellectual importance and is pretty small.)
I believe the greatest fault of man is the fact that the education system has a major hole and that hole has to deal with philosophy. Perhaps, it has to do more with the understanding that people claim to know things, without the understanding of what it means to know things or the nature of knowledge. If someone claims to have water, but has no understanding of water, wouldn't you suspect that he's a liar or a bit daft? Would you believe someone who says they're smart who doesn't have any understanding of the nature of knowledge? We teach people philosophies (ideas) and we never tell them anything on the nature of knowledge. Don't you think that's a bit faulty?
One of my friends, replied beneath that with a comment, and as it usually is, it was discussion fuel (although one particular comment was cringe-worthy). I shall refer to that person as Person A as to protect the identity of the individual.
Person A wrote:I believe knowledge leads to problems. Is it a good this? Sure. Yet, the more I understand about how much people know... the more I realize we're doomed. Information is a good thing, too much information is overwhelming.
However, your point is valid. Most people have knowledge, but they don't know how to use it... Though, not having a grasp on the understanding of that knowledge isn't always necessary. You example of water is perfect.
A person can have water, and yet have very limited knowledge of water, and still know they have water. It would be very hard for Helen Keller to know beyond the basics of water, only knowing what she is told. I believe that's why faith was invented, yes?
To this I had a lengthy reply, in which I attempted to analogize and make clear connections to the best of my ability. I did, after all, have a lot to comment about.
SalemPertaeus, writing a book in the comments wrote:Sweet, a discussion.
I feel like commenting on your first paragraph, as it's something I've discussed before and is very very interesting. There is a balancing tool for knowledge, and knowledge I'll refer to as intellect, and that balancing tool is wisdom. What good is knowledge without knowing how to handle it? Every time humanity has advanced technology further than we've come to understand and learn how to handle it, it ends with some sort of destruction. Either the destruction of the past or the destruction of the future. You could wrap that up anyway you can, but at the bottom level, it's summed up as humanity being the lesser of whatever it has discovered, instead of being its master. (Read C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man" as it touches on this topic too well.) If man cannot handle what it knows, it lashes out, sometimes in ways we can't understand. That is why intellect must be balanced out with both sense and reality. The problem with intellect as humanity progresses, is not that it learns too much, it's that we try to give too much to just a few people and from there, the problem starts. It's why the best options for the future are often by people with specialized knowledge in certain fields, or, if across broad fields, has the capability to manage it well.
Not necessarily, for you point on Faith. Faith is represented as many things, and has only recently come to mean the acceptance of something without evidence. It would be unreasonable to assume that faith is the trust in something without knowledge or inclusion of its verity. It originally meant trust, and while that could mean believing in something without evidence or is an unrealistic view, that is not what it was for. Faith is not an invention either, as it's something that is as integral to thought as is breathing to survival. You cut off faith, the intellect will eventually die as its spirals into contradiction or disbelief. That's where nihilism comes from, mainly, and it's rather well stated to say that nihilism is faith in nothing (or "belief" in nothing, if you will).
On the water argument, if you have an experience of water, you could, therefore relate to it somehow by relative thought. It is the scope and scale of that experience that will prove if one has real knowledge of it. Let's say I said I have a Bugatti, and, for real, all I know that a Bugatti is, is that's a very rich car. From the get-go, someone could show me what a Bugatti is and I would have no idea what it was, and they could call me out on that, and I would be that daft fool. But, it was the error of my argument to claim that I understood what a Bugatti was (an inherent argument that descends from saying I have one). That, would be the error of my intellect evading my wisdom. I would not have understood my knowledge correctly, and from that, I would have created the lie.
Ironically, this lack of evidence and understanding of lack of evidence pervades the intellectual society. How many people claim to have evidence? The next question is more important than if evidence even exists. It is: Do they understand the evidence, how valid it is, ALL of its implications, and does it really support their claim? Most often, people don't get past the second question, since they never ask it.
I feel, that, perhaps the greatest irony of all is that we claim to have knowledge and often don't examine it. I've read, watched, heard, and have done enough on my own to know that any semblance of knowledge needs to be critiqued to see if it's any bit true. And, aside from that, it needs to be critiqued on every aspect, brutally harshly, and by multiple people. This is the only way that any intellectual progress can be made. If you test knowledge, critique it, fix it, and reinforce it, it would be the same as building a house on rock. Not testing to see if the logic makes sense would be the equivalent of building a house on sand.
This steps into theology as it's a system of logic as well. I cringe when I hear "theology is just an opinion." That's only true to a certain degree. The greatest irony to some folks is that the easiest way to analogize is it compare it to science (it is, after all, a study of the logic of God, so technically a science). In science, there are many competing theories. The theories, however, are built on top of logic and knowledge that no one debates. Let's call that logic and knowledge "Fact" for brevity. Theories are always arguing what is next that we're discovering. The Fact, however, is undisputed. If the Fact is contested after is has been established, and someone were to argue it, it would be bad. Why? Well, the Fact has become accepted as literal and truthful and to argue against a logic system that is that concrete... it's basically nonsense.
By this point in time, it is a definite fact that 2 + 2 = 4, as this is both a quality of reality and of numerical representation. It is unreasonable to try to argue against it, but it is still done, to no avail. It is, in the same regard, nonsense to argue against the scientific community over something that is accepted. This does not address the competition of theories, as that is not a discussion of Fact. There is a refining system to Fact that cleans up and defines Fact more clearly and gives us another understanding. This does not change the nature of Fact itself.
In theology it is analogous to looking at how great men like C.S. Lewis and Ravi Zacharias have changed and refined our understanding of the Biblical Fact. These men clarify, expand, and sharpen the Biblical Fact so well that they are well known for their great speeches, books, and radio broadcasts all around the world. They did not alter Christian theology to map it to their worldview, or to change it, but instead clarify it. They cross-reference their work and understandings so that it is clear, literal, and intelligent. This is the nature of good theology.
Now, on the point that theology is an opinion, if we return there, comes to something I believe I should be able to sum up shortly. Theology is as much an opinion as competing theories are in the scientific realm. There's a reason why they are competing theories: The evidence and understandings at the time are not conclusive, and if they were to finally be concluded on, it should be in agreeance* whether it is good theology or not. Good theology, therefore, can indeed be an opinion but only if it works in accordance with the Biblical Fact. If it does not stand up against the Biblical Fact, then it is bad theology. This bad theology is sometimes defined as heresy if it is pursued, but I don't believe that's really that nice or fair.
I must also make clear, that as ridiculous an argument may sound, it must be heard out and then checked. It is not intellectually wise or fair to reduce an argument to absurdity without even knowing what it is about. I must also make it clear that I do refer to an argument that takes up arms against the Fact as intellectual suicide. Although that sounds extreme, is it reasonable to be the person that claims 2+2 is equal to 5?
*"Agreeance" is a word that I use because I have frequently come across it in literature. It was commonly used in the 19th Century and not much after. Now does my "English" journal make sense?
I will be reading the following C.S. Lewis books over the course of this month:
Miracles
The Great Divorce
The Screwtape Letters and Screwtape Proposes a Toast
A Grief Observed
And I have recently read The Abolition of Man. Along with those, I will be reading Ravi Zacharias' "Just Thinking" magazines when they are posted.
I am also listening to various seminars on theology, logic, and philosophy. I will use these to refine my arguments.
Also, if you have any objections, please comment below. I would like to start a discussion.
Recently, I posted on Facebook, complaining about the intellectual state in modern times, and basically it's just a complaint.
Here's the post:
Salem Pertaeus on Facebook wrote:(This is a post of some intellectual importance and is pretty small.)
I believe the greatest fault of man is the fact that the education system has a major hole and that hole has to deal with philosophy. Perhaps, it has to do more with the understanding that people claim to know things, without the understanding of what it means to know things or the nature of knowledge. If someone claims to have water, but has no understanding of water, wouldn't you suspect that he's a liar or a bit daft? Would you believe someone who says they're smart who doesn't have any understanding of the nature of knowledge? We teach people philosophies (ideas) and we never tell them anything on the nature of knowledge. Don't you think that's a bit faulty?
One of my friends, replied beneath that with a comment, and as it usually is, it was discussion fuel (although one particular comment was cringe-worthy). I shall refer to that person as Person A as to protect the identity of the individual.
Person A wrote:I believe knowledge leads to problems. Is it a good this? Sure. Yet, the more I understand about how much people know... the more I realize we're doomed. Information is a good thing, too much information is overwhelming.
However, your point is valid. Most people have knowledge, but they don't know how to use it... Though, not having a grasp on the understanding of that knowledge isn't always necessary. You example of water is perfect.
A person can have water, and yet have very limited knowledge of water, and still know they have water. It would be very hard for Helen Keller to know beyond the basics of water, only knowing what she is told. I believe that's why faith was invented, yes?
To this I had a lengthy reply, in which I attempted to analogize and make clear connections to the best of my ability. I did, after all, have a lot to comment about.
SalemPertaeus, writing a book in the comments wrote:Sweet, a discussion.
I feel like commenting on your first paragraph, as it's something I've discussed before and is very very interesting. There is a balancing tool for knowledge, and knowledge I'll refer to as intellect, and that balancing tool is wisdom. What good is knowledge without knowing how to handle it? Every time humanity has advanced technology further than we've come to understand and learn how to handle it, it ends with some sort of destruction. Either the destruction of the past or the destruction of the future. You could wrap that up anyway you can, but at the bottom level, it's summed up as humanity being the lesser of whatever it has discovered, instead of being its master. (Read C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man" as it touches on this topic too well.) If man cannot handle what it knows, it lashes out, sometimes in ways we can't understand. That is why intellect must be balanced out with both sense and reality. The problem with intellect as humanity progresses, is not that it learns too much, it's that we try to give too much to just a few people and from there, the problem starts. It's why the best options for the future are often by people with specialized knowledge in certain fields, or, if across broad fields, has the capability to manage it well.
Not necessarily, for you point on Faith. Faith is represented as many things, and has only recently come to mean the acceptance of something without evidence. It would be unreasonable to assume that faith is the trust in something without knowledge or inclusion of its verity. It originally meant trust, and while that could mean believing in something without evidence or is an unrealistic view, that is not what it was for. Faith is not an invention either, as it's something that is as integral to thought as is breathing to survival. You cut off faith, the intellect will eventually die as its spirals into contradiction or disbelief. That's where nihilism comes from, mainly, and it's rather well stated to say that nihilism is faith in nothing (or "belief" in nothing, if you will).
On the water argument, if you have an experience of water, you could, therefore relate to it somehow by relative thought. It is the scope and scale of that experience that will prove if one has real knowledge of it. Let's say I said I have a Bugatti, and, for real, all I know that a Bugatti is, is that's a very rich car. From the get-go, someone could show me what a Bugatti is and I would have no idea what it was, and they could call me out on that, and I would be that daft fool. But, it was the error of my argument to claim that I understood what a Bugatti was (an inherent argument that descends from saying I have one). That, would be the error of my intellect evading my wisdom. I would not have understood my knowledge correctly, and from that, I would have created the lie.
Ironically, this lack of evidence and understanding of lack of evidence pervades the intellectual society. How many people claim to have evidence? The next question is more important than if evidence even exists. It is: Do they understand the evidence, how valid it is, ALL of its implications, and does it really support their claim? Most often, people don't get past the second question, since they never ask it.
I feel, that, perhaps the greatest irony of all is that we claim to have knowledge and often don't examine it. I've read, watched, heard, and have done enough on my own to know that any semblance of knowledge needs to be critiqued to see if it's any bit true. And, aside from that, it needs to be critiqued on every aspect, brutally harshly, and by multiple people. This is the only way that any intellectual progress can be made. If you test knowledge, critique it, fix it, and reinforce it, it would be the same as building a house on rock. Not testing to see if the logic makes sense would be the equivalent of building a house on sand.
This steps into theology as it's a system of logic as well. I cringe when I hear "theology is just an opinion." That's only true to a certain degree. The greatest irony to some folks is that the easiest way to analogize is it compare it to science (it is, after all, a study of the logic of God, so technically a science). In science, there are many competing theories. The theories, however, are built on top of logic and knowledge that no one debates. Let's call that logic and knowledge "Fact" for brevity. Theories are always arguing what is next that we're discovering. The Fact, however, is undisputed. If the Fact is contested after is has been established, and someone were to argue it, it would be bad. Why? Well, the Fact has become accepted as literal and truthful and to argue against a logic system that is that concrete... it's basically nonsense.
By this point in time, it is a definite fact that 2 + 2 = 4, as this is both a quality of reality and of numerical representation. It is unreasonable to try to argue against it, but it is still done, to no avail. It is, in the same regard, nonsense to argue against the scientific community over something that is accepted. This does not address the competition of theories, as that is not a discussion of Fact. There is a refining system to Fact that cleans up and defines Fact more clearly and gives us another understanding. This does not change the nature of Fact itself.
In theology it is analogous to looking at how great men like C.S. Lewis and Ravi Zacharias have changed and refined our understanding of the Biblical Fact. These men clarify, expand, and sharpen the Biblical Fact so well that they are well known for their great speeches, books, and radio broadcasts all around the world. They did not alter Christian theology to map it to their worldview, or to change it, but instead clarify it. They cross-reference their work and understandings so that it is clear, literal, and intelligent. This is the nature of good theology.
Now, on the point that theology is an opinion, if we return there, comes to something I believe I should be able to sum up shortly. Theology is as much an opinion as competing theories are in the scientific realm. There's a reason why they are competing theories: The evidence and understandings at the time are not conclusive, and if they were to finally be concluded on, it should be in agreeance* whether it is good theology or not. Good theology, therefore, can indeed be an opinion but only if it works in accordance with the Biblical Fact. If it does not stand up against the Biblical Fact, then it is bad theology. This bad theology is sometimes defined as heresy if it is pursued, but I don't believe that's really that nice or fair.
I must also make clear, that as ridiculous an argument may sound, it must be heard out and then checked. It is not intellectually wise or fair to reduce an argument to absurdity without even knowing what it is about. I must also make it clear that I do refer to an argument that takes up arms against the Fact as intellectual suicide. Although that sounds extreme, is it reasonable to be the person that claims 2+2 is equal to 5?
*"Agreeance" is a word that I use because I have frequently come across it in literature. It was commonly used in the 19th Century and not much after. Now does my "English" journal make sense?
I will be reading the following C.S. Lewis books over the course of this month:
Miracles
The Great Divorce
The Screwtape Letters and Screwtape Proposes a Toast
A Grief Observed
And I have recently read The Abolition of Man. Along with those, I will be reading Ravi Zacharias' "Just Thinking" magazines when they are posted.
I am also listening to various seminars on theology, logic, and philosophy. I will use these to refine my arguments.
Also, if you have any objections, please comment below. I would like to start a discussion.
