|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Daniel T.Daniel T. Date: Jan 2, 2007 21:13
In another thread, someone said, "perception is not the only means to
knowledge." (Please don't start with the hominem's I know the guy who
said this isn't popular.)
The question I have is, is this true? If so, what other means are there?
|
| |
|
| | 48 Comments |
|
|
Author: TronTron Date: Jan 3, 2007 17:27
> In another thread, someone said, "perception is not the only means to
> knowledge." (Please don't start with the hominem's I know the guy who
> said this isn't popular.)
>
> The question I have is, is this true? If so, what other means are there?
Depends most of all on what you want "knowledge" to mean.
Perception can give, or "is", awareness of something.
By perception, we can come to construct objects.
We can register givens, facts.
But nothing follows from isolated facts; what we need, is some sort of link
between them.
This link, this relation, is often not in itself an object, but something we
think about these objects or facts, and the relation which obtains between
them. This is "theory". Relations can be anything from place in space and
time, causal connection, mereology, function, properties, diffrences,
similarities, etc. etc.
|
| Show full article (1.95Kb) |
|
| | 17 Comments |
|
|
Author: ImmortalistImmortalist Date: Jan 3, 2007 19:56
> Immortalist wrote:
>>> Rand is the former philosophy (theory of reality MUST be about matter),
>>> Kant the latter (theory can be about theory about theory about theory
>>> of NO MATTER).
>>>
>>> Rand coined the phrase Primacy Of Consciousness to describe the axiom
>>> of Kantian epistemology and her own philosophy of Objectivism, she used
>>> Primacy Of Existence to describe the axiom of Objectivist epistemology.
>>>
>>
>> Chisholm would have called it Rand's theological religion and belief in
>> an unmoved mover God.
>
> Then Chisholm would have been talking through his arse.
>
>>
>> Chisholm's theological analogy, cited earlier, is most appropriate: ...
|
| Show full article (13.16Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: George DanceGeorge Dance Date: Jan 5, 2007 17:43
Scott H wrote:
> Daniel T. wrote:
>> In another thread, someone said, "perception is not the only means to
>> knowledge." (Please don't start with the hominem's I know the guy who
>> said this isn't popular.)
>>
>> The question I have is, is this true? If so, what other means are
>> there?
|
| Show full article (1.23Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: George DanceGeorge Dance Date: Jan 5, 2007 17:55
Craig Franck wrote:
> "Daniel T." wrote
>
>> "Scott H" wrote:
>
>>> Daniel T. wrote:
>>
>>>> In another thread, someone said, "perception is not the only means
>>>> to knowledge."
>>>>
>>>> The question I have is, is this true? If so, what other means are
>>>> there?
>>>
>>> I say self-understanding.
>>
>> What can you understand about yourself without perception?
>
> There are some intuitively self-evident truths. Basic logic is not
> given in perception. When I see something on two different
> occasions, judging them to be the same object is not given in ...
|
| Show full article (1.48Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Jan 6, 2007 05:54
Tron wrote:
>>
>
>> This is actually a tautology. You need two staments and a logical
>> conclusion to form a syllogism. preciptating clouds is just another way
>> of saying that it is raining.
>
> Nah. It could have snowed or hailed. You need the "moisture".
Ok true , but...
Paradoxically then, your statement has failed in logic: it is neither
tautological not syllogistic, if you are suggesting not necessary link
between rain and precipitation - the rain is merely contingent on the
precipitation. With a syllogism Socrates' manhood necessitates his
mortality.
>
>> Socrates is mortal so Socrates won't live forever. = tautology
>> socrates is a man, all men are mortal, therefore socrates is mortal =
>> syllogism.
>
> Mmmmm .... similarities and differences...
|
| Show full article (2.12Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Jan 7, 2007 14:51
Tron wrote:
>>
>> Tron wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> This is actually a tautology. You need two staments and a logical
>>>> conclusion to form a syllogism. preciptating clouds is just another way
>>>> of saying that it is raining.
>>>
>>> Nah. It could have snowed or hailed. You need the "moisture".
>>
>> Ok true , but...
>> Paradoxically then, your statement has failed in logic: it is neither
>> tautological not syllogistic, if you are suggesting not necessary link
>> between rain and precipitation - the rain is merely contingent on the
>> precipitation. With a syllogism Socrates' manhood necessitates his ...
|
| Show full article (2.96Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Jan 7, 2007 15:01
Daniel T. wrote:
> "Tron" wrote:
>> "Daniel T." earthlink.net> skrev>>> "Tron" wrote:
>>>> "Daniel T." earthlink.net> skrev>>
>>> Good point. However, without something concrete to base the
>>> abstract concept on, without something to work with, could
>>> Aristotle come up with the syllogism in the first place? Could he
>>> have had knowledge of it? Would he have any way to know that it is
>>> true?
>>
>> Methinks you are doing the Hume thing here. His in- and enquiries
>> are based on the premise that there is nothing in the mind which
>> hasn't been in the senses first, and then proceeded to investigate
>> the consequences of this; with dire results for epistemology.
>
> I'm not starting with that as a premise, I'm asking if its opposite is a
> valid premise.
> ...
|
| Show full article (5.05Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: malenoidmalenoid Date: Jan 7, 2007 20:12
> Daniel T. wrote:
>> In another thread, someone said, "perception is not the only means to
>> knowledge." (Please don't start with the hominem's I know the guy who
>> said this isn't popular.)
>
> If only it was just *some guy* Daniel, alas its not, it is all of the
> Kantians and the mystics who regurgitate that sort of mindless crap,
> indeed their respective faith driven philosophies are totally impotent
> unless they do.
>
>> The question I have is, is this true?
>
> Its not, its mindless piffle.
>
>> If so, what other means are there?
>
> There's none, and I asked a devout Kantian protege RT to give an
> example of any idea, any concept and or any theory of any claim of
> man's knowledge about reality, which can not be directly linked to, or ...
|
| Show full article (1.19Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: chazwinchazwin Date: Jan 10, 2007 08:06
Tron wrote:
>>> I accept your position that instinct can be a form of knowledge.
>>> However, instinct is specifically an inborn response to particular
>>> stimuli.
>>
>> Yes of course....
>>
>>> As such it is literally conditioned from perception.
>>
>> Absolutely not.
>>
>> It is not conditioned thus. As innate traits these factors are
>> conditioned from natural selection. This means that traits that exist
>> in organisms that fail to survive before they reproduce are not
>> selected, all other traits are selected. There is no means by which ...
|
| Show full article (4.88Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
