| donathos said: |
How we can tell the difference between absolute knowledge and "mere belief."
Only the mind holding them would know that. If you found yourself not 100% sure of something or able to doubt it apparently you don’t absolutely know it.
I’m not sure I understand the claim that an infinite regress would be inherent to this.
What is it they're meant to contradict, by the way?
I mean those methods are contradictory when stated with the conclusion “this is a method of gaining knowledge”, in so many words, at the end.
E.g. An aspect of rationalism: Deducing propositions from other propositions means (aka therefore) a way to gain first propositions about the world. …No, it doesn’t mean that. (Or rather, this can be stated simplistically: “Logic is a way to gain truth”). …Really it’s like saying a bachelor is a banana.
I thought that, originally, you felt that nothing could be contradictory; that sense data would be consistent with an infinite number of interpretations, including empiricism, but that empiricism's consistency would not prove that it is a method of truth. But: if your problem was that we could not prove empricism as a method of truth, I thought that "revelation" might do the trick.
Hmm possibly there is a misunderstanding taking place over what is meant by ‘method of truth’. A method of truth, like empiricism (which, don’t be confused by the wording, I’m only placing empiricism in the category of proposed ‘methods of truth’ – obviously I’m not saying it actually works and gives truth in giving it that categorization title) is not an interpretation.
An interpretation is a possible belief on what sense data represents.
A method of truth merely means “a way to gain truth (aka absolute knowledge)”.
Empiricism and rationalism are examples of proposed methods of truth that are supposed, by their adherents, to guarantee that their produced belief is true (aka absolute knowledge).
Methods of truth are not a belief about the world. A method of truth is something being examined in your head… in the realm of meanings you might say, like basic math (this also could be ambiguously called ideas). Thus a meaning/idea (method of truth) is not something we are ‘seeking to prove’ in the same manner as something about the world. On the contrary, something about the world is sought to be proven by the method. (E.g. evidentialism: I know X murdered Y because I found the fingerprints of X on the murder weapon.)
Perhaps there is another misunderstanding as well. Sense data does not mean ‘empiricism’. Empiricism is the specific claim that “sense data can be used to gain [further] truth about the world”. I say further of course, because sense data in its “un-interpreted form” is a bit of absolute knowledge in itself – it is just known to me, it is just “there”. Right when I “interpret it” (organize/create an entity out of it in my mind and/or establish specific natures to any entity in my mind) it’s now a belief about sense data.
When I say you can have an infinite number of interpretations I’m referring to the number of beliefs that can be consistent with any moment of sense data. No need to really get caught up in whether or not there are truly an “infinite” number of beliefs in any hypothetical arrangement of sense data. (Although there’s always the dream-like possibilities: your dreaming, something is screwing with your mind, etc.)
If you’re referring to someone’s defense that they can make interpretations of sense data over a period of time that do not contradict each other, I hope I don’t have to explain why that doesn’t mean any interpretation is true *sigh* *sick of hearing himself talk so much*.
Besides that, let's suppose that you absolutely know that empiricism is contradictory. And I absolutely know that empiricism is a method of acquiring absolute knowledge. Are we strictly at an impasse?
…
And, from my point of view (if you're not a solipsist and grant that I exist as a consciousness as well), if I absolutely know that empiricism is valid, then why should I be open to what you say? Shouldn't I immediately dismiss your claims as mere belief? How can you ever show me anything that could convince me that what I absolutely know to be true is not actually true?
That’s an example of what I was previously describing. You can hypothetically suggest two people with opposing absolute knowledge (just like you can set up two people with opposing ‘mere belief’ – if that’s all we have).
But, as this is being brought to my mind, truth means truth and it won’t not-be-what-it-is for another mind. I absolutely know empiricism is contradictory (not a working method of truth) so I know you can’t have absolute knowledge otherwise. Literally this would be like proposing the hypothetical situation (without making it confused in epistemic terminology): What if (hypothetically) the sun exists for John and also it doesn’t exist for Jane. Either I just confess I have no idea what that would mean for reality or I say well, whatever that is, it can’t be my problem because I know otherwise. Might as well ask if I’m hypothetically wrong about something I absolutely know.
But as far as “how do we deal with an apparent disagreement”, yes, we are “stuck” – if there’s a “sovereign source of truth” and I am not that source, then I have no certain method of making it appear in your mind by some external demonstration or argument.
Now, I know that you'll feel that, as you're "confined to your mind," I'm just some interpretation of sense data going on, and so my claim to "absolutely know" something doesn't amount to much. Well, and not to be too... uh... ridiculous about everything... but how do you know that I'm not the voice of absolute knowledge trying to reach you, to let you know that empiricism is valid after all?
…
So, to use this absolute knowledge as an example, how do you know it to be absolute knowledge?
1. Well, maybe I understood you wrong but, I’m not an empiricist so I’m certainly not saying that I would know you through an interpretation of sense data.
2. Asking me if I would know if you’re the voice of absolute knowledge would “beg the question” in a manner of speaking. Only when I absolutely know something do I absolutely know it. If it was dependent on judging the “voice” to figure out if it was coming from “mr. source guy” then it wouldn’t be the method I’m proposing at all, but rather, the method of voicism lol (whatever that would mean).
(Can’t help but remember the significance of John 10 by all this. Lots of bible stuff relating to knowledge.)
If I happen to absolutely know where my absolute knowledge is coming from, well, cool. That’s just another bit of information I absolutely know now. (Further, even if knowing where absolute knowledge was coming from was somehow believed to be necessary for knowing the absolute knowing (lol) then that’s just one addition to the method of revelation you could make. So now not only are you imputed absolute knowledge of X you are also imputed where this knowledge came from at the same time. Trying to say we need a method to know where knowledge of X comes from only ignores the answer of revelation in the first place.)
This may seem disjointed but I can’t think of how to connect it better at the moment: The significance of proposing that absolute knowledge comes from revelation was merely in regards to answering the question of epistemology coherently – that is, without being problematic like empiricism and rationalism.
If I understand correctly, in order to know what it is, you would have to know where it comes from; i.e. whether it's "revealed knowledge" or if it is a mere belief that came to you from your own abilities.
Hopefully I made it clear above that this is not my position. Although I believe I even addressed the contention, not mine, that absolute knowledge had to be accompanied by the absolute knowledge that it came from the absolute knowledge source thing 0_o. That’s not really a problem. It just says that both bits of absolute knowledge are dependent on one another and must be revealed at the same time.
Without getting too deep into questions regarding "memory," per se, what is your memory of how you came to your current absolute knowledge regarding empiricism? Is it something that you've always had? For instance, as a child, when you first "saw" that the sky was blue, did you know that it wasn't trustworthy? That you could not rely on that which you saw?
Just in case there was a misunderstanding, sense data is not “unreliable” in the sense that I don’t acknowledge its existence or that it is some knowledge of reality. It’s the question of what it represents that stands as the focus of my criticism on the doctrine of empiricism.
Whether or not I had absolute knowledge that there was a sky and that it was blue when I was a child is a different question of whether or not I realized (had absolute knowledge of) sense data couldn’t actually be the source from which I derived such knowledge.
The revelation of the doctrine of empiricism and that it was contradictory came later to me. It’s not a principle that, when realized by itself, necessarily affects whether or not you have any absolute knowledge. It only informs you on the question of where absolute knowledge comes from.
Does the possibility exist that your beliefs re: empiricism, skepticism, etc., might be "unstable"?
No, in the sense of whether or not it’s a question in my mind, I said I have absolute knowledge otherwise. The comment you’re referring to was in regards to that which was not absolute knowledge.
(Just a side note. This may seem disjointed but maybe you can catch what I’m referring to [just trying to avoid more explanation]: The use of naming “possibilities” I think can be ambiguous.)
Okami
To lavish praise upon this title, the assumption of a common plateau between player and game must be made. I won't open my unworthy mouth.
